alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

July 29, 2010

Ms. Karen Magliano, Manager

Air Quality Data Branch

Planning and Technical Support Division

Air Resources Board

California Environmental Protection Agency

P.O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812

Dear Ms. Magliano:

Thank you for your submission of the Exceptional Events Demonstration for High Ozone 

in the Sacramento Regional Nonattainment Area Due to Wildfires, dated September 17, 2009. 

This demonstration requests the exclusion of twenty-three 1-hour ozone exceedances (covering 

five different monitors and six different days) due to influence of wildfire emissions. We 

appreciate the effort you, your staff, and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District (AQMD) have invested in developing an approach to document flagged exceedances in 

accordance with the Exceptional Events Rule (EER), and we look forward to working with you 

to further develop this approach to meet the requirements of the EER while also making effective 

use of our collective resources. 

The documentation you have provided contains information that is useful supporting 

evidence that the wildfires caused these exceedances, but does not yet fully meet the 

requirements of the EER under 40 CFR Part 50.14. Our primary concerns include the following:

1. The documentation focuses on fire’s effect on smoke and on PM2.5 at the monitors 

more than on ozone, the object of the request. For example, we would expect your 

documentation to include a unifying conceptual model of the ozone episode that 

relates the exceptional event (wildfire) to the monitored exceedance (high ozone). 

Both this qualitative explanation of the general causal relationship and supporting 

data from the site (e.g. pollutant ratios and diurnal pattern comparisons) are

necessary. 

2. The demonstration should compare and contrast the exceedance days with similar 

days, typical high ozone days not affected by fires, and perhaps even other nonexceeding nearby monitors to provide evidence that the fire was an exceptional 

cause of the ozone exceedance, more likely than other scenarios.
Enclosed with this letter are EPA’s comments on the exceptional event package,

including requests for specific information that would address the concerns and work towards

satisfying the rule requirements. We look forward to discussing these comments and other 

aspects of this review with you and your staff in person on August 17. 

We appreciate your willingness to work closely with us on this challenging issue. If you 

have any questions regarding this letter in the meantime, please feel free to contact me at (415) 

972-3851 or Kate Hoag of my staff at (415) 972-3970.

Sincerely,

/s/

Matthew Lakin

Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office

Enclosure

cc: Gayle Sweigert, California ARB

Brigette Tollstrup, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# Reactor Oversight Process (NUREG/BR-0508, Revision 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Background

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0508, Revision 1 (PDF - 1.46 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published: April 2016**

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

## Background

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) is the agency's program to inspect, measure, and assess the safety and security performance of commercial nuclear power plants. It also responds to declining licensee performance. The ROP contributes to the NRC's mission of ensuring public health and safety, promoting the common defense and security, and protecting the environment during the operation of commercial nuclear power plants by monitoring plant performance in three strategic performance areas: 
        - Reactor Safety:  avoiding accidents and reducing the consequences of accidents if they occur
        - Radiation Safety:  protecting both plant workers and the public from unnecessary radiation exposure during routine operations
        - Safeguards:  protecting the plant against sabotage and other security threats

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. 97-31163

Summary Calendar

_____________________

LIONEL GALLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BROWN & ROOT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(90-CV-2791)

_________________________________________________________________

July 14, 1998

Before SMITH, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lionel Galley appeals the 23 October 1997 denial of his 13

August 1997 FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the

district court’s 12 January 1993 order dismissing his Jones Act

claim for want of prosecution. Galley contends that he is entitled

to such relief because the district court misled him into believing

that an order of dismissal had not been entered, and that the
- 2 -

district court led him to believe that there was no time limit on

prosecuting his claim, once his initial complaint had been filed.

The record reveals that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the Rule 60(b)(6) motion, see Lancaster v.

Presley, 35 F.3d 229, 231 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S.

1026 (1995), in that Galley falls far short of demonstrating the

existence of “extraordinary circumstances” warranting such

extraordinary relief. See Government Fin. Servs. One Ltd.

Partnership v. Peyton Place, Inc., 62 F.3d 767, 773-74 (5th Cir.

1995); Hester Int’l Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 879 F.2d

170, 174 (5th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED
#### Patterson *et al.*legatees of Patterson, deceased *v.*Mark Patterson and Sellars, Defendants.

A person made a party defendant in a bill, who is not compellable to answer, and against who?» no relief is sought, may have the bill dismissed as to him.

The bill stated a will made by the deceased, containing dispositions of the testator’s property, which went to the Defendant, *Mark Patterson,*or at least a considerable part thereof, in case of the deceased’s intestacy, it stated that *Mark Patterson*and *Sellars*(who it did hot appear had any interest in the destruction of the will) had fraudulently, and with intent to secrete the same, gotten possession of the said will, and secreted it. *Sel-lars*demurred, because the charge iti the hill, if true, subjected him to a criminal prosecution, and that he was therefore not bound to answer, and there was no relief prayed in the bill as to him.

it was argued at the bar, though it might be true, that he was not compellable to answer, that was no proof but that he might be continued in Court — for if the Com-, piainant could prove the charge, he might have a de.cree against *Sellars,*notwithstanding he was not obliged to. answer ; and for this was cited *Mitfonl*64, 65. 2 *Ves.*246. *E contra,*it was argued, that it was admitted he could not be compelled to answer, and that as the bili prayed no relief against him, there could be no reason lor keeping him any longer in Court.

*Per curiam.*

It seems a little contradictory, that this man might be compelled in a Court of Daw to answer *193this charge upon oath, as he might be by *1777, c,*2. *s.*62, and that a Court of Equity should not have as large a power forthe discovery of such a fraud ; hut with some reluctance the Court allowed the demurrer, and dismissed the bill as to *Sellars*— for no relief being prayed in the bill against him, and be not bring compellable to make a discovery, it was úseles to keep him longer in Court.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Large-Scale Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Metal Sorption onto the Basal Surfaces of Clay Minerals (NUREG/CR-6757)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6757 (PDF - 1.85 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** October 2001**Date Published:** February 2002

**Prepared by:** D. M. Teter, R. T. Cygan

Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 87185-0750

E. O'Donnell, 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 W6811

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Large-scale molecular dynamics computer simulations have been completed to evaluate the sorption of Cs+, Sr2+, and other related ions onto the (001) basal planes of kaolinite and montmorillonite. Simulations were undertaken as a function of metal ion concentration to evaluate sorption mechanisms and to determine distribution coefficients (Kd's). The simulations show that Cs+ ions bind to both kaolinite and montmorillonite, while Sr2+ ions tend to remain in solution. At high ionic strengths (greater than 0.5 M), the fundamental mechanism for Cs+ sorption to the aluminol plane of kaolinite is through the formation of CsCI complexes where the CI ion is loosely bound to the outer hydroxyl groups. At lower concentrations (0.1 M and 0.01 M), the Cs+ ions do not sorb to the aluminol plane, but prefer to bind adjacent to the center of the six-membered ring silica tetrahedral sheet as an inner-sphere complex. We have determined a Kd of 10 ± 4 ml/g for kaolinite to sorb Cs+ ions from a 0.01M SrCl2 solution, and a Kd of 0 for kaolinite to sorb Sr2+ ions from a 0.01M SrCl2 solution. For the case of montmorillonite, we have determined a Kd of 293 ± 30 ml/g to sorb Cs+ ions from a 0.1M CsCl solution, and a Kd of 11 ± 4 ml/g to sorb Sr2+ ions from a 0.1M SrCl2 solution. The montmorillonite sorbs the cations more effectively than kaolinite because it has negatively charged sorption sites that are created by isomorphic substitutions on both tetrahedral and octahedral sites. Calculations show that the Sr2+ ion is solvated more strongly than Cs+and is not sorbed by the kaolinite or montmorillonite surfaces. Directions for further work are outlined and prioritized.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition at September 30, 1998
(Unaudited) and the Consolidated Statement of Income for the three months
ended September 30, 1998 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          18,076
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,076
<PP&E>                                       4,266,596
<DEPRECIATION>                               (200,142)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,084,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          833,562
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        51,196
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,119,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,250,968
<SALES>                                        121,698
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               121,698
<CGS>                                           42,875
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                81,574
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,751)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.006)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.006)
        

</TABLE>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Analysis of the VTI Test Data on the Behavior of the Heated Rod Temperatures in the Partially Uncovered VVER-440 Core Model Using RELAP5/MOD3.2.2 Gamma (NUREG/IA-0208)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0208 (PDF 4.40 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** July 2002

**Prepared by:****V.A. Vinogradov, and A.Y. Balykin

Russian Research Center "Kurchatov Institute" Kurchatov Square 1 123182, Moscow, Russia

**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

This report has been prepared as a part of the Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange under the International Code Application and Maintenance Program.

VTI test data on the behavior of the heated rod temperatures in the partially uncovered VVER-440 core model were simulated with RELAP5/MOD3.2.2GAMMA to assess the code, especially its heat transfer models for modeling phenomena in the partially uncovered core under Small Break LOCA conditions. This problem addresses the phenomena of high importance to VVER-440 safety.

Series of the experiments have been carried out in the VVER-440 loop model at the VTI Test Facility which are directly related to this issue. Two tests conducted in the stationary conditions with the transition mode of a steam flow in the core channel were chosen for the assessment calculations with the code.

Experimental VVER-440 loop model includes the models of all the main elements of a reactor, loop's hot leg model and cold leg simulator, and also a steam generator simulator with an active heat removal. The fuel assembly model consists of 19 electrically heated rod simulators of 9.1 mm outer diameter and 2.5 m heated height. The rod simulators are composed in the rod bundle in a hexagonal array with a pitch equal 12.2 mm (P/D=1.34).

First a study of the effect of the hydraulic nodalization to the code results was performed using different number of hydraulic volumes for the core model. After the choice of proper nodalization and maximum user-specified time step, the base case calculations were done for the tests. The differences between the code predictions for the behavior of rod's wall temperatures and test data are described and analyzed.

Sensitivity studies were carried out to investigate the influence of an increase in the calculated coefficients of heat transfer from the heated rods to a steam flow on the axial distribution of rod's wall temperatures in the uncovered part of core model.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1559 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1559

    To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to 
 establish a United States Ambassador at Large for Arctic Affairs, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2017

 Mr. Sensenbrenner (for himself, Mr. Young of Alaska, Ms. Pingree, and 
Mr. Garamendi) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to 
 establish a United States Ambassador at Large for Arctic Affairs, 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 ``United States Ambassador at Large 
for Arctic Affairs Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR AT LARGE FOR ARCTIC AFFAIRS.

    Title I of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 
U.S.C. 2651a et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
section:

``SEC. 63. UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR AT LARGE FOR ARCTIC AFFAIRS.

    ``(a) Establishment.--There is established within the Department of 
State an Ambassador at Large for Arctic Affairs (referred to in this 
section as the `Ambassador'), appointed in accordance with subsection 
(b).
    ``(b) Appointment.--The Ambassador shall be appointed by the 
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
    ``(c) Duties.--
            ``(1) Diplomatic representation.--Subject to the direction 
        of the President and the Secretary of State, the Ambassador is 
        authorized to represent the United States in matters and cases 
        relevant to Arctic affairs in--
                    ``(A) contacts with foreign governments, 
                intergovernmental organizations, and specialized 
                agencies of the United Nations, the Arctic Council, and 
                other international organizations of which the United 
                States is a member; and
                    ``(B) multilateral conferences and meetings 
                relating to Arctic affairs.
            ``(2) Chair of the arctic council.--The Ambassador shall 
        serve as the Chair of the Arctic Council when the United States 
        holds the Chairmanship of the Arctic Council.
            ``(3) Policies and procedures.--The Ambassador shall 
        coordinate United States Arctic policies.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.1Cronos Global Income Fund XVI, L.P.Rule 13a-14 CERTIFICATION     I, Dennis J. Tietz, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cronos Global Income Fund XVI, L.P.(the “Partnership”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Partnership as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of thePartnership, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Partnership and wehave:          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;and          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, based on our evaluation; and          (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Partnership’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (thePartnership’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting.     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Partnership’s auditors and the Audit Committeeof Partnership’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thePartnership’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 havea significant role in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 13, 2006   /s/ DENNIS J. TIETZ Dennis J. Tietz  President of CCC  (Chief Executive Officer)