alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC STARTS SPECIAL INSPECTION AT SUSQUEHANNA NUCLEAR PLANT

TO EVALUATE ISSUES REGARDING UNIT 2 UNPLANNED SHUTDOWN

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a Special Inspection at the Susquehanna 

nuclear power plant to review issues associated with an unplanned shutdown of the Unit 2 

reactor on Dec. 19. The inspection got under way today at the plant, which is located in Salem 

Township (Luzerne County), Pa., and operated by PPL.

The three-member Special Inspection Team will be tasked with evaluating the 

circumstances surrounding the Dec. 19 shutdown, when the reactor was at 18 percent power as it 

was returning to service from an automatic shutdown that took place on Dec. 16. Among other 

things, the inspectors will independently assess operator performance and management 

oversight; the company’s review of the event; and actions taken as a result of its review.

The inspectors’ work will build on earlier reviews done by the two NRC Resident 

Inspectors assigned to Susquehanna and by specialist inspectors who responded to the site 

immediately after the event. The inspectors reviewed the adequacy of PPL’s immediate 

corrective actions to address equipment and operator performance issues prior to plant restart on 

Dec. 26.

A problem involving the feedwater system, which is normally used to supply water to the 

reactor vessel for steam production, was the cause of the Dec. 19 shutdown. Specifically, all 

feedwater flow was temporarily lost when a valve failed to open as expected during plant startup.

“While the most recent shutdown did not present any immediate safety concerns for the 

public or plant workers, it was preceded by unplanned reactor shutdowns on Nov. 9 and Dec.16,” 

NRC Region I Administrator Bill Dean said. “Collectively, the shutdowns raise questions 

regarding operator performance, equipment reliability and, in the most recent event, decisionmaking. This inspection is warranted to further the NRC’s understanding of these issues and the 

company’s actions to address them.”

The NRC will issue a report on the results of the Special Inspection within 45 days of its 

completion.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region I 

2100 Renaissance Blvd., King of Prussia, Pa. 19406-2713

E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov 

Site: www.nrc.gov

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

No. I-13-002

Contact: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330

 Neil Sheehan, (610) 337-5331

Jan. 14, 2013

Email: opa1.resource@nrc.gov
###

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.
H. R. 3413 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1449 West 

Avenue in Bronx, New York, as the ‘‘Private Isaac T. Cortes Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. PRIVATE ISAAC T. CORTES POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, New York, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Private Isaac T. Cortes Post 

Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Private Isaac T. Cortes Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
No. II-13-016 April 16, 2013

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

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

NRC SCHEDULES CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS FLOOD-RELATED INSPECTION 

FINDINGS AT WATTS BAR AND SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANTS 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a conference with the 

Tennessee Valley Authority to discuss the risk significance of several NRC inspection findings 

and associated apparent violations related to the way TVA has analyzed and prepared for 

flooding at its Watts Bar and Sequoyah nuclear power plants.

The Watts Bar plant, which has one operating reactor and another completing 

construction, is located near Spring City, Tenn., about 60 miles southwest of Knoxville. The 

two-unit Sequoyah plant is located near Soddy-Daisy, Tenn., about 16 miles northeast of 

Chattanooga. 

The conference is scheduled for April 22 at 8 a.m. in the Marriott Marquis Hotel, Room 

A601, 265 Peachtree Center Ave. NE, in Atlanta. The public is invited to attend the meeting and 

NRC officials will be available to answer questions.

 

NRC and TVA officials will discuss the safety significance of three findings at Watts Bar 

and two at Sequoyah. Two of the Watts Bar findings and one at Sequoyah have preliminarily 

been classified as yellow, meaning they have substantial safety significance. 

The third finding at Watts Bar has preliminarily been classified as white, or low-tomoderate safety significance. The second finding at Sequoyah is classified as greater than green 

until the final determination has been made. The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at 

commercial nuclear power plants with a color-coded system which classifies findings as green, 

white, yellow or red in increasing order of safety significance.

Each plant also has an apparent violation for the failure to report an unanalyzed condition 

related to external flooding. Those violations are being reviewed under the NRC’s traditional 

enforcement policies.

No decision on the final safety significance or any possible enforcement action will be 

made at the conference. Those decisions will be made and the results will be announced by NRC 

officials at a later time.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 2000, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov
The NRC inspection report for the issues at Watts Bar and two inspection reports 

discussing the issues at Sequoyah, issued March 12 and March 18, can be found on the NRC 

website. 

###

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 re*Application of County Collector—(People *ex rel.*Cal Skinner, Jr., County Collector, McHenry County, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company *et al.,*Objectors-Appellees.)

(No. 72-136;

Second District

July 23, 1974.

William J. Cowlin, State’s Attorney, Caldwell, Berner & Caldwell, and Richard Cross, all of Woodstock, for appellant.

Kell & Conerty, of Woodstock, for appellee.

Opinion by

Mr. JUSTICE RECHENMACHER.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) I, Maurice B. Tosé, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer) of TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. (the Registrant), certify that to
the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 of the Registrant (the Report): (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant. /s/ Maurice B. Tosé
Maurice B. Tosé
Date: February 24, 2004
### Part B—Native American Organization and Elder Justice Provisions
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

36 37 38 39 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/15 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 15 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.81 N 76.74 WMeters AGL
### §8103. Application of District of Columbia laws to public buildings and grounds

(a) Application of Laws.—Laws and regulations of the District of Columbia for the protection of public or private property and the preservation of peace and order are extended to all public buildings and public grounds belonging to the Federal Government in the District of Columbia.

(b) Penalties.—A person shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than six months, or both if the person—

(1) is guilty of disorderly and unlawful conduct in or about those public buildings or public grounds;

(2) willfully injures the buildings or shrubs;

(3) pull downs, impairs, or otherwise injures any fence, wall, or other enclosure;

(4) injures any sink, culvert, pipe, hydrant, cistern, lamp, or bridge; or

(5) removes any stone, gravel, sand, or other property of the Government, or any other part of the public grounds or lots belonging to the Government in the District of Columbia.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1205.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 8103 | 40:101. | July 29, 1892, ch. 320, §15, 27 Stat. 325; Pub. L. 90–108, §2, Oct. 20, 1967, 81 Stat. 277. |

Section

In subsection (b), the word "enclosure" is substituted for "inclosure" to use the more understood term.
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

DESIGNATION OF CHAIR AND VICE

CHAIR OF THE CONTINUING JUDICIAL EDUCATION BOARD OF JUDGES :

:

:

:

:

: NO. 921

SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

A ND NOW, this 9 th day of November , 2022 , the Honorable Steven C. Tolliver, Sr

.,
is hereby designated as Chair

, and the Honorable Alice B. Dubow, is designated as Vice

Chair , of the Continuing Judicial Education Board of Judges , commencing December 31,

2022.
No. II-10-075 November 4, 2010 

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

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416 

NRC TO DISCUSS REVIEW OF AREVA NUCLEAR FUEL PLANT IN RICHLAND 

 

 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a meeting with AREVA NP, 

Inc. in Richland, Wash., for Wednesday, Nov. 17, to discuss the results of the agency’s review of 

the company’s commercial nuclear fuel fabrication plant. 

 The meeting is scheduled to be held at 1 p.m. (PST) in Conference Rooms A and B at the 

Richland Public Library, 955 Northgate Dr. in Richland. It will be open to members of the public 

and news media, and NRC officials will be available to answer questions about the facility’s 

regulatory performance and NRC oversight after the business portion of the meeting. 

 The NRC staff assessed performance at AREVA during a period beginning Aug. 14, 2008 

and ending Aug. 13, 2010. That performance was evaluated in the areas of safety operations, 

radiological controls, facility support, safeguards and special topics. The NRC staff review found 

that the plant continued to conduct its activities safely and no areas for improvement were 

identified. However, the NRC plans to conduct additional inspections of corrective actions listed in 

NRC orders issued during the review period. 

 “The NRC continually reviews regulatory safety performance at AREVA and all of the 

nation’s licensed nuclear facilities,” said Luis Reyes, administrator of the NRC Region II office in 

Atlanta. The meeting, he added, “is an opportunity to discuss that performance with the company 

and with people living near the plant.” 

 A copy of the NRC letter to the company discussing the review is publicly available online 

at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The number for that letter is ML102950064. 

### 

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. 

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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DAVID DIXON,

1

Respondent Below,

Appellant,

v.

EVERLY FIELDS,

Petitioner Below,

 Appellee.

§

§ No. 68, 2022

§

§ Court Below—Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ File No. CN14-02087

§ Petition No. 21-15364

§ 

§ 

§ 

 Submitted: July 22, 2022

 Decided: September 16, 2022

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and TRAYNOR, Justices.

O R D E R

(1) After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on 

appeal, we conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the 

Family Court’s order dated February 3, 2022. The appellee (“Mother”) filed a 

petition in the Family Court seeking to modify the appellant’s (“Father”) visitation 

with the parties’ child, which had been established in an order dated September 30, 

2019, after a full hearing on the merits, and continued in an order dated February 23, 

2021, after a hearing on a petition to modify custody filed by Father. 

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
2

(2) As an initial matter, with the exception of some interim provisions that 

were designed to facilitate the restoration of Father’s contact with the child—and 

which have now expired—it appears that the effect of the order that is the subject of 

this appeal was to deny Mother’s petition to modify Father’s visitation and continue 

the preexisting custody and visitation order. Therefore, it is not apparent what relief 

Father would achieve from success in this appeal. Moreover, the fact that Father 

disagrees with the Family Court’s factual determinations is not a basis for reversal. 

Factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous.

2

 

To the extent that the Family Court’s determination of facts turned on the credibility 

of the witnesses at the hearing, we will not substitute our opinion for that of the 

Family Court.3 Finally, it appears that Father seeks to relitigate matters previously 

presented to the Family Court by obtaining discovery or submitting additional 

evidence. After ample notice to the parties, the Family Court held an evidentiary 

hearing at which Father appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the 

issues raised by Mother’s petition; he therefore has not established a basis for the 

relief he seeks.

2

Shimel v. Shimel, 2019 WL 2142066, at *2 (Del. May 14, 2019).

3

Id.
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary T. Traynor

Justice
# % 

l3oci^4 bOT-osT-;^^^/^^^^ 

•'• ( jFPrOFIRANSPORIAJlON 

U.S.D«partmento/ 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Transportatidn i:3 ! •; f] C Wbshingtor, DC 20590 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

April 8,2010 

VIA FACSIMILE 

Mr. Thomas E. Heanue 

Executive Director 

Hattiesburg-Laurel Regional Aiiport Authority 

1002 Terminal Drive 

Moselle, Mississippi 39459 

Dear Mr. Heanue: 

I would like to update you on the essential air service situation at Laurel/Hattiesburg and give 

you an opportunity to submit comments, if you wish. 

As you know, in anticipation of the end of the current contract on June 30, 2010, by 

Order 2010-2-29, issued February 26, 2010, the Department solicited proposals from air 

earners interested in providing essential air* service at Laurel/Hattiesburg. In response to that 

order, we received proposals from Mesaba Aviation, Inc. (the incumbent), and Sovereign Air, 

Inc. 

In addition to our brief description below, the proposals, as well as Order 2010-2-29, can be 

viewed online at www .regulations. gov, by doing a search on Docket DOT-OST-2001-10685, 

Mesaba proposes to continue operating its current level of service, i.e., 14 nonstop round trips 

per week to Memphis International Aii*port, operating as Delta Cormection, with 34-seat 

Saab 340 aircraft, at the annual subsidy rate of $1,398,798. 

Sovereign Air proposes to provide four nonstop round trips per day to Louis Armstrong New 

Orleans International Airport with 19-seat Jetstream 32 aircraft at the annual subsidy rate of 

$999,248. We note that Sovereign does not currently have the requisite operating authority 

from either the Department or the Federal Aviation Administration to operate the service it 

proposes, although it has applied for such authority. 

Please note that proposed schedules are illustrative and the carriers may make schedule 

changes to reflect changing conditions. The Department expects subsidized air caniers to 

maintain well-timed and well-spaced flights to ensure full compensation. 
My purpose in writing to you at this time is to give you an opportunity to submit any final 

comments you might have on the proposed service. We request that you review this 

information as expeditiously as possible and submit any comments you may have as soon as 

possible, but in any case no later than May 7, 2010. We will carefully consider your 

comments before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for a final decision. 

If you have questions, or if you find that you need additional time to draft your comments, 

please let us know. 

Please submit your comments to me at: EAS@dot.gov 

In addition, we would appreciate if you would email your comments to both 

dennis.devanV@dot.gov and renee. williams ©dot.gov. You should also send a copy of your 

comments to both applicants. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or 

Ren6e Williams of my staff at 202-366-1058. 

An identical letter has been sent to the Mayors of Laurel and Hattiesburg, MS. 

Sincerely, 

Dennis J. DeVaViy, Chief 0 

EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis
ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT

to the

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
of
UNICO, INCORPORATED

Pursuant to the provisions of the Arizona Code, the undersigned corporation adopts the following Articles of Amendment to its Articles of Incorporation:



FIRST:  The name of the corporation is Unico, Incorporated.



SECOND:  Article IV of the Articles of Incorporation is amended in its entirety in the manner prescribed by the Arizona Code so as to read as follows:

ARTICLE IV.  The authorized capital stock of this corporation shall consist of five billion (5,000,000,000) shares of common stock, $0.001 par value, said stock to be paid for at such time and in such manner as the Board of Directors may designate, and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of preferred stock, $0.001 par value, said stock to be issued in such manner and having such preferences, limitations and relative rights as the board of directors may designate, as permitted by the Arizona Code.  Such stock shall be issued as fully paid and shall be forever non-assessable. The judgment of the board of directors as to the value of the property taken, or services rendered in exchange for stock, shall be conclusive in the absence of fraud.  No stockholder shall have pre-emptive rights as to any stock now or hereinafter authorized to be issued, but the issuance of stock shall be in the sole discretion of the Board of Directors.



THIRD:  The foregoing amendment was adopted by the vote of the shareholders on February 2, 2006.



FOURTH:  The number of shares of the Corporation outstanding at the time of such adoption was 498,427,896 common shares (1 vote per share) and 10,000,000 Series A Preferred Shares (non-voting); and the number of shares entitled to vote thereon was 498,427,896.  The number of shares indisputably represented at the meeting where the vote occurred was 463,265,250.



FIFTH:  The number of shares voted for such amendment was 346,808,276; and the number of shares voted against such amendment was 110,631,677.  5,825,297 shares abstained.  The number of shares voted for the amendment was sufficient for approval of the amendment.



SIXTH: The foregoing amendment does not effect an exchange,
reclassification or cancellation of shares.



SEVENTH. The amount of stated capital after the amendment is $5,000,000.



Dated this 2nd day of February, 2006

UNICO, INCORPORATED

By /s/ Mark A. Lopez

Mark A. Lopez, Chief Executive Officer

and /s/ C. Wayne Hartle                                  C. Wayne Hartle, Secretary
§ 971.202 Statement of technological experience and capabilities. ( a ) *General.* The application must contain information sufficient to demonstrate to the Administrator pursuant to § 971.301 that, upon issuance or transfer of the permit, the applicant will have the technological capability to carry out, in accordance with the regulations contained in this part, the commercial recovery program set out in the applicant's commercial recovery plan.
( b ) *Specific.* In particular, the information submitted pursuant to this section must describe the equipment, knowledge, and skills the applicant possesses, or to which it can demonstrate access [see § 971.200(e)]. The information must include: ( 1 ) A description of the technology or the equipment and methods to be used by the applicant in carrying out each step in the mining process, including nodule collection, retrieval, transfer to ship, environmental monitoring, transport to processing facilities, nodule processing, waste disposal and compliance with applicable water quality standards. The description must include: ( i ) An analysis of the performance of experimental systems, sub-systems, or analogous machinery;
( ii ) The rationale for extrapolating from test results to commercial mining. The more test data offered with the application the less analysis will be expected; and
( iii ) Anticipated system reliability within the context of anticipated production time lost through equipment failure.
( 2 ) A functional description of the types of technical persons on whom the applicant will rely to operate its equipment.
Unassociated Document


    AMENDMENT
      TO A STOCK TRANSFER CONTRACT

     

    This
      amendment to a stock transfer contract dated September 3, 2005 is hereby amended
      to have all payments still due to be extended to June 30, 2006. This contract
      is
      extended due to certain funds not becoming available to pay off the existing
      note. A total of 100,000 has been paid to date and it is the position of
      Indigo-Energy that it will pay off the note by June 30, 2005 if not before
      that
      date.

    


    We
      expect
      to pay 25,000 per month beginning the end of February 2006 and ending on the
      30th
      day of
      August 2006, the final payment being a balloon of monies still owed. Accelerated
      payment can and probably will occur and the note will be paid off
      early.

    


    This
      modification is given this 28th
      day of
      January 2006 under the hand of Leo F. Moore of 704 Willow Street, Mannington,
      West Virginia. All other non-conflicting requirements of the original contract
      still are in order and stand.

     

    
      	 	 	 	 
	\s\
              Leo F.
              Moore 	 	 	 
	
              

            	 	 	
            
	Leo
              F.
              Moore