alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1997

# NRC to Accept Public Comments at November 6 Meeting Regarding Decommissioning of Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant

----

----

I-97-140

October 28, 1997

NRC TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENTS AT NOVEMBER 6 MEETING REGARDING DECOMMISSIONING OF MAINE YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will solicit comments from the public regarding decommissioning plans for the Maine Yankee nuclear power plant on Thursday, November 6, at Wiscasset Senior High School. The meeting will be held from 7 to 10 p.m. at the school, located in Wiscasset, Maine.

On August 6, Maine Yankee's Board of Directors voted to permanently close the Wiscasset reactor. Subsequently, in accordance with NRC regulations, plant operator Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company submitted a Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report to the agency on August 27. The report outlines plans for terminating the facility and cleaning up the site.

Maine Yankee has chosen the DECON option for decommissioning the site. DECON is the alternative under which the equipment, structures and portions of the facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be released for unrestricted use shortly after operations cease. Maine Yankee intends to complete the decontamination and dismantlement of the majority of plant structures within approximately seven years of cessation of operations.

At the November 6 meeting, the NRC will do the following: receive public comments regarding health and safety issues and the protection of the environment during decommissioning; provide an opportunity for state and local representatives to participate; describe the utility's planned activities; and describe the regulatory process for decommissioning. In addition, the utility will discuss its plans for decommissioning the facility.

The meeting will be transcribed by a court reporter.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
No: III-19-004 March 13, 2019

Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng, 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil, 630-829-9663

NRC to Hold Open House to Discuss

2018 Performance of Clinton Nuclear Power Plant

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will discuss the 2018 safety performance of the 

Clinton nuclear power station, operated by Exelon Generation Co., during the Clinton Area 

Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Bureau’s Business Expo on March 27, in Clinton, Ill.

The business expo will be held from 4-7 p.m. at Clinton High School, 1200 Highway 54, in 

Clinton. NRC employees responsible for plant inspections, including the resident inspectors based 

full-time at the site, will be available to discuss the Clinton plant’s performance.

Clinton operated safely during 2018. At the end of the year, all inspection findings and 

performance indicators were of very low safety significance. As a result, it 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 two NRC resident inspectors and inspection specialists from 

the Region III office located in Lisle, Ill.

The annual assessment letter for Clinton, as well as the notice for the event, are available on 

the NRC website. Current performance information is also available.
No. 107,

Orig.

#### Michigan *v.*Meese, Attorney General of the United States.

Motion for leave to file bill of complaint denied.
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of

well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the

public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that

Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40438

Conference Calendar

__________________

DON WAYNE BASEY,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES A. COLLINS, Director,

Texas Department of Criminal

Justice, Institutional Division;

WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas

Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division; JOHN

STICE, Deputy Director; LESLIE

W. WOODS,

 Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-95-CV-41

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

December 21, 1995

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Don Wayne Basey moves this court for leave to proceed on

appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the dismissal without

prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
No. 95-40438

-2-

Because Basey does not challenge whether the district court

properly dismissed his action for failure to file a complete

application for IFP status, but instead argues the merits of his

claims, he has not addressed the proper issue on appeal. The

district court did not, however, abuse its discretion in

dismissing Basey's action without prejudice.

Basey fails to raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. 

Basey's motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED. Because the

appeal is frivolous, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Basey argues, as he has previously, that prison officials

intentionally delayed information to allow him to timely complete

his IFP application in the district court. His contention is

without merit. Basey is setting a pattern of abuse that will not

be tolerated. Accordingly, Basey is hereby sanctioned in the

amount of $100, and he is barred from filing any further civil,

pro se, in forma pauperis appeals in this court, without the

advance written permission of a judge of this court, until the

sanction is paid. Basey is cautioned to avoid any filings with

this meritless contention.
No: II-19-021 April 18, 2019

Contact: Roger Hannah, 404-997-4417

 Joey Ledford, 404-997-4416

NRC Schedules Open House to Discuss

Surry Nuclear Power Plant Performance

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house for April 30 to 

provide information and answer questions about the safety performance of the Surry nuclear power 

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

The open house will run from 5-6 p.m. at the Surry Government Center General District 

Courtroom Lobby, 45 School St., Surry, Va. NRC employees responsible for plant inspections, 

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

The two-unit Surry plant, operated by Dominion Energy, is located near Surry, 

approximately 17 miles northwest of Newport News.

The NRC concluded that the Surry 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 two Surry units remain 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 Unit 1 and Unit 2 is also on the 

website and is updated on a quarterly basis.
##### 



Exhibit 10.50
 ***Text Omitted and Filed Separately
Confidential Treatment Requested
Under 17 C.F.R. §§ 200.80(b)(4) and 240.24b-2
 Tarcanta, Inc.2110 Rutherford RoadCarlsbad, CA 92008USA
 
 
 
  TGF-a/ HER-1 Vaccine License, Development, Manufacturing and Supply Agreement by and between
Tarcanta, Inc., Tarcanta Ltd., (together, Tarcanta), CIMAB S.A. (CIMAB), YM Biosciences, Inc.
and CIMYM, Inc. dated July 13, 2004 (the TGF /HER-1 Agreement)
   1.
 1.




---



##### 



2.
 3.
 4.
 5.
 6.
 
 ***
    
    Certain information on this page has been omitted and
filed separately with the Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested
with respect to the omitted portions. 2.




---



##### 



7.
 8.
   Tarcanta, Inc.
    
    Tarcanta Ltd.By: /s/ Christian Itin
    
    By: /s/ Christian ItinName: Christian Itin, Ph.D.
    
    Name: Christian Itin, Ph.D.Title: President and CEO
    
    Title: President and CEOAcknowledged and agreed:CIMAB S.A.
    
    YM Biosciences, Inc.By: /s/ Noakis Arteaga
    
    By: /s/ David AllanName: Noakis Arteaga, MSC
    
    Name: David AllanTitle: General Manager
    
    Title: Chairman and CEODate: 24/10/2006
    
    Date: 3/11/2006
 3.




---



##### 



CIMYM Biosciences, Inc.By: /s/ David AllanName: David AllanTitle: ChairmanDate: 3/11/2006
 4.




---



##### 



CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT
 This Confidentiality Agreement   Micromet, Inc., Micromet
 RECITALS
 A.
 B.
  AGREEMENT
 1. Definitions
 (a) Confidential Information
 (b) Disclosing Party
 (c) Receiving Party
 2. Purpose
 1.




---



##### 



3. Confidentiality and Use Restrictions
 (a)
 (b)
 4. Exceptions
 5. Authorized Disclosure provided, however provided, further
 2.




---



##### 



6. Right to Disclose
 7. Term
 8. Assignment provided, however
 9. Entire Agreement; Modification
 10. Dispute Resolution and Governing Law
 11.
 
 ***
    
    Certain information on this page has been omitted and
filed separately with the Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested
with respect to the omitted portions. 3.




---



##### 



12. In Witness Whereof
 [Company Name]
    
    
    
    Micromet, Inc.By:
    
    
    
    
    
    By:Name: 
Title:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Jens Hennecke, Ph.D.
VP Business Development
 4.
f8k102610ex10iii_yesdtc.htm


Exhibit 10.3


 


PROMISSORY NOTE


 




	 	 
	
 AMOUNT: $25,000

	
  DATE: November 9, 2010


	  	  







 


For value received, the terms of this Promissory Note (the "Note") dictate that YesDTC, Inc. (the "Borrower") promises to pay to the order of Joseph Noel (the "Lender"), maintaining an address at 300 Beale Street, Suite 613, San Francisco, CA 94105 (the Lender's address), the principal sum of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) in U.S. currency (the "Principal Amount").


 


Use of Proceeds: Proceeds from the value received of this Note shall be used by the Borrower to fund working capital.


 


Interest: Interest on the Principal Amount shall be equal to 10.0% per annum. This amount shall be determined on a pro rata basis for any monthly or fractional basis thereof. Interest is not compoundable and may be paid monthly or in full at the end of the Borrowing Period.


 


Terms of Repayment: The entire Principal Amount shall be fully paid by the Borrower to the Lender on or before February 9, 2011 or within ninety days (90 days) from the date of this Note (the "Borrowing Period").


 


All or any part of the Principal may be prepaid at any time and from time to time without penalty.



 


 




This Promissory Note between the Borrower and Lender is signed and dated as per below.


 





	
/s/ Joseph Noel

	 	 11-9-10	 
	 The Borrower	 	 Date:	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 /s/ Joseph Noel

	 	  11-9-10	 
	 The Lender	 	 Date:
No. 91-6303.

#### Johnson *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 91-649.

#### Greene et al. *v.*Town of Blooming Grove et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 31.1

I, Vincent A. Wasik, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 30, 2006, of
Velocity Express Corporation;

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
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting;

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

(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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: February 13, 2007



/s/ Vincent A. WasikVincent A. Wasik Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

November 9, 1999



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

RE:       Tollgrade Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries

         1). Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-4290) 1995 Long-Term Incentive
Compensation Plan and Individual Stock Options Granted to Certain Directors and
Employees Prior to the Adoption of the Plan

         2). Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-52907) 1998 Employee Incentive
Compensation Plan

Ladies and gentlemen:

We are aware that our report dated October 8, 1999 on our review of interim
financial information of Tollgrade Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
and for the three months and nine months ended September 25, 1999 and in the
Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is
incorporated by reference in the registration statement referred to above.

Very truly yours,



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         281,521
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  140,235
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,046,194
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,672,142
<PP&E>                                       1,538,237
<DEPRECIATION>                                (844,796)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,551,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          519,617
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     17,822
<COMMON>                                        20,319
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,962,217
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,551,100
<SALES>                                        147,610
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               147,610
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               669,633
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,047
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (655,586)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (655,586)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (655,586)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.13)
        


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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          72,811
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,030
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               212,235
<PP&E>                                         291,080
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 609,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,690
<BONDS>                                        332,461
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           297
<OTHER-SE>                                     137,415
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   609,093
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               207,743
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  139,779
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                90,571
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,364
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (39,469)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,024)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (38,445)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (10,027)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (39,704)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.33)


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 29, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 04-51353

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 Plaintiff - Appellee

 v.

ORLANDO MORALES

 Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Western District of Texas

(04-CR-1152)

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

Before WIENER, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate 

sentence is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to 

remand to district court for resentencing is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to 

__________________

* 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.
extend time to file appellee’s brief 14 days from the Court’s 

denial of appellee’s motion to vacate and remand is denied as

moot.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shane McCargo, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 407]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Koch, J.), rendered June 11, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*684We reject the defendant’s contention that he was denied his right to be present during off-the-record, side-bar discussions with prospective jurors *(see, People v Antommarchi,*80 NY2d 247). Indeed, although the record indicates that the subject side-bar discussions centered almost exclusively around the prospective jurors’ background and ability to weigh the evidence objectively, there was no violation of the defendant’s rights, as explicated in *People v Antommarchi,*because jury selection occurred prior to October 27, 1992, the date *People v Antommarchi*was decided *(see, People v Mitchell,*80 NY2d 519, 529; *People v Jones,*215 AD2d 501). To the extent that the substance of two side-bar voir dire discussions with prospective jurors is not contained in this record, we do not reach the issue of whether the defendant was denied his right to be present because the factual record is insufficient to permit appellate review, and we decline to remit the case to the Supreme Court for a reconstruction hearing *(see, People v Jupiter,*210 AD2d 431; *People v Neal,*205 AD2d 711).

The defendant was not entitled to be present at any of the side-bar discussions conducted at trial because they neither implicated his peculiar factual knowledge nor presented the potential for his meaningful participation *(see, People v Rodriguez,*85 NY2d 586; *People v Williams,*85 NY2d 945; *People v Velasco,*77 NY2d 469, 472).

The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]), and, in any event, without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.