alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULE REQUIRING DETAILED 

SAFETY ANALYSES FOR URANIUM CONVERSION FACILITIES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeks public comments on a proposed rule that 

would require uranium conversion and deconversion facilities authorized to possess significant 

quantities of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) to conduct integrated safety analyses (ISAs), and to 

determine whether the NRC or an Agreement State would have regulatory authority over the 

facility.

The proposed rule, published today in the Federal Register, would establish ISA 

requirements for these facilities similar to those already in place for uranium enrichment and fuel 

fabrication facilities. Conversion and deconversion facilities are regulated under 10 CFR Part 40 

in the NRC regulations, which governs source material (in this case, unenriched uranium). The 

ISA requirements for other fuel cycle facilities are contained in 10 CFR Part 70, which governs 

special nuclear material (enriched uranium). 

Part 40 facilities using UF6 face similar health and safety hazards as Part 70 facilities –

especially chemical hazards from hydrogen fluoride (HF), a highly reactive and corrosive 

chemical that evolves spontaneously when UF6 is exposed to moisture in the air. The NRC staff 

considers an ISA to be an effective tool for managing risk to workers and the public from 

chemical and radiological hazards at Part 40 facilities that are authorized to possess significant 

quantities of UF6.

The proposed rule would amend 10 CFR Part 40 to require applicants or licensees with a 

possession limit of 2,000 kg or more of UF6 to conduct an ISA and submit an ISA summary. 

NRC would assert jurisdiction over all applicants and licensees that are authorized to possess 

2,000 kg or more of UF6, even if the facility is in an Agreement State. (The NRC has agreements

with 37 states under which the states regulate radioactive materials.) The ISA requirements 

would be similar to those applicable to uranium enrichment and fuel fabrication facilities.

The NRC is also seeking comments on proposed guidance for licensees on implementing 

the new requirements. 

Comments will be accepted through Aug. 1. They may be submitted over the federal 

government’s rulemaking website, http://www.regulations.gov, by using the Docket ID 

NRC-2009-0079 for the proposed rule or Docket ID NRC-2011-0080 for the proposed guidance, 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. 11-085 May 17, 2011
or by e-mail to Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. They may also be mailed to Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and 

Adjudications Staff.

###

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 website.
§ 923.13 Energy facility planning process. The management program must contain a planning process for energy facilities likely to be located in or which may significantly affect, the coastal zone, including a process for anticipating the management of the impacts resulting from such facilities. (See subsection 304(5) of the Act.) This process must contain the following elements: ( a ) Identification of energy facilities which are likely to locate in, or which may significantly affect, a State's coastal zone;
( b ) Procedures for assessing the suitability of sites for such facilities designed to evaluate, to the extent practicable, the costs and benefits of proposed and alternative sites in terms of State and national interests as well as local concerns;
( c ) Articulation and identification of enforceable State policies, authorities and techniques for managing energy facilities and their impacts; and
( d ) Identification of how interested and affected public and private parties will be involved in the planning process.
[61 FR 33806, June 28, 1996; 61 FR 36965, July 15, 1996]
No. II-12-015 April 10, 2012

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

NRC CITES TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR PLANT FOR VIOLATION OF 

REQUIREMENTS AND ASSESSES $140,000 FINE 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has determined that Florida Power and 

Light Co.’s failure to properly maintain the Turkey Point nuclear plant’s onsite emergency 

response facility is a violation of low to moderate safety significance that may require additional 

NRC inspection and oversight.

In addition, the utility’s failure to report that the plant’s Technical Support Center was 

not fully functional during a seven-month period in 2010-2011 represents a second violation 

resulting in a $140,000 civil penalty.

The Turkey Point plant, operated by FPL, is located about 25 miles south of Miami near 

Homestead, Fla.

The NRC evaluates performance at nuclear power plants with a color-coded process that 

classifies regulatory findings as green, white, yellow or red, in order of increasing safety 

significance. The NRC has determined that the violation at Turkey Point associated with the

company’s failure to maintain the emergency response facility was white, meaning it has low to 

moderate safety significance.

The NRC staff held a conference with FPL Feb. 21 to discuss the inspection findings. 

Specifically, on two different occasions, FPL failed to maintain a fully functional TSC because

plant personnel disabled portions of the ventilation system and failed to implement appropriate 

compensatory measures. In this condition, response personnel may not have been protected from 

radiological hazards in the manner for which the facility was designed. 

NRC regulations require licensees to report a major loss of emergency assessment 

capability within eight hours. The utility’s failure to report the inoperability of the emergency 

response facility represents a violation of NRC requirements, resulting in the civil penalty.

FPL has 30 days to appeal the NRC staff’s significance determination for the white 

finding, the civil penalty or both.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave. NE, Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Web Site: www.nrc.gov
An NRC inspection report with information on the issue is available through the NRC 

website at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The number to access the report is 

ML120260599. The letter discussing the final significance determination is available by using 

the number ML12100A243.

###

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6486

JULIO SOLORZANO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN LOVETT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00303-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: April 11, 2024 Decided: April 15, 2024

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julio Solorzano, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6486 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/15/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Julio Solorzano, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he sought to challenge his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

conviction and sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). In light of 

the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 477-80 (2023) (holding 

that a prisoner cannot use § 2241 petition to mount a successive collateral attack on the 

validity of federal conviction or sentence), we conclude that Solorzano cannot pursue his 

claims in a § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Solorzano 

v. Lovett, No. 5:22-cv-00303-JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va. May 2, 2023). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6486 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/15/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2396 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2396

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 9, 2003

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1210 Highland Avenue in Duarte, California, as the ``Francisco A. 
                     Martinez Flores Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1210 
Highland Avenue in Duarte, California, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Francisco A. Martinez Flores Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Francisco A. Martinez Flores 
Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 8, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
July 18 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LONE STAR COLLEGE SY STEM DISTRICT D/B/A LONE STAR COLLEGE SYSTEM , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 01118

- CV V.

CADENCE MCSHANE CONS TRUCTION COURT COMPA NY LCC , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard the parties joint motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on November 20, 2012. Having considered the motio n and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal. We further order that mandate be issued immediately. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-51122 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALEJANDRO MACIEL-LOMELI, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-01-CR-248-ALL-DB

-------------------- June 13, 2002 Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Alejandro Maciel-Lomeli (Maciel), appeals his convictions following a jury trial for importation of more than five kilograms of cocaine and for possession of more than five kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute. He asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonableNo. 01-51122 -2- trier of fact to find the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Romero-Cruz , 201 F.3d 374, 376 (5th Cir. 2000). Consequently, Maciel’s conviction is AFFIRMED.
### §3703. Postal Service program for State governments

(a) In General.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the Postal Service may establish a program to enter into agreements with an agency of any State government, local government, or tribal government to provide property or nonpostal services to the public on behalf of such agencies for non-commercial purposes, but only if—

(1) such property or nonpostal services—

(A) provide enhanced value to the public, such as by lowering the cost or raising the quality of such services or by making such services more accessible;

(B) do not interfere with or detract from the value of postal services, including by—

(i) harming the cost and efficiency of postal services; and

(ii) unreasonably restricting access to postal retail service, such as customer waiting time and access to parking; and

(2) such agreements provide a net contribution to the Postal Service, defined as reimbursement that covers at least 100 percent of the costs attributable to all property and nonpostal services provided under each relevant agreement in each year, except that agreements determined to be substantially similar by the Postal Service with the concurrence of the Postal Regulatory Commission shall be reviewed based on their collective revenue and costs attributable.

(b) Public Notice.—Not more than 90 days after offering a service under the program, the Postal Service shall make available to the public on its website—

(1) the agreement with the agency regarding such service; and

(2) a business plan that describes the specific property or nonpostal service to be provided, the enhanced value to the public, and terms of reimbursement to the Postal Service.

(c) Approval Required.—The Postal Service may not establish the program under subsection (a) unless the Governors of the Postal Service approve such program by a recorded vote that is publicly disclosed on the Postal Service website with a majority of the Governors then in office voting for approval.

(d) Confidential Information.—Subsection (b) shall not be construed as requiring the Postal Service to disclose to the public any information—

(1) described in section 410(c); or

(2) exempt from public disclosure under section 552(b) of title 5.

(Added Pub. L. 117–108, title I, §103(a)(1), Apr. 6, 2022, 136 Stat. 1141.)
NRC NAMES NEW SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTOR 

AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in Atlanta have selected David E. 

Dumbacher as the senior resident inspector for TVA’s Browns Ferry nuclear power plant, 

located near Athens, Ala., about 32 miles west of Huntsville. Dumbacher will join resident 

inspectors Charles Stancil, Lundy Pressley and Phillip Niebaum at the Browns Ferry site

beginning in early June.

Dumbacher joined the NRC in December 2002 as a project 

engineer. In September 2004, he was assigned as resident 

inspector at the Callaway Plant in Missouri and promoted to senior 

resident inspector at the Callaway plant in August 2007. 

Before joining the NRC, Dumbacher was a naval officer 

on the USS Texas. He then worked 17 years for Exelon Corp. at 

the Zion and Braidwood nuclear power plants as a staff engineer, 

licensed control room supervisor and fuel handling supervisor. Dumbacher graduated from 

Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, with a bachelor’s degree in mathematics in 1980. 

Dave and his wife, Julie, have three children and live in Madison, Ala. 

“David Dumbacher has the experience and commitment to carry out the NRC mission of 

protecting people and the environment by helping to ensure the safety of the Browns Ferry 

plant,” said NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No: II-12-039

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416 

 May 31, 2012 

E-mail: OPA2.Resource@nrc.gov
At least two NRC resident inspectors are assigned to each U.S. commercial nuclear plant. 

They serve as the agency's eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, monitoring major 

work projects and interacting with plant workers and the public. Resident inspectors can serve at 

one site for up to seven years. 

The Browns Ferry resident inspectors can be reached at 256-729-6196.

###

NOTE: Anyone wishing to take photos or use a camera to record any portion of a NRC meeting should 

contact the Office of Public Affairs beforehand.

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Katherine M. Straw, Respondent. Rocky Point Union Free School District, Appellant; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 302]

*1099Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 17, 2005, which ruled that claimant was eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant, a guidance counselor employed by the Rocky Point Union Free School District, was suspended following several complaints about her work performance, including allegations that she had engaged in inappropriate physical contact with various students. The District’s superintendent advised claimant that he intended to recommend to the Board of Education at its next meeting that she be terminated. Although claimant had initially grieved the suspension through her union, she eventually entered into a written agreement whereby she withdrew her grievance and resigned and the District expunged from her record the proposed discharge and its basis. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board thereafter determined that claimant’s employment had ended in a nondisqualifying manner and, as such, she was eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. The District now appeals.

Whether a claimant has voluntarily left employment with good cause and, consequently, is entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and its determination in that regard will not be disturbed so long as it is supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Sims [Commissioner of Labor],*17 AD3d 905, 906 [2005]; *Matter of Mineo [County of Erie*— Commissioner *of Labor],*307 AD2d 611, 612 [2003]). Moreover, a claimant “ ‘who voluntarily leaves his or her position in the face of disciplinary charges may qualify for unemployment benefits if the actions did not amount to misconduct’ ” *(Matter of Jimenez [New York County Dist. Attorney’s Off.*— Commissioner *of Labor],*20 AD3d 843, 843 [2005], quoting *Matter of De Benedetto [Town of Brookhaven*— Sweeney], 244 AD2d 740, 740 [1997]). Here, the Board concluded that claimant agreed to surrender her right to continue the grievance process and resign pursuant to a negotiated settlement as a means of accepting the penalty of dismissal in order to protect her employment record *(see Matter of Bateman [Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Dept.*— Hartnett], 147 AD2d 738, 739 [1989]). The Board further determined that the District failed to demonstrate that claimant’s actions rose to the level of misconduct *(see id.).*Because the record contains substantial evidence supporting the Board’s factual findings, we affirm.

The District’s remaining contentions, to the extent not specifi*1100cally addressed herein, have been considered and found to be unavailing.

Crew III, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### § 970.509 Notice of issuance or transfer.

If the Administrator finds that the requirements of this part have been met, he will issue or transfer the license along with the appropriate terms, conditions and restrictions. Notification thereof will be made in writing to the applicant and in the Federal Register.
### §17304. Claim for replacement

(a) Presentation of Claim.—When valuables that have been shipped in accordance with regulations prescribed under section 17302 of this title are lost, destroyed, or damaged, a claim in writing for replacement shall be made on the Secretary of the Treasury.

(b) Decision of the Secretary of the Treasury.—

(1) Replacement made from fund.—If the Secretary is satisfied that the loss, destruction, or damage has occurred and that shipment was made substantially in accordance with the regulations, the Secretary shall have replacement be made out of the fund described in section 17303 of this title through an officer the Secretary designates.

(2) Replacement made by credit.—When the Secretary decides that any part of the replacement can be made, without actual or ultimate injury to the Federal Government, by a credit in the accounts of the executive department, independent establishment, agency, officer, employee, or other accountable person making the claim, the Secretary shall—

(A) certify the decision to the Comptroller General who, on receiving the certification, shall make the credit in the settlement of accounts in the Government Accountability Office; and

(B) use the fund only to the extent that the replacement cannot be made by the credit.

(c) Decision of Secretary Not Reviewable.—The decision of the Secretary that a loss, destruction, or damage has occurred or that a shipment was made substantially in accordance with regulations is final and conclusive and is not subject to review by any other officer of the Government.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1281; Pub. L. 108–271, §8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 17304(a), (b)(1) | 40:723 (1st sentence). | July 8, 1937, ch. 444, §3 (1st sentence, 2d sentence words before 2d proviso), 50 Stat. 479. |
| 17304(b)(2) | 40:723 (2d sentence 1st proviso). | |
| 17304(c) | 40:723 (2d sentence words before 1st proviso). | |

Section

In subsection (c), the words "Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary" are omitted as unnecessary.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Subsec. (b)(2)(A). Pub. L. 108–271 substituted "Government Accountability Office" for "General Accounting Office".
### SUBCHAPTER III–A—NATIONAL ALZHEIMER'S PROJECT
Docket Number FAA - 2012 - 0112