alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 99-11 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 29, 1999

NRC FINDS PERFORMANCE ‘ACCEPTABLE’

AT WNP-2 IN LATEST REVIEW

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has found that safety performance remains acceptable

in the NRC’s latest plant performance review at WNP-2, a nuclear power plant located near Richland,

Washington.

Officials of NRC and Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS), the utility which

operates the plant, will discuss the review during a meeting set for Thursday, April 1, at

2 p.m. in the Multi-Purpose Facility at 3000 George Washington Way in Richland. The meeting will be

open for public observation. NRC officials will be available afterwards to speak with reporters, state and

local officials, and members of the public.

In a letter to WPPSS Chief Executive Officer J.V. Parrish summarizing the review findings, NRC

Branch Chief Linda J. Smith noted that overall, performance continued to be acceptable. Operators

effectively operated the plant during this assessment period. While the plant was well maintained, there

were several instances identified where material condition deficiencies affected the reliability of

safety-related and risk significant components.

Engineering's support of operations and maintenance activities was effective in sustaining plant

operations; however, minor deficiencies in design control continued to be identified. In plant support,

the licensee had well established programs. In addition to core inspection activities, an inspection to

review the effectiveness of operators’ response to non-routine events will be conducted during the next

eight months.

The text of the plant performance review letter is available from the NRC Region IV Office of

Public Affairs and will soon be 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.
Plant performance reviews are an interim measure NRC is utilizing 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 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 plants beginning in June and, if found acceptable, 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.

###
No. 89-1328.

#### Goodrich *v.*County of Los Angeles.

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
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

No. II-04-010 March 12, 2004

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

 

NRC TO MEET WITH FPL OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS SAFETY

PERFORMANCE AT ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Florida Power & Light officials

on Monday, March 22, to discuss the results of NRC’s annual assessment of safety performance at the

St. Lucie nuclear power plant on Hutchinson Island off the east coast of Florida.

The meeting will be held at 1:00 p.m. in the Pelican Room of the Courtyard by Marriott, 10978

S. Ocean Drive, in Jensen Beach, Florida. The public is invited to observe the meeting, and NRC

officials will be available before the conclusion of the meeting to answer any questions.

A letter from the NRC to Florida Power & Light addresses plant safety performance during the

previous year and forms the basis for the meeting discussions. The letter states that, overall, St. Lucie

operated safely but that plant performance was at a level requiring additional NRC inspection beyond

normal baseline activities due to four unplanned scrams (unplanned, automatic shutdowns) in 7,000

hours of operation during the assessment period. However, because the NRC conducted a

supplemental inspection related to the scrams this past February, only baseline inspections will be

needed for the remainder of this year. The NRC will also conduct additional inspections in the areas

of reactor pressure vessel head and vessel head penetration nozzles, reactor containment sump

blockage, and spent fuel material control and accountability.

The NRC said it will also continue to conduct inspections of the plant’s implementation of

security Orders, along with implementation of any new security requirements.. 

The letter is available from Region II Public Affairs and on the NRC web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/stl_2003q4.pdf .

 Current performance indicators for the two units at the St. Lucie plant are available on the NRC

web site at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/STL1/stl1_chart.html and 

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/STL2/stl2_chart.html .

###
§ 208.15 Identification and filing of petitions; filing of requests and resolutions. ( a ) Each petition filed by an entity representative of a United States long-haul trucking services industry must state clearly on the first page thereof whether the petition is filed under section 322 or section 324(d)(2) of the Act as applicable. Unless otherwise directed or authorized by the Secretary, a public and confidential version of a petition must be filed electronically on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (“EDIS”). One copy of each of the public and confidential versions of any exhibits, appendices, and attachments to the document may be filed on EDIS or in other electronic format approved by the Secretary.
( b ) Each request or resolution may be submitted in paper form or filed on EDIS.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62693-62694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23985]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and

[[Page 62694]]

Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to 
acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered 
in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 
U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than November 10, 2004.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. Ronald Beach, BMTW LLC; Annette Beach; Benjamin Beach; Hillary 
Beach; Linda Blunt; and Ruthen Hamilton, Lynchburg, Virginia; as a 
group acting in concert to acquire voting shares of Community First 
Financial Corporation, Lynchburg, Virginia, and thereby indirectly 
acquire voting shares of Community First Bank, Lynchburg, Virginia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 21, 
2004.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 04-23985 Filed 10-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn analysis of traction drive torsional stiffnessThe tangential compliance of elastic bodies in concentrated contact applied to traction drive elements to determine their torsional stiffness was analyzed. Static loading and rotating conditions are considered. The effects of several design variables are shown. The theoretical torsional stiffness of a fixed ratio multiroller drive is computed and compared to experimental values. It is shown that the torsional compliance of the traction contacts themselves is a relatively small portion of the overall drive system compliance.Document ID19840018975Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsRohn, D. A.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Loewenthal, S. H.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1983Subject CategoryMechanical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberE-2118NAS 1.15:83712NASA-TM-83712Meeting InformationMeeting: Intern. Power Transmission and Gearing Conf.Location: Cambridge, MACountry: United StatesStart Date: October 8, 1984End Date: October 12, 1984Sponsors:ASMEAccession Number84N27043Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-40-42Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840018975.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 190.75 Exportation by the Government. ( a ) *Claim by U.S. Government.* When a department, branch, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government exports products with the intention of claiming drawback, it may establish the exportation in the manner provided in § 190.72 (*see* § 190.4).
( b ) *Claim by supplier.* When a supplier of merchandise to the Government or any of the parties specified in § 190.82 claims drawback, exportation must be established under § 190.72.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 30, 2011 

h0927 

Order 

 

September 30, 2011 

143709 

 SC: 143709 

IN Re S. GOANS, MINOR. COA: 301934 

 Oakland CC Family Division: 

08-752245-NA ____________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 2443 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

No. III-04-038 June 16, 2004

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC TO DISCUSS PERRY INSPECTION FINDINGS WITH FIRSTENERGY OFFICIALS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet Monday in Painesville, Ohio, with

representatives of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company to discuss the preliminary findings of an

NRC team inspection reviewing the causes and corrective actions for several equipment problems that

have occurred over the past 18 months at the Perry Nuclear Power Station. The plant is located in

Perry, Ohio.

The meeting will be at 4 p.m. at the Quail Hollow Resort, 11080 Concord-Hambden Road,

Painesville. The public is invited to observe the meeting, and NRC officials will be available before

the conclusion of the meeting to answer questions from the public. The four-member team inspection

took place during the weeks of May 17 and June 7.

The inspection team has focused on the utility’s response to three equipment problems: the

failure of an equipment cooling water pump on September 1 of last year; an air buildup in piping that

affected the operation of another pump during the August 18 blackout; and the failure of a high

pressure core spray pump during testing in October 2002.

Each of these equipment problems was determined to be of low to moderate safety significance

-- “white” inspection findings in the NRC classification of problems which ranges from “green,” for

findings of minor safety significance, through “white,” “yellow,” and “red,” indicating increasing

safety significance.

“This inspection was scheduled because of the number of “white” findings involving

equipment failures,” said James Caldwell, NRC Regional Administrator. “The inspectors have been

looking at how well FirstEnergy finds, evaluates, and fixes equipment problems. What we learn in the

inspection will determine whether or not we need to conduct further inspections looking at the

effectiveness of their corrective actions.”

During the inspection, the pump, which had failed on September 1, failed again during testing

on May 21. The NRC conducted a separate special inspection to review this repetitive pump failure. 

While the meeting Monday will focus on the team inspection looking more broadly at equipment

issues, the results of the inspection of the May 21 pump problem will also be discussed.

The report of the team inspection will be available in about 30 days from the NRC Region III

Office of Public Affairs and in the NRC’s ADAMS online library at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html - use docket number 05000440 to facilitate

locating the report.

# # # # #
#### Frederick A. Mandeville, as Executor, etc., Respondent, v. Albert F. D’Oench and Another, as Executors, etc., Appellants, Impleaded with Another.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ
2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-19-2013

Peter Wong v. Secretary United States Depart

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-2397

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Peter Wong v. Secretary United States Depart" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 1109.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/1109
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ 

No. 12-2397

_____________

 

PETER P. WONG, 

Appellant

v.

SECRETARY UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

_____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 2-11-cv-03059)

District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg

_____________ 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 4, 2013

Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: March 19, 2013) 

_____________

OPINION OF THE COURT 

_____________

RENDELL, Circuit Judge

Peter Wong appeals the orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania granting the government’s motion to dismiss his complaint 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and denying his motions for 
2

reconsideration. The District Court dismissed Wong’s complaint alleging race, color, and 

national-origin discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. because 

Wong had not initiated an equal employment opportunity proceeding within forty-five 

days of the alleged discrimination. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1-2). The District Court 

concluded that Wong’s lateness was not excused by either equitable tolling or equitable 

estoppel. Wong timely appealed.

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review 

over the decision to grant a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, see Weston v. Pennsylvania, 251 

F.3d 420, 425 (3d Cir. 2001), and we review the decision to deny a motion for 

reconsideration for abuse of discretion, see Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox 

Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 163 (3d Cir. 2010). 

We have carefully considered the appellate briefs of the parties and the record, 

including the memorandum of the District Court. We see no need to expand upon the 

District Court’s opinion, which we find to be well reasoned regarding the conclusion that 

Wong’s case was brought too late. Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons set 

forth by the District Court, we will affirm.
#### Luzviminda M. BARLIS, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-7105.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 16, 2002.

*ORDER*

Luzviminda M. Barlis (“Barlis”) has failed to respond to the court order of September 27, 2001 within the time allowed, to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. Prior to the issuance of the show cause order, Barlis neither paid the filing fee nor filed a motion and declaration to proceed in forma pauperis. Barlis also failed to prosecute this appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) This appeal is hereby dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
#### § 171.63 [Reserved]
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333 – 146375) and Form S-3 (Nos. 333 – 129073, 333 – 138809 and 333-149487) of Central European Distribution Corporation of our report dated March 1,2010, except with respect to our opinion on the consolidated financial statements insofar as it relates to the effects of the retrospective adoption of ASC Topic 810 in relation to the de-consolidation of the Whitehall Group and the presentation ofthe Company’s distribution business as discontinued operations, as discussed in Notes 1 and 2, as to which the date is November 23, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K/A. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers Sp. z o. o. 

Warsaw, Poland 

March 1, 2011
#### The People of the State of New York v. Charles R. Uebelmesser.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted unless appellant complies with terms stated in order. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 240 (Friday, December 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64430-64431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27069]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint


Establish Pricing for 2018 United States Mint American 
Innovation<SUP>TM</SUP> Products

AGENCY: United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The United States Mint is announcing the pricing for 2018 
American Innovation coin products. These prices are listed in the table 
below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2018 Retail
                         Product                               price
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 American Innovation $1 25-Coin Roll-P..............          $32.95
2018 American Innovation $1 25-Coin Roll-D..............           32.95
2018 American Innovation $1 100-Coin Bag-P..............          111.95

[[Page 64431]]

 
2018 American Innovation $1 100-Coin Bag-D..............          111.95
2018 American Innovation $1 Proof Coin..................            6.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katrina McDow; Product Manager; 
Numismatic and Bullion; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW; 
Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-8495.

    Authority: Public Law 115-197

    Dated: December 7, 2018.
David J. Ryder,
Director, United States Mint.
[FR Doc. 2018-27069 Filed 12-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSolid rocket booster thrust vector control subsystem descriptionMajor Solid Rocket Booster-Thrust Vector Control (SRB-TVC) subsystem components and subcomponents used in the Space Transportation System (STS) are identified. Simplified schematics, detailed schematics, figures, photographs, and data are included to acquaint the reader with the operation, performance, and physical layout as well as the materials and instrumentation used.Document ID19840002116Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsRedmon, J., Jr.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1983Subject CategorySpacecraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-82546NAS 1.15:82546Accession Number84N10183Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840002116.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024