alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: 19-028 June 25, 2019

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200

NRC Considering Vermont’s Request to Become an Agreement State

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering a request from Vermont Gov. Philip B. 

Scott for the NRC to discontinue, and for Vermont to assume, regulatory authority over certain 

radioactive materials in the state. If the request is approved, Vermont will become the 39th state to 

sign such an agreement with the NRC.

Under the proposed agreement, Vermont would accept the responsibility for licensing, 

rulemaking, inspection and enforcement activities related to the industrial, medical and academic 

uses of radioactive material. The NRC would transfer 36 specific licenses for radioactive material to 

Vermont’s jurisdiction.

By law, the NRC would retain jurisdiction over the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, 

which is currently decommissioning, as well as federal agencies using certain nuclear material in 

the state.

Before entering into the agreement, the NRC must determine that Vermont’s radiation 

control program is adequate to protect public health and safety, and is compatible with the NRC’s 

regulations.

The proposed agreement between the NRC and Vermont, and the NRC staff’s draft 

assessment of the Vermont program, was published June 25 for public comment in the Federal 

Register and will be repeated weekly for four weeks. Comments may be submitted through July 25 

on the federal government’s rulemaking website under Docket ID NRC-2019-0114.

Copies of the proposed agreement, the governor’s request and supporting documents, and

the NRC draft staff assessment are available on the NRC website.

Thirty-eight other states have signed similar agreements with the NRC: Alabama, Arizona, 

Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, 

New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington,

Wisconsin and Wyoming.

More information about the Agreement State program is available on the NRC’s website.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Assessment of RELAP5/MOD3 With the SNUF Test Simulating Hot Leg Break LOCA in the View of Mass and Energy Release Analysis (NUREG/IA-0198)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0198 (PDF 4.21 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** February 2001

**Prepared by:** S. Joon Hong, G. Cherl Park Seoul National University San 56-1, Shillim-Dong, Kwanak-Gu Seoul, 151-742 KOREA

and

Y. Seok Bang, C-Y. Yang Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety 19 Gusung-Ding Yusung-Gu Taejon, 305-338 KOREA

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange under the International Code Application and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

SNUF experiment on hot leg break large break loss of coolant accident during post-blowdown was analyzed by RELAP5. As same with the procedure of SNUF experiment, normal operation and blowdown phase were simulated in order, and the initial condition was obtained and compared with the experimental initial condition. The analysis of post-blowdown phase showed that the behavior of primary pressure can be properly simulated by RELAP5 when sufficient heat source is modeled. Resultantly, the release from reactor side broken section and steam generator side broken section were properly predicted. The pressure rise in the second step of pressure behavior was partially well predicted, where the pressure increased by the steam generation in core. The release from the steam generator side broken section was predicted to be little except when there exits large pressure difference between primary system and break boundary. Break size did not affect much on the overall behavior to some degree.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
Order 201 2

- 10

- 5
Served: October 2 , 201 2



### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation
on the 2 nd day of October , 201 2

ORDER TERMINATING CARRIER

- SELECTION PROCEEDING

Summary By this O rder, the Department is vacating Order 2012

- 8

- 37 (August 30, 2012), thereby terminating the carrier

- selection proceeding for Dickinson, ND.

Background By Order 20 10

- 11

- 16 (November 16, 2010) , the Department reselected Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (Great Lakes) to provide subsidiz ed air service at Dickinson, ND for the two

- year period of February 1, 2011, through January 31, 2013. In anticipation of the end of that contract, we
initiated a new carrier

- selection proceeding by the issuance of Order 2012

- 8

- 37 (August 30, 2012) solici ting proposals from carriers interested in providing air service at Dickinson for a new contract period beginning February 1, 2013. On September 21, 2012, we received a notice from Great Lakes stating:

“ Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. is pleased to inform the Department of Transportation that based on recent increases in passenger traffic and the associated revenue, it will cease to require sub s idy at Dickinson, ND effective February 1, 2013. Great Lakes will continue to provide scheduled air service subsidy free beyond that date.”

Decision In light of these developments, we will terminate this carrier

- selection proceeding and rely on Great Lakes’ subsidy

- free service to fulfill Dickinson’s air service requirements. Air Service at

DICKINSON, NORTH DAKOTA

Under 49 U.S.C. § 4173 6 et seq

. Docket DOT

- OST

- 1995

- 697This O rder is issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR Part 1.56a (f) and re

- delegated to t he Director, Office of Aviation Analysis

.

ACCORDINGLY, 1. The Department vacates Order 2012

- 8

- 37

, terminating the carrier

- selection proceeding at Dickinson, North Dakota, and will rely on the subsidy

- free service of Great Lakes to meet
Dickinson’s air service needs;

2 . Docket DOT

- OST

- 1995

- 697 will remain open until further order of the Department; a nd

3

. We will serve copies of this O rder on the m ayor and a irport m anager of Dickinson, ND, Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd, and the service list for this docket

.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of this O rder under the Department’s
Avia tion Economic Regulations, 14 CFR Part 385.50, must file such petitions within ten (10) days after the date of service of this O rder.

This O rder will be effective immediately, and the filing of a petition for review shall not preclude its effectiveness.

By:

TODD M. HOMAN
Director Office of Aviation Analysis

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.regulations.gov/
No. 91-6133.

#### Puckett *v.*Texas.

Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist. Certiorari denied.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
TENSION STEEL INDUST RIES CO., LTD., Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

MAVERICK TUBE CORPOR ATION, Intervenor

- Defendant

- Appellant

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, BOOMERANG TUBE LLC, ENERGEX TUBE (A

DIVISION OF JMC STEE L GROUP), TEJAS TUBULAR PRODUCTS, TMK IPSCO, VALLOUREC STAR, L.P., WELDED T UBE USA INC., Intervenor

- Defendants

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MAVERICK TUBE CORPOR ATION, Plaintiff

- Appellant

BOOMERANG TUBE LLC, ENERGEX TUBE (A

DIVISION OF JMC STEE L GROUP), TEJAS TUBULAR PRODUCTS, TMK IPSCO, VALLOUR EC STAR, L.P., WELDED T UBE USA INC., UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORA TION, Intervenor

- Plaintiffsv.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

TENSION STEEL INDUST RIES CO., LTD., Intervenor

- Defendant

- Appellee

- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff

MAVERICK TUBE CORPOR ATION, Intervenor

- Plaintiff

- Appellant

BOOMERANG TUBE LLC, ENERGEX TUBE (A

DIVISION OF JMC STEE L GROUP), TEJAS TUBULAR PRODUCTS, TMK IPSCO, VALLOUREC STAR, L.P., WELDED T UBE USA INC., Intervenor

- Plaintiffs

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

TENSION STEEL INDUST RIES CO., LTD., Intervenor

- Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2017

- 2526

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Inter national Trade in No s . 1:14

- cv

- 00245

- LMG, 1:14

- cv

- 00218

- LMG, 1:14

- cv

- 00261

- LMG, Judge Leo M. Gordon.

______________________3

JUDGMENT

______________________

R OBERT E. D E F RANCESCO , III , Wiley Rein, LLP, Was hington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by A LAN H. P RICE , L AURA E L -S ABAAWI , C YNTHIA C RISTINA G ALVEZ , A DAM M ILAN T ESLIK

.

K ELLY A LICE S LATER , Appleton Luff Pte. Ltd., Was hington, DC, argued for appellee.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it i s

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE , C LEVENGER , and S TOLL , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

June 6, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
No. D-1062.

#### In re Disbarment of Tavolacci.

It is ordered that Peter P. Tavolacci, of Carmel, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Order entered January 2, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00003-CV

IN RE C.T. AND T.T., Relators

Original Proceeding from the 302nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13-21227-Z-265

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. 

We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5 
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,401,037               4,096,141
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  298,303                  99,998
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,699,340               4,196,139
<PP&E>                                       4,029,606               1,909,769
<DEPRECIATION>                                  95,937                  52,889
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,633,009               6,053,019
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          413,267                 301,390
<BONDS>                                      1,600,000               1,662,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        12,038                  11,952
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,001,448               6,955,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,633,009               6,053,019
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,191                   1,653
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  401,348                 140,231
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,000                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (421,157)               (138,578)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800                     800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (421,957)               (139,378)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (421,957)               (139,378)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)                  (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)                  (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PETRACOM HOLDINGS, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
MAR 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,675
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,431
<ALLOWANCES>                                       613
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,582
<PP&E>                                          18,751
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,317
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,946
<BONDS>                                        102,618
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,496
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                     (43,339)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,410
<SALES>                                          7,112
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,078
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    85
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,927
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,985)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        36
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,021)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,021)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 82-5743.

#### Moreno *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# Fraud Awareness (NUREG/BR-0147, Revision 2)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Introduction

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0147, Revision 2 (PDF - 8.39 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** July 2006

## Introduction

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) OIG Fraud Awareness Program was established to educate NRC employees about Federal statutes and regulations applicable to fraud, inform them about common schemes used to perpetrate fraud, and advise them of reporting obligations so that they can fulfill their obligations as Government employees.

This brochure has been prepared as part of OIG's ongoing efforts to educate, inform, and support you, the NRC employee, in avoiding and preventing fraud and abuse.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
#### Estate of Goyk: Goyk, Executrix, Plaintiff, vs. Goyk, Defendant. [Two appeals.]

*November 5*

December *4, 1934.*

*463The cause was submitted for the plaintiff on the brief of *Gauer & Kufalk*of Milwaukee, and for the defendant on that of *Rowan, Kalaher & Stoecker*and *Lorens & Lorens,*all of Milwaukee.

Fairchild, J.

The claimant, a son of Filippina Goyk, claims to have performed services for his mother while a member of her household on the promise that the real estate owned by her would be given to him upon her death. The agreement was not in writing. The services began in 1906. He also claims to have advanced cash and to have paid the taxes in the years 1914 and 1916. He kept no records. In giving his testimony he relies entirely upon his memory as to the character of the services rendered, the time of their performance, and their value. His mother died August 15, 1931. Such an agreement having been made, it would constitute sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the services were rendered gratuitously. *Estate of Goltz,*205 *464Wis. 590, 238 N. W. 374. The oral promise to convey land being void, the claimant is obliged to find his relief in a cause of action for the reasonable value of his services, compensation for which became due when the services were rendered. *Estate of Leu,*172 Wis. 530, 179 N. W. 796; *Murphy v. Burns, ante,*p. 248, 257 N. W. 136. The statute of limitations having begun to run immediately after the services were rendered, all items accruing more than six years before his mother’s death are outlawed. The evidence fails to be at all persuasive that any services of value were performed by Leon Goyk within the six-year period, and, because of his failure to meet the burden of proof with respect thereto, no allowance can be made.

The claimant urges that because of the failure on the part of the executrix to plead the statute of limitations, she cannot rely upon that defense. But sufficient answer to that contention may be found in sec. 313.05, Stats., which requires that the county court disallow claims barred by the statute of limitations. *Dreger v. Tarrant,*165 Wis. 414, 162 N. W. 481; *Murtha v. Donohoo,*149 Wis. 481, 134 N. W. 406, 136 N. W. 158; 4 Bryant’s Wis. Pl. & Pr. (Boesel & Henderson ed.), p. 365, § 704.

There are no facts established which are capable of supporting a finding of any amount due claimant from his mother for services rendered within six years of her death.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed upon the appeal of the executrix, and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the claim.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, David S. Graziosi, Chief Financial Officer, certifythat

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Resolution PerformanceProducts LLC and RPP Capital Corporation;

 

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrants’ as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrants’ other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrants’ and have:

 

a)  Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrants,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrants’ disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)  Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants’ fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.               The registrants’ other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrants’ auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrants’ board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a)  All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably like to adversely affect the registrants’ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrants’ internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: March 31, 2005

 
| By                                          |   /s/David S. Graziosi |   |
|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|--------|
| David S. Graziosi, Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
WAYNE W. TUCKER

,

Petitioner,

v.

JULIE L. JONES , SECRETARY,
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND WARDEN
LARRY W. MAYO OF
EVERGLADES CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION

,

Respondent s

.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRIC T, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 0699

Opinion filed January 21, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

– Original Jurisdiction

.

Wayne W. Tucker, pro se

, P etitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Tammy S. Metcalf, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent s

.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

WOLF, THOMAS, and WETHERELL, JJ., CONCUR.