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, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

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

No. 05-049 March 15, 2005

 NRC SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON DESIGN CERTIFICATION REGULATION FOR 

THE WESTINGHOUSE AP1000 ADVANCED REACTOR DESIGN

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on a proposed addition to

its regulations to certify the Westinghouse AP1000 advanced reactor design. If approved, the

certification would allow a utility to reference the design when applying for a nuclear power plant

license.

The NRC also invites the public to submit comments on the environmental assessment for the

AP1000 design. The assessment will be available through the NRC’s rulemaking Web site at

http://ruleforum.llnl.gov . 

Westinghouse submitted an application for certification of the AP1000 standard plant design on

March 28, 2002. The AP1000 is a next generation reactor, capable of producing about 1,000 megawatts

of electricity. It features enhanced systems that would safely shut down the reactor or lessen the effects

of an accident. NRC staff spent more than two years conducting an extensive technical evaluation of

the design and issued a final design approval and a final safety evaluation report in September 2004.

The final safety evaluation provides the basis for the design certification now being considered for

addition to NRC’s regulations (10CFR 52). 

NRC has certified three other standard reactor designs: the General Electric Advanced Boiling

Water Reactor, Westinghouse System 80+ and Westinghouse AP600. 

Comments must be received within 75 days of publication in the Federal Register to guarantee

consideration by the NRC. Comments submitted later than this date may be considered if practical.

They can be mailed to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555-

0001, ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Comments can be hand-carried to 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Md., between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on federal work days, or they can be faxed to

301-415-1101. E-mail comments can also be sent to SECY@nrc.gov. In addition, comments can also

be submitted through the NRC’s rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov . 

 More information about the AP1000 review can be found on the NRC’s Web site,

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/design-cert/ap1000.html .

###
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 99

                         MANION MCDONOUGH & LUCAS, P.C.
                                ATTORNEYS AT LAW

600 GRANT STREET                                                     TELEPHONE
SUITE 882                                                         (412) 232-0200
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 15219-2702                                  ---------
                                                                     TELECOPIER
                                                                  (412) 232-0206

                                 March 23, 1998

Lisa S. Guarino, Chief Financial Officer
Northstar Health Services, Inc.
665 Philadelphia Street
Indiana, PA 15701

          Re:  Northstar Health Services, Inc.
               -------------------------------

Dear Ms. Guarino:

          You have requested our opinion on the potential claim of James P.
Shields against Northstar Health Services, Inc. arising from the Management
Agreement dated November 27, 1995 between Shields and Northstar.

          As you know, in the RICO action which Northstar filed against Shields
and other Northstar related-parties in federal court in Pittsburgh (Northstar v.
DeSimone, C.A. No. 96-1695), Shields has not yet filed a counterclaim against
Northstar on this or any other claim. In discussing settlement of Northstar's
claims against him, however, his counsel offered in writing to settle those
claims for $150,000 in June of last year. We declined that offer, which would of
course have involved a release of any claim Shields might assert against
Northstar--as inadequate.

          Under the facts of this case as we know them, we believe that the
possibility that Shields might recover on any claim he may have against
Northstar under the Management Agreement in question is remote in the extreme.

          We trust that this letter satisfies your request.


                                   Very truly yours,

                                   MANION MCDONOUGH & LUCAS, P.C.

                                   By /s/ Paul A. Manion

                                      Paul A. Manion

PAM/jp
cc Kristen A. SeCaur
### §1478. Personal, flag state, and foreign state considerations

In the direction and conduct of measures under this chapter the Secretary shall use his best endeavors to—

(1) assure the avoidance of risk to human life;

(2) render all possible aid to distressed persons, including facilitating repatriation of ships' crews; and

(3) not unnecessarily interfere with rights and interests of others, including the flag state of any ship involved, other foreign states threatened by damage, and persons otherwise concerned.

(Pub. L. 93–248, §9, Feb. 5, 1974, 88 Stat. 9.)
### §670. Surrender to United States of right to regulate debris of mine

Said petition shall be accompanied by an instrument duly executed and acknowledged, as required by the law of the said State, whereby the owner or owners of such mine or mines surrender to the United States the right and privilege to regulate by law, as provided in this chapter, or any law that may be enacted after March 1, 1893, or by such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by virtue thereof, the manner and method in which the debris resulting from the working of said mine or mines shall be restrained, and what amount shall be produced therefrom; it being understood that the surrender aforesaid shall not be construed as in any way affecting the right of such owner or owners to operate said mine or mines by any other process or method in use in said State on March 1, 1893: Provided, That they shall not interfere with the navigability of the aforesaid rivers.

(Mar. 1, 1893, ch. 183, §10, 27 Stat. 508.)
#### § 432.104 Addressing unacceptable performance.

At any time during the performance appraisal cycle that an employee's performance is determined to be unacceptable in one or more critical elements, the agency shall notify the employee of the critical element(s) for which performance is unacceptable and inform the employee of the performance requirement(s) or standard(s) that must be attained in order to demonstrate acceptable performance in his or her position. The agency should also inform the employee that unless his or her performance in the critical element(s) improves to and is sustained at an acceptable level, the employee may be reduced in grade or removed. For each critical element in which the employee's performance is unacceptable, the agency shall afford the employee a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance, commensurate with the duties and responsibilities of the employee's position. As part of the employee's opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance, the agency shall offer assistance to the employee in improving unacceptable performance.

[87 FR 67782, Nov. 10, 2022]
No. 13,401.

#### Clayton Coal Company et al. *v.*Zak et al.

(29 P. [2d] 374)

Decided December 22, 1933.

Rehearing denied January 29, 1934.

*172Mr. Frank C. West, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Paul P. Prosser, Attorney General, Mr. M. S. Ginsberg, Assistant, for defendants in error.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Justice Bouck

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is here under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for summary review of a judgment rendered by the district court, affirming an award made by the Industrial Commission in favor of one Zak. The employer and its insurer, plaintiffs in error here, contend that the commission acted without and in excess of its powers, and that the findings of fact by the commission do not support the award. The original award was entered by the referee on January 27, 1933, granting compensation for temporary disability and finding that no permanent disability had resulted. That award was expressly approved by supplemental award of April 1, 1933. No petition for review was filed by either side and the award became final.

 Thereafter the only legal way of reopening the case was by resort to C. L. ’21, §4484, which reads as follows: “Upon its own motion on the ground of error, mistake or a change in conditions, the commission may at any time after notice of hearing to the parties interested, review any award and on such review, may make an award ending, diminishing, maintaining or increasing the compensation previously awarded * * Obviously acting under that section, the commission ordered a further hearing, its “findings of fact and award” of April 28, 1933, stating that such further hearing should be had “to determine whether or not there has been error, mistake, or change in conditions.” The referee accordingly took additional evidence, consisting’ of the testimony of a physician. The supplemental award of June 19, *1731933, contained no specific finding that any error, mistake, or change in condition had intervened. However, since it awarded compensation for permanent disability, we must assume that the commission regarded itself as having previously erred. When in the former award it ■decided that there was no permanent disability, it had evidently committed an error which it corrected by the aforesaid supplemental award of June 19, 1933. Under the principle laid down in *Colorado F. & I. Co. v. Industrial Commission,*85 Colo. 237, 275 Pac. 910, the judgment of the district court, affirming the commission’s award, will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Mary Regan, Relator, v. Joseph P. Hennessy and Others, etc., Respondents.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Jenks, P. J., Burr, Rich, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
### §142d. Disbursing officer of the Library of Congress; disbursements in accordance with voucher; examination of vouchers; liability

The disbursing officer of the Library of Congress shall (1) disburse moneys of the Library of Congress only upon, and in strict accordance with, vouchers duly certified by the Librarian of Congress or by an officer or employee of the Library of Congress duly authorized in writing by the Librarian to certify such vouchers; (2) make such examination of vouchers as may be necessary to ascertain whether they are in proper form, and duly certified and approved; and (3) be held accountable accordingly: Provided, That the disbursing officer shall not be held accountable or responsible for any illegal, improper, or incorrect payment resulting from any false, inaccurate, or misleading certificate, the responsibility for which, under section 142b of this title, is imposed upon a certifying officer or employee of the Library of Congress.

(Pub. L. 85–53, §3, June 13, 1957, 71 Stat. 81.)
|Exhibit 32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Quarterly Reportof Easy Gardener Products, Ltd., (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the Report), I, Richard M.
Grandy, as Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                     
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                        |  |                       | 
|----------------------- |  | --------------------- | 
|                        |  |                       | 
|                        |  | /s/ Richard M. Grandy
|                        |  | 
|                        |  | Richard M. Grandy    
|                        |  | Manager / CEO        
|                        |  |                      
|Date: February 14, 2005 |  |                       | 

|
|
§ 330.404 Displacement of preference eligibles occupying restricted positions in contracting out situations. An individual agency and OPM both have additional responsibilities when the agency decides, in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76, to contract out the work of a preference eligible who holds a restricted position. These additional responsibilities as described in §§ 330.405 and 330.406 are applicable if a preference eligible holds a competitive service position (other than in the Government Printing Office) that is: ( a ) A restricted position as designated in 5 U.S.C. 3310 and § 330.401; and
( b ) In tenure group I or II, as defined in § 351.501(b)(1) and (2) of this chapter.
#### § 146.91 Applicability.

This subpart applies only to a petroleum refinery (as defined herein) engaged in refining petroleum in a foreign-trade zone or subzone. Further, the provisions relating to zones generally, which are set forth elsewhere in this part, including documentation and document retention requirements, and entry procedures, such as weekly entry, shall apply as well to a refinery subzone, insofar as applicable to and not inconsistent with the specific provisions of this subpart. It does not cover zone-to-zone transfers in which the fact of removal from one zone is ignored.
Issue Date: 09/05/06 06-021 -1-

NRC INSPECTION MANUAL DIRS

Change Notice 06-021

DELETED: TRANSMITTED:

Number Date Number Date

1. ----------- ----------- IP 72303 09/05/06

2. ----------- ----------- IP 72304 09/05/06

TRAINING: None

REMARKS: IP 72303 (Startup Testing for ABWR: Test Procedure Review, Test

Witnessing, and Test Results Evaluation) has been issued for the

Construction Inspection Program.

IP 72304 (Startup Testing for AP 1000: Test Procedure Review, Test

Witnessing, and Test Results Evaluation) has been issued for the

Construction Inspection Program

DISTRIBUTION: Standard

END
### §917. Lien against compensation

Where a trust fund which complies with section 186(c) of title 29 established pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement in effect between an employer and an employee covered under this chapter has paid disability benefits to an employee which the employee is legally obligated to repay by reason of his entitlement to compensation under this chapter or under a settlement, the Secretary shall authorize a lien on such compensation in favor of the trust fund for the amount of such payments.

(Mar. 4, 1927, ch. 509, §17, 44 Stat. 1434; June 25, 1938, ch. 685, §8, 52 Stat. 1167; Pub. L. 92–576, §20(b), Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1264; Pub. L. 95–598, title III, §324, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2679; Pub. L. 98–426, §14, Sept. 28, 1984, 98 Stat. 1649.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–426 struck out "(b)" before "Where a trust fund which complies", substituted "covered under this chapter" for "entitled to compensation under this chapter", and substituted "this chapter or under a settlement, the Secretary shall authorize" for "this chapter, the Secretary may authorize".

1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–598 repealed provision for lien of person entitled to compensation without limit of amount against assets of carrier or employer and for preference and priority in distribution of assets of such carrier or employer, or both upon insolvency, bankruptcy, or reorganization in bankruptcy proceedings of the carrier or employer, or both.

1972—Pub. L. 92–576 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

1938—Act June 25, 1938, amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "Compensation shall have the same preference of lien against the assets of the carrier or employer without limit of amount as is now or may hereafter be allowed by law to the claimant for unpaid wages or otherwise".

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

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–426 effective Sept. 28, 1984, and applicable both with respect to claims filed after such date and to claims pending on such date, see section 28(a) of Pub. L. 98–426, set out as a note under section 901 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–598 effective Oct. 1, 1979, see section 402(a) of Pub. L. 95–598, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.

#### Effective Date of 1972 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 92–576 effective 30 days after Oct. 27, 1972, see section 22 of Pub. L. 92–576, set out as a note under section 902 of this title.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Quality Assurance Inspections for Shipping and  Storage Containers (NUREG/CR-6314, INEL-95/0061)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6314 (PDF - 2.82 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** March 1996****Date Published:****April 1996 

**Prepared by:** H.M. Stromberg, G.D. Roberts, J.H. Bryce

Risk & Reliability Assessment Department Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company P.O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415-3850

D.G. Reid, NRC Technical Monitor

**Prepared for:** Spent Fuel Project Office Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission****Washington, DC 20555-0001 

NRC Job Code L1179

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This document is a guide for conducting quality assurance inspections of transportation packaging and dry spent fuel storage system suppliers. Suppliers are defined as designers, fabricators, distributors, users, or owners of transportation packagings and dry storage systems for radioactive materials. This document may be used during an inspection to determine regulatory compliance with Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations*, Part 71, Subpart H; Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations*, Part 72, Subpart G; Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations*, Part 21; and supplier's quality assurance program commitments. This guide was developed to provide a structured and consistent approach to inspections. The guidance described in this document provides a framework for the evaluation of transportation packaging and dry spent fuel storage systems quality assurance programs. Inspectors are provided with the flexibility to adapt the methods and concepts to meet the inspection requirements for the particular facility. The method used in this document treats each activity at a facility as a separate performance element, and combines the activities within the framework of an "inspection tree." The method separates each performance element into several areas for inspection and identifies guidelines, based on regulatory requirements, to qualitatively evaluate each area. This document also serves as a field manual to facilitate the quality assurance inspection activities. This document replaces an earlier document, NUREG/CR-5717, "Packaging Supplier Inspection Guide." NUREG/CR-5717 contains a methodology for the quality assurance inspection activities of transportation packagings. This replacement document enhances the inspection activities for transportation packagings, and adds the dry spent fuel storage system quality assurance inspection activities.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
---

---

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

We, Rafi Amit, Chief Executive
Officer of Camtek Ltd., and Ronit Dulberg, Chief Financial Officer of Camtek Ltd., each
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report for Camtek Ltd. on Form 20-F for
the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained
in the Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Camtek Ltd.

Date: June 30, 2008

| |  | By:  /s/ Rafi Amit
Rafi AmitChief Executive Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | By: /s/ Ronit Dulberg
Ronit DulbergChief Financial Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Camtek Ltd. and will be retained by
Camtek Ltd. and furnished to the United States Securities And Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.



---

---
#### Kate Caldarola, Appellant, v. Peter Caldarola, Defendant, and Gerda Eckert et al., Doing Business under the Name of Thor Eckert Co., Respondents.

The complaint does not allege that there was any written agreement between plaintiff and her husband. On its face the complaint does not show that plaintiff relies on an express trust. (Real Property Law, § 96.) She pleads facts which may move equity to declare that her’ husband holds the premises as trustee for her. *(Foreman*v. *Foreman,*251 N. Y. 237.) Respondents can claim the benefit of section 104 of the Real Property Law only in the event that plaintiff relies upon an express trust, the provisions of which have not been carried into a conveyance. The Pennsylvania statute involved in *Rochester Trust Co.*v. *White*(243 Pa. 469), cited by Special Term, specifically grants judgment creditors rights when a trustee holds property under a resulting trust. Section 95 of the Real Property Law protects only bona fide purchasers. The complaint alleges no fact which shows that respondents, through their judgment, have an equal or superior right in equity to the plaintiff. It does not appear that any reliance on the fact that title was in the name of the husband gave riáe to any claim resulting in the judgment. Prom the face of the complaint their rights are measured by whatever interest the husband had in the property. *(Siemon*v. *Schurck,*29 N. Y. 598; *White*v. *Carpenter,*2 Paige Ch. 217; *Matter of Howe,*1 Paige Ch. 125.) Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur. [See *post,*p. 846.]