alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
P. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1867 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 18 ) ll-B-7 2 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/2/20086:27:19AM

Sheet 18of 95

## A-90-1 9 ll-B-7 2 P. 2



## PENDING CONFIDENTIAL

Th e following informatio n i s locate d i n th e ^Cu\'iL "IifeiHilfflypKET file s o f th e Director , Emissio n Standard s Division , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning an d Standards , U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 27711 . Thi s informatio n i s confidentia l pending fina l determinatio n b yth e Administrato r an

d i s no t availabl e fo r publi c inspection . W . Floyd , Radia n Corporation , t o Proces s Vent s Docke t A-90-19 , January1991 , HO NNESHAP : Industry Characteristics/n-Buty l Acrylate . 5 6 pages . CB I Documen t Contro l No . 86/23 , PPS-72 .
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1998

# NRC Order to Florida Power Corp. Confirms Agreement to Complete Fire Barrier  Corrective Actions

----

----

No. 98-83

May 27, 1998

**NRC ORDER TO FLORIDA POWER CORP. CONFIRMS AGREEMENT TO COMPLETE FIRE BARRIER CORRECTIVE ACTIONS**

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a confirmatory order to the Florida Power Corporation confirming the utility's commitment to complete Thermo-Lag fire barrier corrective actions at its Crystal River 3 nuclear power plant by June 30, 2000. The plant is located near Crystal River, Florida.

In a letter to Florida Power Corp. officials, Sam Collins, Director of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, said the order was issued because of concern "that some licensees may not be making adequate progress toward resolving the plant-specific issues, and that some implementation schedules may either be too tenuous or too protracted." Crystal River 3 is one of the plants that have completion action scheduled beyond 1997.

Thermo-Lag is a fire barrier material manufactured and supplied by Thermal Science, Inc., of St. Louis, Missouri, and has been used to provide fire-resistance to wiring and equipment at nuclear plants. The NRC staff has been concerned that Thermo-Lag 330-1 fire barrier systems installed by some of its licensees may not provide the intended level of fire protection and that licensees using them may not be meeting regulatory requirements. Between 1992 and 1994, the NRC staff issued letters to all nuclear utilities asking licensees to submit plans and schedules for resolving the issue. All licensees with Thermo-Lag fire barriers have implemented around-the-clock "fire watches," using workers to patrol vital plant areas on a regular basis to watch for signs of fire until corrective actions are completed.

In his letter to Florida Power Corp. officials, Collins noted that NRC staff have been meeting with licensees to review their progress in completing implementation of their fire barrier programs, but have been concerned with slow progress on resolution of the issue at certain plants.

Florida Power Corp. was one of the licensees with which NRC staff has periodically held meetings. At these meetings, the NRC staff reviewed Florida Power Corp.'s schedule for Thermo-Lag corrective actions and concluded they are reasonable. The company formally agreed on May 6 to the terms of the confirmatory order.

Other utilities are expected to receive similar orders in the coming months.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1922

DWAYNE MORRISON, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

 Defendant – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, 

District Judge. (4:07-cv-00003-RAJ-JEB) 

Submitted: February 2, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dwayne Morrison, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Eric Wilson, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Dwayne Morrison appeals the district court’s order 

granting Defendant’s summary judgment motion on his retaliation 

claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000).* We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Morrison 

v. Nicholson, No. 4:07-cv-00003-RAJ-JEB (E.D. Va. filed July 11, 

2008; entered July 14, 2008). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED 

 *

 Although Morrison’s complaint also asserted that he was 

unlawfully terminated because of his race, Morrison withdrew 

this discrimination claim during the course of proceedings 

before the district court.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1778 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                 Union Calendar No. 410
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1778

                          [Report No. 115-545]

 To provide that an order by the Secretary of the Interior imposing a 
moratorium on Federal coal leasing shall not take effect unless a joint 
       resolution of approval is enacted, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2017

 Ms. Cheney (for herself, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. McKinley, and 
 Mr. Rothfus) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

                            February 5, 2018

    Additional sponsors: Mr. Gosar and Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia

                            February 5, 2018

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that an order by the Secretary of the Interior imposing a 
moratorium on Federal coal leasing shall not take effect unless a joint 
       resolution of approval is enacted, 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. CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR ORDER BY SECRETARY OF THE 
              INTERIOR IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON FEDERAL COAL LEASING.

    An order by the Secretary of the Interior imposing a moratorium on 
Federal coal leasing shall have no force or effect unless--
            (1) the Secretary submits to Congress the proposed order; 
        and
            (2) a joint resolution that approves the order is enacted 
        within 30 legislative days after the proposed order is received 
        by Congress.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 410

115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1778

                          [Report No. 115-545]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To provide that an order by the Secretary of the Interior imposing a 
moratorium on Federal coal leasing shall not take effect unless a joint 
       resolution of approval is enacted, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            February 5, 2018

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# Federal Protections Against National Origin Discrimination (NUREG/BR-0459)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Introduction

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0459 (PDF - 390.66 KB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** September 2009

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

## Introduction

Federal laws prohibit discrimination based on a person’s national origin, race, color, religion, disability, sex, and familial status. Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination make it illegal to discriminate because of a person’s birthplace, ancestry, culture or language. This means people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country, because they have a name or accent associated with a national origin group, because they participate in certain customs associated with a national origin group, or because they are married to or associate with people of a certain national origin.

The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division is concerned that national origin discrimination may go unreported in the United States because victims of discrimination do not know their legal rights, or may be afraid to complain to the government. To address this problem, the Civil Rights Division has established a National Origin Working Group to help citizens and immigrants better understand and exercise their legal rights. If you think you, or someone you know, has been discriminated against because of national origin and want to learn more about exercising your legal rights, you should read this brochure.

This brochure explains the laws prohibiting national origin discrimination and provides some examples. You may find additional information about the Civil Rights Division and its Sections on the internet at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt. You may contact the Division to report complaints of discrimination as explained below.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 02-50016

AGAPE METRO HOUSING, INC; DOMICILE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC;

PEPPERIDGE PARTNERS, LP

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(01-CV-978)

December 11, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM*:

Appellants Agape Metro Housing, Inc., Domicile Property

Management, Inc. and Pepperidge Partners, L.P. (collectively

“Agape”) filed suit in Texas state court against General Star

Indemnity Co. (“General Star”) alleging breach of contract, breach

of good faith, and violations of the Texas Insurance Code Articles
G:\opin\02-50016.opn.hrd.wpd 2

21.21 and 21.55. The complaint stemmed from an insurance policy

issued by General Star to Agape for apartments located in San

Antonio, Texas. General Star removed the action to federal court

and Agape sought to remand the action back to state court pursuant

to a “service of suit” clause contained in the insurance policy.

The district court denied the motion to remand and sua sponte

dismissed the action on res judicata grounds because a federal

court had already entered a declaratory judgment as to the

applicability of the insurance policy at issue as to Agape. Agape

now appeals.

Having carefully reviewed the record of this case and the

parties’ respective briefing, we conclude that the district court

did not err in denying Agape’s motion to remand to state court

and did not err in dismissing Agape’s claims sua sponte based on

res judicata. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s decision.

AFFIRMED.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# POLIDENT: A Module for Generating Continuous-Energy Cross Sections From ENDF Resonance Data (NUREG/CR-6694)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6694 (PDF - 5.08 MB) 

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** November 2000**Date Published:** December 2000

**Prepared by:** M.E. Dunn, N.M. Greene

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Managed by UT-Battelle, LLC Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6370

D.D. Ebert NRC Project Manager

**Prepared for:** Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission****Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code W6479

Availability Notice

## Abstract

POLIDENT (POint LIbraries of Data from ENDF/B Tapes) is an AMPX module that accesses the resonance parameters from File 2 of an ENDF/B library and constructs the continuous-energy cross sections in the resonance energy region. The cross sections in the resonance range are subsequently combined with the File 3 background data to construct the cross-section representation over the complete energy range. POLIDENT has the capability to process all resonance reactions that are identified in File 2 of the ENDFIB library. In addition, the code has the capability to process the single- and multi-level Breit-Wigner, Reich-Moore and Adler-Adler resonance formalisms that are identified in File 2. POLIDENT uses a robust energy-mesh-generation scheme that determines the minimum, maximum and points of inflection in the cross-section function in the resolved-resonance region. Furthermore, POLIDENT processes all continuous-energy cross-section reactions that are identified in File 3 of the ENDFIB library and outputs all reactions in an ENDF/B TAB 1 format that can be accessed by other AMPX modules.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Advanced Nondestructive Evaluation for Steam Generator Tubing (NUREG/CR-6746)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6746 (PDF 6.74 MB)            - Errata (PDF 6.28) 

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** August 2001**Date Published:** September 2001

**Prepared by:** S. Bakhtiari, J.Y. Park, D.S. Kupperman, S. Majumdar, W.J. Shack

Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439

J. Muscara, NRC Project Manager

**Prepared for:** Division of Engineering Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission****Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code W6487

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report describes research activities carried out at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) as part of the Steam Generator (SG) Tube Integrity Program sponsored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). As a follow-up to a preceding publication on the assessment of advanced nondestructive evaluation (NDE) techniques for inservice inspection of steam generator tubing. This report provides an overview of more recent studies associated primarily with signal processing and data analysis techniques applied to eddy current NDE. Results of efforts made to date on implementation of various algorithms that pertain to computer-aided analysis of eddy current rotating probe data are discussed. As a benchmark for NDE accuracy, production and destructive characterization of specimens with laboratory-induced cracking are described. The effect of uncertainties in NDE estimates of flaw size on the prediction of tube structural integrity is addressed.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited financial statements of Berthel Fisher & Company Leasing, Inc. as of
March 31, 2000, and the three months ended March 31, 2000, and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         237,305
<SECURITIES>                                 1,072,272
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,910,219
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (499,929)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         446,525
<DEPRECIATION>                               (266,175)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,253,492
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          382,488
<BONDS>                                      5,732,889
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,621,422
<COMMON>                                       884,705
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,368,012)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,253,492
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               361,575
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               310,893
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,405
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             129,523
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (88,246)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (30,858)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (57,388)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (57,388)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)


</TABLE>
#### NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION CO., appellant, v. MARATHON PIPE LINE COMPANY and United States.

No. 81-150.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Dec. 23, 1982.

The application of the Solicitor General to further extend the stay of the judgment is denied.
No: IV-19-001 January 7, 2019

Contact: Victor Dricks, 817-200-1128

NRC Names New Resident Inspector at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has selected Russ Bywater as 

the new resident inspector at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in 

Wintersburg, Ariz.

Bywater joined the NRC in 1990 as a reactor engineer in the NRC’s 

Region III office in Glen Ellyn, Ill. He also served as a resident inspector at 

the Prairie Island nuclear power plant in Minnesota. He transferred to 

NRC’s Region IV office in Arlington, Texas, in 1997. He served as an 

engineering inspector, as a senior resident inspector at the Arkansas 

Nuclear One power plant in Russellville, Ark., as a senior reactor analyst, 

and as chief of an engineering branch in the Division of Reactor Safety.

In 2008, Bywater left the agency for work in private industry in new reactor licensing. He also 

worked as an independent nuclear safety consultant. Bywater taught high school engineering and 

physics classes for five years in Texas before rejoining the agency earlier this year as a project 

engineer.

Bywater holds bachelor’s degrees in physics and mathematics from Nebraska Wesleyan 

University in Lincoln, Neb., and a master’s degree in nuclear engineering from Iowa State University in 

Ames, Iowa. 

Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant site has at least two NRC resident inspectors. 

Bywater joins senior resident inspector Charles Peabody and resident inspector David You. They serve 

as the agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, monitoring significant work 

projects, and interacting with plant workers and the public.
#### In the Matter of Thomas O. EVERY, Debtor.

Bankruptcy No. MM7-81-00558.

United States Bankruptcy Court, W. D. Wisconsin.

Feb. 16, 1982.

*686James L. Martin, James D. Sweet, John A. Heibl, Mark Williamson, Eugene Thompson and Thomas R. Oberwetter, Madison, Wis., for creditors.

William J. Rameker of Murphy, Stolper, Brewster & Desmond, S. C., Madison, Wis., for trustee.

Ross & Stevens, S. C. by Denis P. Bartell, Madison, Wis., for Thomas 0. Every, debt- or.

ORDER

ROBERT D. MARTIN, Bankruptcy Judge.

Upon a hearing held February 16, 1982, at which Denis P. Bartell appeared for and with the debtor, Thomas 0. Every, and additional appearances were made by William J. Rameker, Trustee, James L. Martin, James Sweet, John Heibl, Mark Williamson, Eugene Thompson and Thomas Oberwetter, representing creditors, the application of the debtor for dismissal of the chapter 7 proceeding filed against him as an involuntary proceeding on March 31, 1981, was considered. The debtor represented that he was prepared in the near future to tender full payment of all administration expenses and, thereafter, the only remaining creditors would be creditors who were fully secured by interests in the debtor’s property or in property of the bankruptcy estate. The debtor argued that the creditors remaining after the proposed payment of administration expenses could have adequate relief in state court proceedings and that the Bankruptcy Code was not designed for their protection and benefit.

An affidavit in opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed by T. C. Bugel on behalf of Hooper Construction Corporation and three creditors appearing at the hearing spoke in opposition to the motion to dismiss. Each objecting creditor had reduced its claim to judgment in a state court proceeding and had a judgment lien against real estate.

11 U.S.C. § 707 provides for dismissal of a bankruptcy petition for cause, after notice and a hearing. The legislative history indicates that the adequacy of the debtor’s assets or the debtor’s ability to repay do not constitute adequate cause for dismissal.1 In addition, 11 U.S.C. § 305(a)(1) indicates the appropriate standard for dismissal when setting forth the causes for abstention, stating that dismissal should occur if “the interests of creditors and the debtor would be better served by such dismissal or suspension.”

In this case, the creditors apparently believe that their remedies may be more swiftly and more beneficially employed in this bankruptcy proceeding. The delays inherent in a dismissal and commencement of individual foreclosure proceedings in the state court can be reasonably anticipated. Dismissal would require extended time and forbearance on the part of the creditors and to that extent would prejudice those creditors. *In re Williams,*15 B.R. 655, 8 B.C.D. 539 (E.D.Mo.1981).

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion of the debtor to dismiss his chapter 7 case be and hereby is denied.

1

. H.R.Rep.No.95-595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 380 (1977), S.Rep.No.95-989, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess. 94 (1978), U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1978, at 5787.