alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2682

BARBARA HOFFMANN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL HOFFMANN; JOSEPH ROUSE; PAT BELL,

States Attorney; STATE OF MARYLAND; JUDGE

MANAK,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96-

3031-AMD)

Submitted: January 21, 1997 Decided: February 6, 1997

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barbara Hoffmann, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's orders dismissing

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), as amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, Pub. L.No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321,

Appellant's personal injury claim and denying her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hoffmann v. Hoffmann, No. CA-96-3031-AMD (D. Md. Oct. 21 and Nov. 21, 1996). 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
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Effects of Deregulation on Safety:  Implications Drawn From The Aviation, Rail and United Kingdom Nuclear Power Industries (NUREG/CR-6735)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6735 (PDF 16.17 MB)

## Publication Information

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

**Prepared by:** V.M. Bier, University of Wisconsin-Madison J.K. Joosten, Connect-USA.com J.D. Glyer, J.A. Tracey, M.P. Welsh, Laurits R. Christensen Associates, Inc.

Center for Human Performance and Risk Analysis University of Wisconsin-Madison 1513 University Avenue Madison, WI 53706

Connect-USA.com 25131 Chambliss Court Gaithersburg, MD 20882

Laurits R. Christensen Associates, Inc. 4610 University Avenue Madison, WI 53705

Paul M. Lewis, 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 K6892

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Changes associated with economic deregulation of the U.S. electricity supply industry are causing major restructuring, with the potential to affect nuclear power safety. This study was undertaken to identify possible consequences of deregulation for nuclear power safety. A historical case study approach was adopted (using literature reviews and interviews), focusing on the U.S. aviation and rail industries and the United Kingdom nuclear power industry because of their relevance to the U.S. nuclear power industry. Overall, the experience of the case study industries suggests that economic deregulation need not be incompatible with a reasonable safety record, especially in areas where safety is positively related to productivity. However, safety clearly cannot be taken for granted after deregulation, since adverse effects on safety were observed in each of the three case study industries. Among the most notable of those involved financial pressures, safety culture problems associated with mergers and acquisitions, increased use of contractors, and downsizing. The magnitude and speed of such changes can create major challenges to the management of safety. Careful review and study of the problems observed in the case studies may make it possible to identify proactive ways of minimizing similar safety problems in the U.S. nuclear power industry.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Analysis of Main Steam Line Break Accident for 3-Loop PWR with RELAP5/MOD3.3 Code (NUREG/IA-0527)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0527 (PDF - 1.63 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**February 2021**Date Published:**August 2021

**Prepared by:**Chunkuan Shih, Jong-Rong Wang, Chih-Chia Chiang, Yuh-Ming Ferng, Shao-Wen Chen, and Tzu-Yao Yu*National Tsing Hua University and Nuclear and New Energy Education and Research Foundation 101 Section 2, Kuang Fu Rd.,HsinChu, Taiwan*Department of Nuclear Safety, Taiwan Power Company242, Section 3, Roosevelt Rd., Zhongzheng District, Taipei, TaiwanK. Tien, NRC Project ManagerDivision of Systems AnalysisOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001Prepared as part ofThe Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange Under the Thermal-Hydraulic Code Applications and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

Availability Notice

## Abstract

In Taiwan, many prediction analysis for different purposes are investigated with different system codes, such as RELAP5 developed by US NRC. The main purpose of this study was to simulate Maanshan NPP PWR Main Steam Line break (MSLB) inside-containment by using RELAP5/MOD3.3, and then to discuss the results of this model by referring to Maanshan FSAR. Furthermore, sensitivity study of discharge coefficient is also included. In addition, the peak cladding temperature is maintaining under the criteria value in 10CFR50.46 and the results of this RELAP5/MOD3.3 model indicates reasonable thermal-hydraulic phenomena and presents good agreements with FSAR. The sensitivity analysis results show that the variations of break flow rate were governed by discharge coefficient. This study demonstrated that a methodology of RELAP5/MOD3.3 model for Maanshan PWR has been successfully developed, and the present simulation results and analysis can be used for safety analyses and further transient applications.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, September 01, 2021
<!--/* //NOSONAR */-->
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	Reversing America’s Eroding Military Edge in the Pacific: A Conversation with INDOPACOM Commander Admiral Philip S. Davidson
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4870" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/Joint/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/55/INDOPACOM2018_100x100.png?ver=J6xEsvouw9aaqHcHjhoIIQ%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">Reversing America’s Eroding Military Edge in the Pacific: A Conversation with INDOPACOM Commander Admiral Philip S. Davidson</h1>
    </div>
    

    <div><b>By ADM Phil Davidson</b> <span class="date">/ Published Oct. 15, 2020</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    <p><strong>                                                            Reversing America’s Eroding Military Edge in the Pacific: </strong></p>

<p><strong>                                                 A Conversation with INDOPACOM Commander Admiral Philip S. Davidson</strong><br />
<br />
                                                                                        <strong>Date: October 13, 2020</strong><br />
<br />
Hosted by FDD’s Center on Military and Political Power and FDD’s China Program, Reversing America’s Eroding Military Edge in the Pacific features a discussion with INDOPACOM Commander Admiral Phil Davidson to discuss why and how the United States must strengthen efforts in the Indo-Pacific to protect American interests and deter aggression from Beijing.<br />
<br />
<strong><a href="https://www.fdd.org/events/2020/10/13/reversing-americas-eroding-military-edge-in-the-pacific/" target="_blank">Click here to view Video:  </a></strong></p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
<br />
</div>
    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Manual of Respiratory Protection Against Airborne Radioactive Material (NUREG/CR-0041, Revision 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-0041, Revision 1 (PDF - 9.67 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 2000**Date Published:** January 2001

**Prepared by:** K. Paul Steinmeyer

Radiation Safety Associates, Inc. 19 Pendleton Drive, P.O. Box 107 Hebron, CT 06248

**NRC Technical Monitors:** A.K. Roecklein S. Sherbini J.E. Wigginton

**Prepared for:** Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission****Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code J2660

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This Manual provides information to assist respirator users and program staff in establishing a respiratory protection program that is in compliance with NRC regulations. It may also be of use to managers, supervisors, engineers and workers who may need to understand respirators, their uses, and their limitations. Chapter 1 provides a brief history of respirator regulations and discusses the applicability of OSHA's respiratory protection rules at an NRC-licensed facility. Chapter 2 covers evaluations to determine whether or not the use of respirators results in doses that are as low as reasonably achievable, and factoring hazards other than radiological hazards into decision making. Chapter 3 addresses respiratory protection procedures and programs, while Chapter 4 gives extensive information on respirators and related equipment including care, use and storage of this equipment. Chapter 5 offers advice on user-related issues such as medical evaluation, training and fit testing. Finally, Chapter 6 supplies information about personnel safety issues that may be related to respiratory protection, and addresses both radiological and non-radiological topics. A list of references and resources is included at the end of each chapter, which also provides e-mail addresses for various sources of information.

Appendices describe the human respiratory system, particle collection mechanisms, a method for calculating effective protection factors for supplied-air respirators in a tritium environment, forms for medical screening and for reporting medical status, and a copy of the "Rainbow Passage" for use during fit testing.

Front matter includes a list of acronyms and abbreviations, a list of NRC circulars, bulletins and notices related to respiratory protection, and a list of outdated NRC guidance documents on this topic.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT OF OMNIPOINT CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         235,700 
<SECURITIES>                                    45,848 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,010 
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,816 
<INVENTORY>                                     26,786 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               392,810 
<PP&E>                                         954,197 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (86,574)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,984,355 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          311,740 
<BONDS>                                        478,471 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                    265,732 
<COMMON>                                           527 
<OTHER-SE>                                    (497,962)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,984,355 
<SALES>                                         73,634 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,257 
<CGS>                                          113,369 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              92,232 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (294,019)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (11,115)
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  (305,134)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (5.88)    
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (5.88)     
                                                         

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
                           ---------------------------
                                DECEMBER 31, 2002
                                -----------------
                                                         State or Country
                      Name                               of Incorporation
-------------------------------------------------     -----------------------

Domestic
--------
   A H Investments LTD.                                     Delaware
   Ayerst-Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Incorporated                Delaware
   CICL Corporation                                         Delaware
   MDP Holdings, Inc.                                       Delaware
   Route 24 Holdings, Inc.                                  Delaware
   Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.                              Delaware
   Scientific Protein Laboratories Inc.                     Illinois
   Wyeth Holdings Corporation                               Maine
   Wyeth-Ayerst International Inc.                          New York
   Wyeth-Ayerst Lederle, Inc.                               Puerto Rico
   Wyeth-Whitehall Pharmaceuticals, Inc.                    Puerto Rico
   Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Company, Inc.                      Puerto Rico
   Berdan Insurance Company                                 Vermont


Foreign
-------
   Laboratorios Wyeth-Whitehall Ltda.                       Brazil
   Wyeth Canada, Inc.                                       Canada
   John Wyeth & Brother Limited                             England
   Wyeth-Lederle                                            France
   Wyeth-Pharma GmbH                                        Germany
   AHP Finance Ireland Limited                              Ireland
   Wyeth Lederle S.p.A.                                     Italy
   Wyeth Lederle Japan, Ltd.                                Japan
   Wyeth S.A. de C.V.                                       Mexico
   AHP Manufacturing B.V.                                   Netherlands
   Wyeth Philippines, Inc.                                  Philippines
   Wyeth Nutritionals (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.                 Singapore
   Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.              Singapore
   Wyeth Farma S.A.                                         Spain
   Wyeth Lederle Nordiska A.B.                              Sweden
   Dimminaco AG                                             Switzerland
   Wyeth Taiwan Corporation                                 Taiwan

There have been omitted from the above list the names of the subsidiaries which,
considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a
significant subsidiary.
No: II-19-016 April 16, 2019

Contact: Roger Hannah, 404-997-4417

 Joey Ledford, 404-997-4416

NRC Schedules Open House to Discuss

Robinson Nuclear Power Plant Performance

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house for April 24 to 

provide information and answer questions regarding the safety performance of the Robinson nuclear 

power plant, including the recent annual assessment letter covering all of 2018.

The open house will run from 6-7 p.m. at the Hartsville Library, 147 W. College Ave., 

Hartsville, S.C. NRC employees responsible for plant inspections, including the resident inspectors 

based full-time at the site, will be available at the open house.

The Robinson plant, operated by Duke Energy, is located near Hartsville, approximately 26 

miles northwest of Florence.

The NRC concluded that the Robinson nuclear power plant operated safely during 2018. At 

the end of the year, all inspection findings and performance indicators were green or of low safety 

significance. As a result, the single Robinson unit remains under the NRC’s normal level of 

oversight, which entails thousands of hours of inspection each year.

The NRC Reactor Oversight Process uses color-coded inspection findings and indicators to 

measure plant performance. The colors start at green and increase to white, yellow or red, 

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. Inspection findings or 

performance indicators with more than very low safety significance trigger increased NRC 

oversight.

Inspections are performed by the NRC resident inspectors and inspection specialists from 

the NRC Region II office in Atlanta.

The annual assessment letter, which includes upcoming inspection plans for the plant, is 

available on the NRC website. Current performance information for Robinson is also on the website 

and is updated on a quarterly basis.
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OR 15d-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Greg Pendura, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Resin Systems Inc.;

2.

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

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the issuer and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Dated:

March 31, 2006

/s/ Greg Pendura

Greg Pendura
President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Estate of Langenbach: Langenbach, Administratrix, Appellant, vs. Barrett and others, Respondents.

*March 4*

April 1, *1930.*

*337The cause was submitted for the appellant on the briefs of *Henry C. Oakey*of Osceola, and for the respondents on that of *Howard D. Blanding*of St. Croix Falls.

*338Rosenberry, C. J.

We have made a careful study of the record in this case in an effort to make final disposition of it, but we are unable to do so with any assurance that we are making a proper determination of the issues. While it is true that the fact that the administratrix had inventoried the cattle as belonging to the estate might be considered in determining whether or not she had a half interest, the inventory certainly was not conclusive. She was quite apparently inexperienced in business, may not have informed her attorney, may not have thought it necessary. At any rate the court should have permitted an inquiry to ascertain what the fact was. Having erroneously excluded all the evidence on the ground that it tended *to*vary a written instrument, there is nothing here upon which a determination of that question can be based. Certainly the parol-evidence rule in regard to the terms of a contract do not apply to an inventory. 5 Wigmore, Evidence (2d ed.) § 2405 *et seq.*An inventory is not conclusive; it is presumptive evidence of the facts therein stated as against the person who made it.

The testimony fails to disclose under what arrangement if any Stine operated the Rusk county farm. Some matters are testified to which indicate that it was a cropping arrangement. If so, it might well be that the administratrix had no right to dispose of the cattle until the end of the year or the end of the season at least. Evidence should have been adduced to show the circumstances under which Stine was in possession of the farm and stock. There is nothing of that kind in the record. The mere fact that milch cows sell for less in October than they might have brought in May is not by itself ground for surcharging the account of the ad-ministratrix in the absence of some misconduct on her part. Diminution in the value of the assets of an estate may occur without fault of an administratrix. The situation on the farm may have been such that it was for the best interests of the estate to retain the stock, pasture the land, sell the milk, rather than to make disposition of the stock in May.

*339Relevant and material testimony in the case is very meager and unsatisfactory. In this connection we may also suggest that the record is not properly condensed. Much printing might have been saved. The printed case is npt properly arranged; the briefs do not have an outline of argument such as is required by the rule. Under the circumstances we find it necessary to reverse that part of the judgment appealed from and send the matter back for a retrial. In view of the state of the record neither party will recover costs. The appellant will pay the clerk’s fees in this court.

*By the Court.*— That part of the judgment appealed from is reversed, and cause remanded for' further proceedings as indicated in this opinion.