alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1998

# NRC Staff to Meet with Public to Discuss Future Dresden Unit 1 Decommissioning  Activities

----

----

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-98-42

July 7, 1998

**NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH PUBLIC TO DISCUSS FUTURE DRESDEN UNIT 1 DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES**

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a public meeting on July 23 to discuss the plans for future decommissioning of Unit 1 of the Dresden Nuclear Power Station. The three-unit station is located near Morris, Illinois.

Before it was permanently shut down in 1978, the Unit 1 reactor had operated for 18 years. It is in long-term safe storage with the reactor fuel stored in fuel storage pools at the plant site. Commonwealth Edison Co., owner of the plant, currently plans to dismantle the unit when operating Units 2 and 3 are ready for decommissioning, scheduled for 2011.

The meeting will be at 7 p.m. in the Grundy County Administration Center, 1320 Union Street, Morris, Illinois.

The program will include presentations by the NRC on the regulatory decommissioning process and by Commonwealth Edison on the status of decommissioning activities. A question and answer period will follow.

Commonwealth Edison is conducting limited decontamination and dismantlement of equipment and systems that are no longer required to maintain the unit while it is in the safe storage condition. Non-radiological work conducted at Unit 1 included the removal of asbestos from the facility.

Under NRC decommissioning regulations, utilities are permitted to immediately dismantle the plant or to place it in safe storage for a period of time before full dismantlement of the facility, provided certain regulations are met.

Two years before it is ready to terminate Unit 1's license, Commonwealth Edison is required to submit a final plan to the NRC. This plan, among other things, must describe any remaining radioactivity on the site, the final radiation survey details and the site's planned end-use. NRC will hold a public meeting near the plant to discuss the utility's plans and receive public comments. There will also be an opportunity for a public hearing regarding the utility's license termination plans.

NRC, which has been conducting inspections at Unit 1, will continue to do so during the decommissioning process. The agency will also independently evaluate the radiological condition of the plant site before the license is terminated.

In 1993, NRC approved the utility's decommissioning plan for Dresden Unit 1. Last month, Commonwealth Edison submitted an updated Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report. This report, which provides the unit's radiological condition and schedule of planned activities, is available for public inspection at the Morris Area Public Library District, 605 Liberty Street, in Morris, Illinois.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
[641 NYS2d 126]

#### In the Matter of Robert Fassberg, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

Second Department,

April 22, 1996

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert H. Straus,*Brooklyn *(Mark DeWan*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Clayman & Rosenberg,*New York City *(Susan Brotman*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

In this proceeding, the respondent is charged with two al*333legations of professional misconduct. The Special Referee sustained both charges. The Grievance Committee and the respondent have each moved to confirm the report of the Special Referee.

Charge One alleged that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct in that he was convicted of a serious crime. On March 15, 1995, the respondent was convicted in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, upon his plea of guilty, of offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law § 175.30, a class A misdemeanor. The respondent was sentenced to a conditional discharge and a $10,000 fine. By reason of the foregoing, the respondent violated Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (A) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4]).

Charge Two alleged that by the actions described in Charge One, the respondent has engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (A) (8) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [8]). The "false instrument” which was offered for filing was a false New York State and City Resident Income Tax Return for the calendar year 1992.

Based on the respondent’s admissions, the Special Referee properly sustained the charges. Accordingly, the motion and cross motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee are granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to impose, we have considered the mitigation evidence offered by the respondent, including the character references submitted on his behalf, his expressed remorse, and his previously unblemished record after approximately 33 years in practice. Under the circumstances, the respondent is censured for his professional misconduct.

Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Balletta, Rosenblatt and Florio, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the petitioner’s motion and the respondent’s cross motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee are granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent, Robert Fassberg, is hereby censured.
No: I-19-026 October 21, 2019

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331

New NRC Senior Resident Inspector Assigned to R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia, Pa., have 

selected Jason Schussler as the new senior resident inspector at the R.E. Ginna 

Nuclear Power Plant. The Ontario, N.Y., facility is operated by Exelon 

Nuclear.

Schussler joined the NRC’s Region I office as a project engineer in 

2015. Most recently, he was the Ginna resident inspector. Prior to joining the 

agency, he worked as a mechanical engineering supervisor at the Norfolk 

Naval Shipyard. He holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from 

Clarkson University in Potsdam, N.Y. 

Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors. 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 be assigned to 

any one site for up to seven years.
**EXHIBIT 12.1****CERTIFICATIONS**     I, Roberto Vivo-Chaneton, Chief Executive Officer of Claxson Interactive Group Inc., (the“Company” or “Registrant”), certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of the Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred ruing the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyeffect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.Dated:September 20, 2006                                                      /s/ Roberto Vivo-Chaneton   Roberto Vivo-Chaneton   Chief Executive Officer
APPENDIX C 

Page 1 

SMALL COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 

DOCKET DOT-OST-2012-0069 

SUMMARY INFORMATION

All applicants must submit this information with their proposal, along with a completed form SF424 on 

http://www.grants.gov. 

A. APPLICANT INFORMATION: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) 

⌧ Not a Consortium Interstate Consortium Intrastate Consortium 

Community now receives EAS subsidy 

⌧ Community (or Consortium member) previously received a Small Community Grant 

 If previous recipient: Date of grant: 09/15/2004 Expiration date of grant: 08/17/2006 

 Federal Funds Requested: $625,000.00 

 Carrier(s) Service Obtained: Northwest Airlines 

 Destination(s) Served: Detroit 

B. PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS: (LIST ORGANIZATION NAMES) 

Public Private

1. Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport 1. Greater Pittston Chamber of Commerce 

2. Luzerne County 2. Greater Pocono Chamber of Commerce 

3. Lackawanna County 3. Greater Scranton Chamber of Commerce 

4. 4. Greater Wilkes-Barre Chamber of Comm. 

5. 5. Lackawanna Co. Conv. & Visitors Bur. 

 6. Luzerne Co. Conv. & Visitors Bureau 

 7. W-B/Scranton Penguins AAA Hockey 

C. PROJECT PROPOSAL: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) 

⌧ Marketing ⌧ Upgrade Aircraft ⌧ New Route 

Travel Bank ⌧ Service Restoration ⌧ Subsidy 

Surface Transportation ⌧ Regional Service Revenue Guarantee 

⌧ Launch New Carrier ⌧ Start-Up Cost Offset First Service 

Study ⌧ Secure Additional Service Other (explain below) 
APPENDIX C 

Page 2 

D. EXISTING LANDING AIDS AT LOCAL AIRPORT: 

⌧ Full ILS Outer/Middle Marker ⌧ Published Instrument Approach 

⌧ Localizer Other (specify) 

E. PROJECT COST: DO NOT ENTER TEXT IN SHADED AREA

LINE DESCRIPTION SUB TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT

1 Federal Amount Requested $ 500,000 

2 State cash financial contributions $ 0 

Local cash financial contribution 

3a Airport cash funds $ 100,000 

3b Non-airport cash funds $ 200,000 

3 Total local cash funds (3a + 3b) $ 300,000 

4 TOTAL CASH FUNDING (1+2+3) $ 800,000 

In-Kind Contribution 

5a Airport In-Kind contribution** $ 280,000 (est.) 

5b Other In-Kind contribution** $ 30,400 

5 TOTAL IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION 

(5a + 5b) 

 

$ 310,400 (est.) 

6 TOTAL PROJECT COST (4+5) $ 1,110,400 (est.) 

F. IN-KIND CONTRIBUIONS** 

For funds in lines 5a (Airport In-Kind contribution) and 5b (Other In-Kind contribution, please describe 

the source(s) of fund(s) for each. 

5a. minimum 6 month waiver of landing fees/space rentals, billboard usage, direct mail campaigns 

5b. ad placements, trade show exposure, staff fulfillments, mailings, web site exposure/ads, newsletter 

 inserts 
APPENDIX C 

Page 3 

F. IS THIS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS? 

a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process 

 for review on (date) _____________. 

b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372, but has not been selected by the State for review. 

⌧ c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372. 

G. IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT? (IF “YES”, PROVIDE EXPLANATION) 

⌧ No Yes (explain) _____________________________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1545 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1545

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the authority of the 
 Secretary of Veterans Affairs to disclose certain patient information 
   to State controlled substance monitoring programs, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2017

 Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire (for herself, Mr. Wenstrup, Mr. Bergman, 
 and Ms. Brownley of California) introduced the following bill; which 
           was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the authority of the 
 Secretary of Veterans Affairs to disclose certain patient information 
   to State controlled substance monitoring programs, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``VA Prescription Data Accountability 
Act 2017''.

SEC. 2. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS DISCLOSURE OF PATIENT INFORMATION 
              TO STATE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE MONITORING PROGRAMS.

    Section 5701(l) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Under'';
            (2) by striking ``a veteran or the dependent of a veteran'' 
        and inserting ``a covered individual''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) In this subsection, a `covered individual' is an individual 
who is dispensed medication prescribed by an employee of the Department 
or by a non-Department provider authorized to prescribe such medication 
by the Department.''.
                                 <all>
```
Manufacturer/ Importer (in·u.S.) 

## U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

## NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURE OR lMPOHT(
..cFR§720.1o•>

• (For Consolidated submissions, eacti substance must have a separate NOC form

with the specnic identity of each chemical substance.)

(if chemical identity is claimed 

### CBI'):


## VII - Substance Confidentiality o<au..o<>. 

# O Iwish to continue to claim the substance identityconfidential and the substantiation tosupportthis claim is attached. Failure to submitthe required substantiation in accordanC!l with 40 CFR 720.85(b) will result in awaiverofyour claim. 

# 0 I previously claimed the substance identity 

### asconfidential and hereby relinquish that claim. 

# Q Idid not claim the substance identity as confidential in my originai·PMN submission. You must submit your completed notice no laterthan 30 calendardays alterthe first date of commercial manufacture/importation to Mailing addresS: - - Address using courier service: USEPA Document Control Officer OPPT Document Control Office {7407M) TSCA Confidential Business Information Center 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Room 6428 Washington, D.C. 20460 EPA East Building ATTN: Notice of Commencement 1201 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20004-3302 Telephone: 202-564-8930 or 202-564-8940 Date 

### EPA Form 7710-56 (8-95)
#### Estate of Allis: First Wisconsin Trust Company, Executor and trustee, Appellant, vs. Kuder and another, Respondents.

*November 14*

December *9, 1924.*

*Wills: Trust estates: Income arising intermediate the death of testator and the vesting of the estate.*

The question as to whether a life tenant is entitled to the income arising from an estate subsequent to the death of the testator is discussed and settled in *Will of Leitsch,*which was argued with this case, and is decided herewith *{ante,*p. 257).

Appeal from a judgment of the county court of Milwaukee county: M. S. Sheridan, Judge.

*Reversed.*

For the appellant there was a brief by *Bloodgood, Kem-per & Bloodgood,*attorneys, and *Jackson B. Kemper,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Jackson B. Kemper.*

For the respondent *Kinder*there was a brief by *Fawsett, Smart <& Shea*of Milwaukee.

*Joseph H. Marshuiz*of Milwaukee, as guardian *ad litem.*

Owen, J.

This case comes here upon the appeal of the executor of the will of Mary S. Allis, deceased, from a judgment of the county court of Milwaukee county construing the will of said Mary S. Allis, deceased, and declaring the true construction thereof to be that the life tenant is not *268entitled to any part of the income of the residuary estate received or to be received by said executor from any part of the assets of said estate in his hands as executor, but that such income so received is to be added to and become a part of the *corpus*of said estate. In entering said judgment the county judge relied upon the decision of this court in *Estate of Lyons,*183 Wis. 276, 197 N. W. 710.

This case was argued with the case entitled *Will of Leitsch,*decided herewith *{ante,*p. 257, 201 N. W. 284). The opinion in that case discusses and settles the question here presented as to whether the life tenant is entitled to the income of the estate from the date of the death of the testator, it being there held that under language such as employed in the will of the deceased (which it is not necessary to recite) the life tenant is entitled to the income arising from the estate subsequent to the death of the testator.

It therefore follows that the judgment appealed from should be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment declaring the true meaning and construction of the will to be that the life tenant is entitled to the income of the residuary estate from and after the date of the death of the testator.

*By the Court.*— So ordered.
#### Will of Fuller: Hjerstedt, Appellant, vs. Fuller, Executor, Respondent.

*May 10*

June *21, 1926.*

*Witnesses: Competency: Transactions with deceased persons: Testimony as to services rendered deceased and the value thereof.*

Sec. 325.16, Stats., does not render a claimant incompetent to testify in support of a claim against the estate of a deceased person that he performed services for the deceased and their nature and reasonable value.

Appeal from a judgment of the county court of Barron county: A. F. Wright, Judge.

*Reversed.*

For the appellant there was a brief by *Charles E. Briere*of Wisconsin Rapids and *Charles A. Taylor*of Barron, and oral argument by *Mr. Briere.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *W. N. Fuller*of Cumberland, Executor, *in pro. per.,*and *Coe Brothers*of Barron and *Fuller & Lampson*of Cumberland, attorneys, and oral argument by *Mr. Fuller.*

Rosenberry, J.

Claimant filed a claim for $160 on account of professional services rendered as a professional nurse to the deceased. The claim was supported solely by the testimony of the claimant as to the extent and nature of the services and their value. The court was of the opinion that the claimant was incompetent to testify as to the nature of the services and the amount of services rendered because they constituted a transaction with a deceased person from whom she was claiming; that under *446sec. 325.16, Stats, (formerly sec. 4069), she was not a competent witness.

It has been held in at least four cases that a claimant may testify in support of a claim against the estate of a deceased person that claimant rendered the services, the nature of the services, and their reasonable value. *Estate of Happel-Bossi,*133 Wis. 119, 113 N. W. 433; *Belden v. Scott,*65 Wis. 425, 27 N. W. 356; *Gardner v. Young’s Estate,*163 Wis. 241, 157 N. W. 787; *Sucke v. Hutchinson,*97 Wis. 373, 72 N. W. 880.

Respondent attempts to distinguish these cases from the case at bar, but they are not distinguishable. A different rule prevails in other jurisdictions. Counsel for respondent have made an interesting argument supported by authorities from other jurisdictions. The question, however, is not an open one in this jurisdiction, and we are not disposed to further extend a rule which is itself the subject of much criticism and one which has in some jurisdictions been modified or abrogated. See 1 Wigmore, Evidence (2d ed.) p. 1005, § 578.

*By the Court.*— The judgment appealed from is reversed, with directions to enter judgment for claimant.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Maritime Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the names of the members of the Performance Review Board.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William “Todd” Cole, Director, Office of Human Resources, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Sec. 4314(c)(1) through (5) of title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more performance review boards. The board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.

Mario Cordero,

Chairman.

The Members of the Performance Review Board Are:

1. Rebecca F. Dye, Commissioner

2. Richard A. Lidinsky, Jr., Commissioner

3. Michael A. Khouri, Commissioner

4. William P. Doyle, Commissioner

5. Clay G. Guthridge, Administrative Law Judge

6. Erin M. Wirth, Administrative Law Judge

7. Florence A. Carr, Director, Bureau of Trade Analysis

8. Rebecca A. Fenneman, Director, office of Consumer Affairs & Dispute Resolution Services

9. Karen V. Gregory, Secretary

10. Vern W. Hill, Director, Managing Director

11. Peter J. King, Director, Bureau of Enforcement

12. Sandra L. Kusumoto, Bureau of Certification and Licensing

[FR Doc. 2015-01206 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P