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

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 01-129 November 14, 2001

NRC SUBMITS COMMENTS TO DOE 

ON YUCCA MOUNTAIN INFORMATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has indicated, in preliminary comments to the Department

of Energy, that it believes sufficient information will be available concerning a potential high-level

radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, that development of an acceptable license

application is achievable.

 The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires that, when DOE makes a recommendation to

the President on the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for high-level waste disposal, it must include

the preliminary comments of the NRC ìconcerning the extent to which the [DOEís] at-depth site

characterization analysis and the waste form proposal for such site seem to be sufficient for inclusion in

any application to be submitted by the Secretary for licensing of such site as a repository.î DOE has not

recommended the Yucca Mountain site for a repository and has not submitted an application to the

NRC for a license.

ìAt-depth site characterization analysisî includes the investigation of underground features

(such as the porosity of rock formations) and events and processes that occur below the ground surface

(such as earthquakes, volcanoes and water flow). The ìwaste form proposalî includes information

concerning spent fuel that was used in a reactor, the cladding that is around the fuel, the package in

which the waste is placed, and other engineered barriers. Also considered are DOE-owned high-level

radioactive waste and its packaging.

The NRCís preliminary comments on the sufficiency of the information DOE has obtained to

date, or has agreed to obtain prior to submitting a license application reflect many years of pre-licensing

activities with DOE and various stakeholders, including, the State of Nevada, Indian Tribes, affected

units of local government, representatives of the nuclear industry and interested members of the public.

Although the NRC believes that DOE has obtained, or will obtain, information that should be

sufficient, the NRC is not drawing any conclusions concerning the actual site suitability, but will

carefully review any licensing decision on the basis of all the information available at that time. 

 ###
Exhibit
23.2





**Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
 
 We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (No. 333-47122, 333-44260 and 333-117237), Form S-8/A (No. 33-52478 and
33-80952), and Form S-4 (No. 333-36387 and 333-61221) of Building Materials
Holding Corporation of our report dated March 12, 2004, relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this
Form 10-K.
 
 
 /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers
      LLPSan
      Francisco, California
      March
      28, 2005
#### Marjorie I. Kennedy, as Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas R. Kennedy, Deceased, Respondent, v. (American) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company of Illinois, Appellant.

Present — Taylor, P. J., Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ. [See 274 App. Div. 561.]
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

 475 Allendale Road

 King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-01-036 June 19, 2001

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330/e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan, (610) 337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NRC TO DISCUSS PRELIMINARY ìWHITEî FINDING ON TMI 1 

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with management of the Three Mile Island 1

nuclear power plant on Monday, June 25, to discuss an area of performance at the Middletown, Pa.,

facility. Specifically, the discussion will center on a preliminary NRC finding regarding an apparent

failure by plant operators to promptly identify and resolve problems affecting a safety-related pump. 

The plant is owned and operated by AmerGen Energy Company.

 The meeting is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. in the Public Meeting Room at the NRC Region I

office in King of Prussia, Pa. It will be open to the public for observation. NRC officials will remain

afterward to answer questions.

 Under the NRC Reactor Oversight Program launched in April 2000, the agency uses several

tools to assess plant performance. Among those tools are performance indicators, which utilize

different colors to depict increasing safety significance. The colors range from ìgreen,î which means

performance within an expected range, rising to ìwhite,î which is considered performance outside the

expected range, to ìyellowî and finally ìred.î

 In the case of Three Mile Island 1, it has received a preliminary ìwhiteî finding in the area of

ìmitigating systems.î During an inspection on Feb. 12, NRC inspectors determined that the bearing

oiler on one of the plantís three emergency feedwater pumps was empty. Subsequent reviews by plant

staff revealed that loose bolts on the pump bearing housing had resulted in an oil leak and vibrations on

the pump shaft bearing that, in turn, had caused the pump to become inoperable for 39 days. The

NRCís assessment of the utilityís performance during the events leading up to the discovery identified

a number of deficiencies in the identification and resolution of equipment performance issues. As a

result of the preliminary ìwhiteî finding, AmerGen has requested the meeting with the NRC to discuss

the issue.

 Further information on the plantís performance indicators and inspection findings is available on

the NRCís web site at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS

 ###
### §1815. Notice of address change; amendment of certificate of registration

During the period for which the certificate of registration is in effect, each farm labor contractor shall—

(1) provide to the Secretary within thirty days a notice of each change of permanent place of residence; and

(2) apply to the Secretary to amend the certificate of registration whenever the farm labor contractor intends to—

(A) engage in another farm labor contracting activity,

(B) use, or cause to be used, another vehicle than that covered by the certificate to transport any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker, or

(C) use, or cause to be used, another real property or facility to house any migrant agricultural worker than that covered by the certificate.

(Pub. L. 97–470, title I, §105, Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2589.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 90 days from Jan. 14, 1983, see section 524 of Pub. L. 97–470, set out as a note under section 1801 of this title.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

475 Allendale Road

King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-00-61 August 9, 2000

CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610)337-5330/ e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan (610)337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NRC CITES CON ED FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS VIOLATIONS AT IP2

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has cited Consolidated Edison Company of New

York for three violations related to the emergency preparedness (EP) program at Indian Point 2. Con

Ed operates the nuclear power plant located in Buchanan, N.Y. The NRC has determined the

violations are of low to moderate safety significance (“white” findings).

In May and June of this year, the NRC conducted an inspection of the EP program at Indian

Point 2, including observation of an emergency exercise. This inspection followed up on the

enforcement aspects of emergency preparedness issues that had previously been identified during an

Augmented Inspection Team inspection in February. The AIT was conducted immediately after the

February 15 steam generator tube failure at IP2.

A July 14 inspection report listed three potential “white” findings and offered the company an

opportunity to attend a regulatory conference with the NRC staff or to respond to the report in writing.

The Company declined to attend a conference, indicating it did not contest the characterization of the

risk significance of these findings. The NRC staff now has completed its assessment using the

significance determination process and determined that the three findings were appropriately

characterized as “white.” These “white” findings involve failures to meet NRC emergency planning

standards for: the timely augmentation by the emergency reponse organization, the timely

accountability of onsite radiation emergency response workers and the factual and consistent

dissemination of information to the media and a local official.

In a letter to the company, Hubert J. Miller, Region I Administrator, wrote “These failures

contributed to emergency response deficiencies that were exhibited during the course of the SGTF

(steam generator tube failure) Alert Event.”

The safety significance of each inspection finding is characterized by a color -- green, white,

yellow, or red. The NRC response to the inspection findings 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.

Con Ed has 30 days to respond to this notice of violation.

#
400 EAST BAY STREET, LLC, a 

Virginia limited liability company, 

and CUTHRELL & KLOEPPEL 

PROPERTIES, LLC, a Virginia 

limited liability company,

Petitioners,

v.

THE PLAZA CONDOMINIUM 

ASSOCIATION AT BERKMAN 

PLAZA, INC., a Florida not-forprofit corporation,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-5553

Opinion filed December 1, 2015.

Certiorari – Original Jurisdiction.

Wm. J. Sheppard, Bryan E. DeMaggio, Matthew R. Kachergus and Amanda J. 

Woods of Sheppard, White, Kachergus & DeMaggio, P.A., Jacksonville, for 

Petitioners.

Suzanne C. Quiñónez, P.A., Middleburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In this second-tier certiorari action, condominium owners 400 East Bay Street, 

LLC., and Cuthrell & Kloeppel Properties, LLC., (collectively the Owners) filed a 

petition for writ of certiorari in this Court, claiming error by the circuit judge acting in 
2

his appellate capacity. In order to be granted relief in second-tier certiorari, the 

petitioners/Owners must show that the circuit court did not afford procedural due 

process and did not observe the essential requirements of law. See Haines City Cmty.

Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995); State v. Bolware, 999 So. 2d 660, 661 

(Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Certiorari review of a circuit court’s appellate decision is narrow 

and must not be utilized as a means of obtaining a second appeal. Heggs, 658 So. 2d at

529 (quoting Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93, 95-96 (Fla. 1983)). The Florida Supreme 

Court has recently reiterated, in no uncertain terms, that second-tier certiorari review is 

to be granted on a very limited basis. Florida Parole Comm’n v. Taylor, 132 So. 3d 

780 (Fla. 2014). That is, a grant of second-tier certiorari review requires “a departure 

from the essential requirement of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 783 

(citation omitted). 

We find that the circuit court afforded the Owners due process and did not 

depart from the essential requirements of law in reviewing the decision of the county 

court. Therefore, the standards for second-tier certiorari are not met here.

DENIED.

SWANSON and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR, MAKAR, J., CONCURS WITH 

WRITTEN OPINION.
3

MAKAR, J., concurs with opinion.

The appellate opinion of the circuit court is sustainable in light of the high bar 

that second-tier certiorari review sets, and for that reason I concur in the majority 

opinion. As to the accord and satisfaction issue, I write to note that the county court’s 

factual finding (affirmed by the circuit court) that the Owners did not act in good faith 

is supportable only if based on the actions of the Owners overall vis-à-vis the 

Association; making payments to a “lockbox” as a means of obtaining an accord and 

satisfaction of the parties’ disputes, if standing alone, would appear to be insufficient 

for such a finding.
§ 165.3 Power of attorney. ( a ) *When required.* Any submission made under this part other than by a principal or its employees may be filed by a person acting as agent or attorney in fact for the principal; a power of attorney must specifically authorize such person to make, sign, and file the submission or grant unlimited authority to such person.
( b ) *Exception.* No power of attorney is required for an attorney at law to act as agent or attorney for the principal. The signing of a submission as agent or attorney for the principal by the attorney at law will be considered a declaration by the attorney that the attorney is currently an active member in good standing of the highest court of a state, possession, territory, commonwealth, or the District of Columbia, and has been authorized to sign and file the submission for the principal.
( c ) *Execution* — ( 1 ) *Corporation.* A corporate power of attorney to file the submissions described in paragraph (a) of this section must be signed by a duly authorized officer or employee of the corporation.
( 2 ) *Partnership.* A partnership power of attorney to file the submissions described in paragraph (a) of this section must be signed by at least one member in the name of the partnership or by at least one duly authorized employee of the partnership, provided the power recites the name(s) of all of the members.
( 3 ) *Other persons.* A power of attorney filed by a person other than a corporation or partnership must be signed by that person or an employee of that person who has the legal authority to act on that person's behalf when filing the submissions described in paragraph (a) of this section.
( d ) *Revocation.* Any power of attorney will be subject to revocation at any time by written notice given to and received by CBP, Office of Trade.
( e ) *Proof.* CBP will require proof of execution of a power of attorney, where applicable, the first time that an agent makes a submission on behalf of any interested party during an investigation or administrative review of a determination as to evasion. CBP may require proof of authority to execute a power of attorney pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, at any point during the proceedings described in this part.
( f ) *Return of submission.* If a party has not provided proof of execution of a power of attorney to CBP within five business days of an agent's first submission on behalf of an interested party pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, or proof of authority to execute a power of attorney, if requested by CBP, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, CBP will reject the submission and will not consider or place such submission on the administrative record.
[81 FR 56482, Aug. 22, 2016, as amended at 89 FR 19258, Mar. 18, 2024]
1.
    
    the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December
31, 2007 (the Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ TOMMY L. McADENTommy L. McAdenExecutive Vice President
and Chief Financial 
   Officer
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0069 , 0070 

Post-Focus Draft Revision 1 3/14/2012 

ENGINEER: Hall \ BCS 

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

USE: 

 

 

MSDS: Yes Label: No 

Gen Eqpt: Eng Controls: No special requirements under 

ordinary conditions of use and| with adequate ventilation. 

 // Hand: Please observe the instructions regarding 

permeability and breakthrough time which are provided by 

the supplier of the gloves. Also take into consideration 

the specific local conditions under which the product is 

used, such as the danger of cuts, abrasion, and the 

contact time. When handling hot material, use heat 

resistant gloves. // Eye: safety glasses // Skin and Body: 

 long sleeved clothing. 

Respirator: None listed 

Health Effects: Caution - this is a research sample and 

the toxicological and ecotoxicological properties have 

not been fully evaluated. 

TLV/PEL: 

none established 

 

 

 @ 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 = 

Consumer Use: No 

SAT (concerns) (12/09/2011): 

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: 

Ecotox Analogs: 

Migration to groundwater: Rapid 

PBT rating: P1B1T1 P12-0069: Health: 2, Eco: 2. // 

P12-0070: Health 2, Eco: 3 

Health: 2 Dermal, Inhalation 

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 52 ppb for 

P12-0069 and 4 ppb for P12-0070) 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1D 

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: 

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No 



 

 

 

 

 

 
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0069 , 0070 

USE: 

Number of Sites/ Location: 1,000 

unknown sites 

Days/yr: 350 

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below 

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources 

to the same medium. 

Water or Incineration or Landfill 

High End: 3.8E-2 kg/site-day over 5 days/yr from 1,000 

sites 

or 1.9E+2 kg/yr 

Incineration 

Output 2: 2.6E-1 kg/site-day over 350 days/yr from 1,000 

sites 

or 9.0E+4 kg/yr 

RELEASE TOTAL 

9.0E+4 kg/yr - all sites 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 m
# AERSCREEN Update 11 th 

## Modeling Conference Research Triangle Park, NC August 12, 2015 James Thurman U.S. EPA/OAQPS/AQAD/AQMG 8/12/2015 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1

# Status of AERSCREEN • 2005 Guideline preamble

– Screening version of AERMOD being developed (AERSCREEN) and meantime SCREEN3 could be used until AERSCREEN available • 2011: AERSCREEN and MAKEMET released • April 11, 2011 memorandum: AERSCREEN is EPA’s recommended screening model

– Based on AERMOD – state of the science

– Single source only • Proposed 2015 Guideline:

– Incorporate AERSCREEN into Guideline as the screening model for AERMOD

– May be applicable in all types of terrain and building downwash applications

– AERSCREEN discussed in Section 4.2.1.1 of proposed Guideline 8/12/2015 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2

# AERSCREEN 15181 • Incorporated inversion break- up fumigation and coastal fumigation from SCREEN3

– Uses AERMOD equations for σy and σz estimates

– See AERSCREEN User’s Guide for full details • http:// www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/screen/aerscreen_userguide.pdf 

### • Made code more portable across OS

– Eliminated system calls to copy and delete files when possible 

### • Added debug option to output PROBE, FLOWSECTOR and fumigation estimates • Bug fixes 8/12/2015 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3

# MAKEMET 15181 • Incorporated ability to adjust surface friction velocity, u*, based on AERMET adjustment algorithms • U* adjustment currently not done when calling MAKEMET from AERSCREEN • U* adjustment can be done running MAKEMET outside of AERSCREEN
8/12/2015 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 4
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE> 5 
<LEGEND> 
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations 
filed 
part of the quarterly report on form 10-QSB and is qualified in its 
entirety by 
reference to such report on form 10-QSB. 
 
</LEGEND> 
        
<S>                             <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997 
<CASH>                                           80543 
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   592813 
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0 
<INVENTORY>                                     830902 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3951897 
<PP&E>                                        11787919 
<DEPRECIATION>                                  983318 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                15804816 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7437819 
<BONDS>                                              0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                      11064480 
<OTHER-SE>                                   (2708308) 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  15804816 
<SALES>                                        1253847 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1253847 
<CGS>                                           980409 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1559247 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              118597 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (423997) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (423997) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  (423997) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11) 
         

</TABLE>
(LOGO)    ERNST & YOUNG LLP
          One Columbus
          10 West Broad Street                    Phone: 614 224 5678
          Columbus, Ohio 43215-3400               Fax:   614 222 3939





                          Independent Auditors' Report

Board of Directors
The Huntington Mortgage Company

We have examined  management's  assertion,  included in the accompanying  report
titled REPORT OF MANAGEMENT,  that The  Huntington  Mortgage  Company  (HMC), a
wholly-owned  subsidiary  of The  Huntington  National  Bank,  complied with the
minimum  servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of
America's  UNIFORM SINGLE  ATTESTATION  PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE  BANKERS during the
year ended  December 31, 1997.  Management is responsible  for HMC's  compliance
with  those  requirements.  Our  responsibility  is to  express  an  opinion  on
management's assertion about HMC's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination  was conducted in accordance  with standards  established by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on  a  test  basis,  evidence  about  HMC's  compliance  with  those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered  necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on HMC's
compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion, management's assertion that HMC complied with the aforementioned
requirements  during the year ended December 31, 1997 is fairly  stated,  in all
material respects.

                                                      /s/Ernst & Young LLP


March 12, 1998


       Ernst & Young LLP is a member of Ernst & Young International, Ltd.
#### § 162.63 Arrests and seizures.

Arrests and seizures under the Controlled Substances Act (84 Stat. 1242, 21 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.*), and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (84 Stat. 1285, 21 U.S.C. 951 *et seq.*), will be handled in the same manner as other Customs arrests and seizures. However, Schedule I and Schedule II controlled substances (as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802(6) and 812) imported contrary to law will be seized and forfeited in the manner provided in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 881(f)). See § 162.45a.

[T.D. 00-37, 65 FR 33255, May 23, 2000]