alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC ISSUES ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR NATION’S NUCLEAR PLANTS 

 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued annual assessment letters to the nation’s 104 

operating commercial nuclear power plants. All the plants continue to operate safely. 

 "Our ongoing assessment of nuclear power plant performance is at the heart of the agency’s 

mission of protecting people and the environment,” said Eric Leeds, director of the Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation. “The 2008 year-end results show that about 83 percent of the plants are 

performing strongly enough that we’re satisfied with our basic level of inspections at those sites.” 

 If a nuclear power plant’s performance declines, the NRC assigns additional personnel to 

ensure the plant operator is taking the steps necessary to correct the situation. The additional amount of 

inspection is commensurate with the level of plant performance. Only one reactor, Unit 3 at Palo Verde 

(Ariz.), requires the NRC’s highest level of attention. It will continue to undergo additional inspections 

this year to confirm the plant’s performance issues are being addressed. Three reactor units, Cooper 

(Neb.) and Units 1 and 2 at Palo Verde (Ariz.), require significant NRC attention, and another 14 

reactor units, Units 1 and 2 at Byron (Ill.), Unit 1 at Comanche Peak (Texas), Unit 1 at Farley (Ala.), 

Unit 1 at Grand Gulf ( Miss.), Unit 2 at Hatch (Ga.), Kewaunee (Wis.), Units 1 and 2 at McGuire 

(N.C.), Unit 2 at Nine Mile Point (N.Y.), Unit 1 at Oconee (S.C.), Palisades (Mich.), Unit 1 at Prairie 

Island (Minn.), and Unit 2 at San Onofre (Calif.), will get some additional attention beyond the basic 

level. 

 Later this spring and summer, the NRC will meet publicly in locations near the plants to 

discuss plant issues. A separate announcement will be issued for each of these meetings. In addition to 

the annual assessment letters, plants also receive an NRC inspection plan for the coming year. Updated 

information on plant performance is posted to the NRC Web site every quarter. The plants also receive 

a mid-cycle assessment letter during the year; the next mid-cycle letters will be issued in September. 

 The assessment letters sent to each licensee are available on the NRC Web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/index.html and through ADAMS, the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management System. Help in using ADAMS is available from the NRC Public 

Document Room by calling (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4209. 

### 

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. Email notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. 

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 

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 09-042 March 6, 2009
EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Penn Jersey Rail Lines, Inc..

MAY 2 2 2003

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board concerning

the continuing status of the Penn Jersey Rail Lines, Inc. (PJRL) (B.A.

No. 2379) as an employer under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C.

§ 231, et seq.) (RRA) and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45

U.S.C. § 351, et seq.) (RUIA). PJRL has been an employer under the

RRA and RUIA with service creditable from August 15, 1997.

Mr. Richard Petrone, Director, Finance and Administration, SMS Rail

Service, Inc. (SLRS) (B.A. No. 3385), reported that PJRL ceased

operations on December 31, 2002, as the result of a merger with SLRS

wherein SLRS was the surviving company and PJRL ceased to exist.

Surface Transportation Board authority for the merger is set forth in

STB Finance Docket No. 343001, decided January 10, 2003.

Based on the information summarized above, it is determined that

Penn Jersey Rail Lines, Inc. ceased to be an employer under the

Railroad Retirement Act and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance

Act as of the close of business on December 31, 2002, the date on which

it merged into SMS Rail Service, Inc., and ceased to exist.

BA#2379
B.C.D. 04-41

Employer Status Determination

Old Augusta Railroad Company

Old Augusta Railroad, LLC

SEP 0 2 2004

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board concerning the continuing

status of Old Augusta Railroad Company (OARC) (B.A. No. 4563) as an employer

under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231, et sea.) (RRA) and the Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. § 351, et sea.) (RUIA). OARC has been an

employer under the RRA and RUIA with service creditable from June 15, 1982. This is

also the determination of the Board concerning the employer status of Old Augusta

Railroad, LLC (OARLLC) as an employer under the RRA and RUIA. OARLLC has not

heretofore been ruled to be an employer under the Acts.

According to information given to the Board by representatives of OARC and

OARLLC, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, a non-carrier and parent company of OARC,

sold OARC, with all assets, to Koch Cellulose, LLC, a non-carrier and parent company

of OARLLC. This transaction took place as of the close of business on May 7, 2004, at

which time and date OARC employees were last compensated and OARC ceased

operations. Simultaneously, as of the close of business on May 7, 2004, OARLLC

began operations over the same 2.5 mile line of track to the Leaf River Pulp Mill and

interchanging with the Canadian National Railway Company. Surface 

Transportation Board (STB) authority for acquisition and exemption in this matter is set

forth at STB Finance Docket No. 34493, decided April 14, 2004. Additionally, in order 

to qualify OARLCC to do business in Mississippi, OARC changed its name to Old Pine

Belt Railroad Company, which is currently a corporate shell with no operations.

Section 202.11 of the Board's regulations provides that:

The employer status of any company or person shall terminate whenever such

company or person loses any of the characteristics essential to the existence of

an employer status.

Based on the information summarized above, it is determined that Old Augusta 

Railroad Company ceased being an employer covered under the RRA and RUIA as

of the close of business on May 7, 2004, the date on which it ceased operations and

last compensated employees.

Section 1(a)(1) of the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231(a)(1)), insofar as

relevant here, defines a covered employer as:

(i) any carrier by railroad subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface

Transportation Board under Part A of subtitle IV of Title 49 [45 U.S.C.

§ 231(a)(1)(f)].

BA#5590
-2-

Sections 1 (a) and 1 (b) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C.

§§ 351 (a) and (b)) contain substantially the same definition as does section

3231 of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (26 U.S.C. § 3231).

Based on the information summarized above, it is determined that Old Augusta

Railroad, LLC became an employer covered under the Railroad Retirement 

Act and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act as of the close of business

on May 7, 2004, the date it began operations.

V. M. Speakman, Jr.
#### George Robinson, Appellant, v. William P. Traub et al., Defendants, and Jennie Sherman, as Administratrix of the Estate of Harry Sherman, Deceased, Respondent.

Order denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment, to strike out respondent’s answer as sham, and to strike out affirmative defenses on the ground of insufficiency, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Lewis, P, J., Carswell, Nolan# Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-15-0036 SAT Date: 10/28/2014

Print Date: 4/1/2015

Related cases : Yes Health related cases: Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 2 2

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 2 12

Exposure Based Review : Health: Ecotox: N o
Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ;
Keywords : Keywords: IRR/CORR-E,S,MM,L; SENS-S; KIDNEY; LIVER; ONCO (UNCERT); DEVEL (UNCERT); AQUATOX
Summary of Assessment :

Fate : Fate Summary: P-15-0036 FATE: Solid with MP = 125 °C (M) log Kow = 2.62 (E) S = 300 mg/L at 25 °C (M) VP = 4.0E-5 torr at 25 °C (E) BP = 330 °C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) log Koc = 1.89 (E) log Fish BCF = 0.50 (E)log Fish BAF = 1.40 (E) POTW removal (%) = 0 Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg ≥ mo Sorption to soils/sediments = low PBT Potential: P2B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = rapid

Health : Health Summary: Not absorbed through the skin as the neat material moderate absorption through the skin if in solution, good absorption from the lung and GI tract (pchem ); PMN substance is a potential arylating agent. Concern for irritation and possible corrosion to all tissues; kidney and liver toxicity ; dermal sensitization; and uncertain concern for oncogenicity based on data for analogues. Uncertain concern for developmental toxicity based on potential as an arylating agent. Test Data: rat 13-week dietary study LOEL = 500 mg/kg, irritation of GI mucosal tissue dog 13-week dietary study NOEL = 0.75%, irritation of GI mucosal tissue at 3% dermal sensitizer in guinea pigs mouse 2-year dietary NOEL = 300 mg/kg, kidney toxicity and liver tumors at 900 mg/kg severe eye irritation in rabbits NTP TR -23 (Picloram): Equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in female rats, negative in male rats and male and female mice

Ecotox :
Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 15.4 Halopyrdines-acid SAR daphnid 48-h LC50 11.1 Halopyrdines-acid SAR green algal 96-h EC50 29.3 N eutral organic SAR fish

_ chronic value 1.3 Halopyrdines-acid SAR daphnid

_ chronic value 0.3 Halopyrdines-acid SAR

algal

_ chronic value 2.9 N eutral organic SAR

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for Halopyrdines-acid, Pyridine-alpha-acids and Neutral Organics; SAR chemical class = Pyridines; MW 226.45; Solid with MP of 125 at 20 deg C; log Kow = 2.96; S = 0.3 g/L at 20 C (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 30

SARs Pyridine-alpha-acids and N eutral Organics SAR Class Pyridine-alpha-acids and N eutral Organics Ecotox Category

Ecotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair:
§ 846.703 Effective date of FERS coverage. An election under this subpart is effective on the later of— ( a ) The first day of the pay period beginning after the date the election and any required supporting documentation is received by the employing office; or
( b ) The first day of the pay period beginning after July 1, 1998.
NRC ANNOUNCES OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST A HEARING ON 

REINSTATING CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR BELLEFONTE 1 & 2 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today announced the opportunity for the public to 

request a hearing on whether good cause exists to reinstate the construction permits for the 

unfinished Unit 1 and 2 reactors at the Bellefonte site near Hollywood, Ala. 

The Commission in February authorized the staff to take the unique step of reinstating the 

permits, which the Tennesee Valley Authority had withdrawn in 2006. In August 2008, TVA 

asked the NRC to reinstate the permits. The Commission, after considering the technical, 

regulatory, and legal aspects of TVA’s request, concluded that there is sufficient reason to allow 

reinstatement of the construction permits, using a conservative sequential approach to ensure the 

safety of doing so. 

 The NRC staff issued an Order reinstating the permits, which returns the plants to a 

“terminated” status, meaning that TVA must provide significant additional information to show 

the plants could be upgraded to “deferred” status, which would be necessary to put the plants on 

a path to possible future construction. The docket numbers established for the permits are 50-438 

and 50-439. 

The NRC has published the Order in the Federal Register,

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-5437.pdf), which provides an opportunity to request a 

hearing on the Order, with a filing deadline of May 12. Petitions may be filed by anyone whose 

interest may be affected by the Order and who meets criteria set out in the NRC’s regulations. 

More information on the hearing process is available on the NRC Web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/adjudicatory/hearing.html . 

 A request for a hearing must be electronically submitted in a timely manner to the NRC's 

Electronic Information Exchange (EIE) system. The request must be filed in accordance with 

the NRC's E-Filing Rule that appeared in the Federal Register on Aug. 28, 2007, 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-16898.pdf). Additional guidance and instructions 

regarding electronic submissions to the NRC EIE system are available on the NRC Web pages at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html . 

 

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 

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 09-045 March 13, 2009
The agency granted construction permits for Bellefonte’s two pressurized water reactors 

in 1974. By 1988, when TVA deferred completion of the plant, Unit 1 was approximately 88 

percent complete, and Unit 2 was approximately 58 percent complete. There is no nuclear fuel 

on the site. The Bellefonte site is located on approximately 1,600 acres adjacent to the Tennessee 

River in northern Alabama. 

### 

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
### SUBCHAPTER XXX—DRUG COURTS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title II, §2301(a), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1794, which directed that part EE (this subchapter) be inserted after part DD of title I of Pub. L. 90–351, was executed by adding part EE to title I of Pub. L. 90–351 to reflect the probable intent of Congress, notwithstanding that title I of Pub. L. 90–351 did not contain a part DD.
#### William H. Shannon, Jr., Respondent, *v.*Eugene Horton, Appellant.

*Mistake —fraud*— *evidence.*

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Orange on the 16th day of December, 1914, in favor of the plaintiff, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 4th day of January, 1915, denying his motion for a new trial.

Thomas, J.:

The evidence shows that during the year preceding the execution of the release the plaintiff had full knowledge of the agency *954existing between the defendant and Stever. He has been permitted to avoid the release upon his untrue statement that he had not such knowledge and upon evidence that the subject of the present action was not involved in the former account rendered to the defendant, and was not discussed or asserted at or before the time the release was made. The letter of June 32, 1911, indicates not only the realization of the relation of Horton and Stever, but also that it had been a matter of consideration on the part of the plaintiff. So, failure of the defendant to discuss the matter or failure to advise the plaintiff could not have induced the plaintiff to sign the release. What, then, has the plaintiff proved tending to show mutual mistake and justifying an avoidance of the release ? I discover nothing, even within the rules laid down in *Kirchner*v. N. *H. S. M. Co.*(185 N. Y. 182), which plaintiff invokes. The judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Judgment and order reversedland new trial granted, costs to abide the event.
#### Joseph Trepel, Plaintiff, v. Joseph Trepel et al., Defendants. In the Matter of Trepel Brooklyn Florist Shop, Inc., Respondent. Joseph Trepel, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from an order granting respondent’s motion to punish appellant for contempt of court for alleged violation of an injunction decree made October 20, 1921, in that he willfully re-entered and re-engaged in the business of selling flowers, floral decorations and floral pieces under his own name. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs. Plaintiff Joseph Trepel obtained a judgment enjoining appellant from so using his own name in the retail florist business that the public might be deceived and the plaintiff injured. Respondent is a corporation which claims to be the successor of the business in which plaintiff Trepel was engaged at the time the injunction decree was obtained. Respondent was not in a position to institute the contempt proceeding because (1) it was not a party to the injunction action (Judiciary Law, § 753; *Maezella*v. *Samis,*272 App. Div. 381; *Matter of Springer,*238 App. Div. 305, appeal dismissed 262 H. Y. 678); (2) there is no proof that respondent succeeded to the rights of plaintiff Trepel in relation to the subject matter of the suit, i.e., the rights under the injunction decree as distinguished from the rights in the florist business; (3) the rights of plaintiff Trepel under the injunction decree could not be assigned. (Personal Property Law, § 41, subd. 2.) However, assuming that respondent was a proper party to institute the contempt proceedings, there is no proof that appellant did any act which deceived the public. “ In contempt proceedings for its enforcement, a decree will not be expanded by implication or intendment beyond the meaning of its terms when read in the light of the issues and the purpose for which the suit was brought; and the facts found must constitute a plain violation of the decree so read.” *(Terminal B. B. Assn.*v. *United States,*266 U. S. 17, 29.) When so read, it will be seen that appellant was not restrained by the injunction decree from re-entering and re-engaging in the business of selling flowers, floral decorations and floral pieces under his own name. Only the fraudulent manner of his doing business was restrained. *(Meneely*v. *Meneely,*62 N. Y. 427.) Lewis, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
#### Lillian J. Masterson, as Administratrix of the Estate of John J. Masterson, Deceased, Respondent, v. Melvin Solomon, Appellant.

Defendant’s alleged negligence and plaintiff’s intestate’s alleged contributory negligence were questions of fact for the jury. The rule with respect to the failure of defendant to call one Kaplan was properly applied because Kaplan was shown to be friendly to defendant, as he was a fellow worker and a passenger in defendant’s car and attended the trial at defendant’s request. *(Perlman*v. *Shanck,*192 App. Div. 179, 183.) The remarks of plaintiff’s counsel while summing up were improper, but under the facts of this case were not prejudicial. Moreover, counsel, while he objected to the remarks, made no request for action by the court nor did he move for the withdrawal of a juror. Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Sneed and MaeCrate, JJ., concur; Wenzel, J., dissents and votes to reverse and to grant a new trial, on the ground first, that the verdict is against the weight of evidence. The plaintiff’s intestate testified that he saw the defendant’s car when it was 100 feet away from him and going at 60 miles per hour. He was not then in its path but attempted to cross before it. Assuming that the traffic light was with the plaintiff’s intestate (although there is testimony to the contrary), it has been held in this State that traffic lights do not establish an absolute right of way. *(Bergman*v. *Schultz,*274 App. Div. 1001.) Second, the remarks of the court in response to a proper request to charge were prejudicial to the defendant. Third, the statement by counsel in summation that “ Solomon won’t be hurt in any way whatever, no matter what your verdict” was not “ambiguous” as stated by the court on objection but a palpable disclosure to the jury that the defendant was insured. It is not necessary for counsel to move for a mistrial for every error of the court if, as here, objection is timely made. [191 Misc. 635.]
June 3, 2009

OL Focus meeting of June 3, 2009, ABWR Handout attached.
Expert Panel Composition

KA Plan

Consist of Subject Matter Experts

" Design Engineers

" Licensed Operators

e Previously Licensed Operators

* Experienced International Operators

* *Training Instructors - Add via Revision 4, June2009 KA Plan

ABWR Plan for Expert Panel

• 2 U.S. BWR Operations Experienced with ABWR Training

1 International with ABWR Experience

* 1 ABWR Designer

• 1 Line Operations Manager with ABWR Training

NRC Participation (Optional)
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Appellant-Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property for the Redevelopment Housing Project of the Stuyvesant Town Corporation within the Area Bounded by East 14th Street and Other Streets, in the Borough of Manhattan. Amory S. Carhart et al., Respondents-Appellants; Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of N. Y., Inc., Respondent.

No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
#### § 848.703 Lump-sum credit.

If an individual performs phased employment, the lump-sum credit as defined in 5 U.S.C. 8401(19) will be reduced by any annuity that is paid or accrued during phased employment.
#### Margaret B. O’Reilly, Respondent, v. Sheffield Farms Company, Inc., Appellant.

Mo opinion. Present— Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.; Martin, P. J., taking no part.