alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Environmental Assessment: San Bernadino National Wildlife Refuge Well 10 (NUREG/CR-6648)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6648 (PDF - 3.65 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** September 1999**Date Published:** December 1999

**Prepared by:** J.T. Ensminger, C.E. Easterly, R.H. Ketelle, H. Quarles, M.C. Wade

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6370

B. Canico, 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 J5084

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), at the request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, evaluated the water production capacity of an artesian well in the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, Arizona. Water from the well initially flows into a pond containing three federally threatened or endangered fish species, and water from this pond feeds an adjacent pond/wetland containing an endangered plant species. USGS received a source license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the radioactive (241Am-Be) source used in a neutron emission/detection tool commonly used in well loggings of this type. The source was inadvertently lost in the well in 1986; and after several unsuccessful attempts to retrieve the source, the USGS has requested that the Am-Be source license be terminated and has attempted to seal the source in place with cement as required by NRC license termination regulations. Because of uncertainties related to the condition of the stainless steel source container, the effectiveness of a cement plug already installed, and concerns about the potential for future contamination, NRC decided to prepare this environmental assessment to analyze the potential water quality, ecological, and human health impacts of three alternatives for final disposition of the Am-Be source: (1) the proposed action, abandonment in place; (2) Am-Be source retrieval; and (3) the no-action alternative. The assessment found that the proposed action would result in no significant water quality or human health impacts and would produce only temporary and minor ecological impacts associated with emplacement of the cement plug. The source retrieval alternative–under a worst case scenario–could result in adverse impacts (radiation) on the three fish species of concern. The no-action alternative would be unlikely to produce significant adverse impacts but would require continued monitoring to ensure that unexpected contaminant concentrations do not occur in water or pond sediment.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
No: 19-008 February 14, 2019

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8206

NRC Seeks Public Comment on Environmental Review of

Proposed Church Rock Mine Cleanup in New Mexico

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on the scope of its 

environmental review of United Nuclear Corp.’s proposed cleanup of the closed Northeast 

Church Rock Mine in northwestern New Mexico.

United Nuclear, a subsidiary of General Electric, is seeking an amendment to its NRC license 

that would authorize the transfer of about 1 million cubic yards of contaminated soil, known as 

“mine spoils,” from the North East Church Rock mine to the nearby Church Rock uranium mill site for 

disposal at the mill’s waste facility, called a “tailings impoundment.” The mill is located approximately

17 miles northeast of Church Rock, N.M., adjacent to the Navajo Reservation.

In a Federal Register notice published Feb. 8, the NRC announced its intention to prepare an 

environmental impact statement on the proposed waste transfer. The agency staff is seeking public 

comments to help define the scope of the environmental review. The Federal Register notice gives 

detailed instructions for submitting comments, which will be accepted through April 19.

The NRC staff intends to conduct public meetings in the Gallup, N.M., area in mid-March to 

present details on the proposed waste disposal and explain the NRC review process. Details of those 

meetings will be announced on the NRC website Public Meetings page. 

The Church Rock uranium mill operated from 1977 to 1982, processing uranium ore from the 

Northeast Church Rock Mine under a State of New Mexico license. Since 1988, the mill has been under 

dual regulatory oversight of the NRC and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under a 

Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies. The NRC is the lead agency regulating 

surface reclamation and closure activities at the site under an NRC license and the Uranium Mill 

Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. The EPA is the lead agency regulating cleanup of the mine.

UNC’s proposal to dispose of the mine spoils at the mill site is part of a broader cleanup action 

approved by the EPA under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 

process. Other stakeholders are involved in this action, including the NRC, EPA, the Navajo Nation 

Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, and the New Mexico Environment 

Department.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Globix Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Peter K.
Stevenson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



Date: August 3, 2004
                                                  /s/ Peter K. Stevenson
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Peter K. Stevenson
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
#### William Humphreys *v.*John R. Buie.

From Richmond.

Debt and not Assumpsit, i's'the proper remedy against the stayor of execution, when the judgment is dormant, and it lies against him without joining the principal.

Whether the seal of the justice is necessary to a valid judgment, Q,u ? but the want of it, as an objection, is too late after verdict. ■

The Defendant was warranted in debt, as surety for the stay of execution on a judgment against one *Neill Bide.*After a verdict for the Plaintiff, the Defendant moved in arrest of judgment for the following reasons :

1st. Because debt would not lie against a surety for the stay of execution.

2d. Because of the non joinder of *Neill Bide.*

3d. Because neither the original warrant or the judgment thereon, or the stay of execution, were under the sea! of the Justice.

His Honor Judge Norwood, arrested the judgment, and the Plaintiff appealed.

*Nash,*for the Plaintiff, was stopped by the Court.'— No Counsel appeared for the Defendant.

Hah, Judge.

The first reason for arresting'thejudgment is, that debt will not lie upon the Defendant’s liability, as surely for the stay of the execution. Such' suretyship is tantamount to a judgment, because execution may issue upon it against the surety, and he is as *379much bound as the principal, and for Unit reason assump-*sit*will not lie against either,, in case the judgment became dormant, *(Bain*v. *Hunt,*3 *Hawks*572.)

The second objection is, that debt will not lie against the surety, without joining the principal in the action with him.

Laying aside any construction of the act of 1789 *(Rev. ch.*314) which in its spirit tends to the severance of contracts, it’is *to*be observed, that in the present case, there was not a judgment against two, but a judgment against one, and a liability of another for the same debt as surety. They were botli bound, but not *eodem modo.*I therefore think, that an action may be brought againsteither.

The third reason for arresting the judgment, is, that the Justice’s seal was not affixed to the warrant, judgment or stay, of execution, upon which the action is brought. Whatever force there might have been in this objection, if taken at an earlier stage.of the proceedings, it is sufficient now to say that it comes too'late. it would be against the order of pleading, and very inconvenient, to suffer an objection to the *evidence*to prevail, after a case lias been heard, and decided upon its merits. The reasons in arrest of judgment must be overruled and judgment entered for the Plaintiff.

Per Curiam.-the Plaintiff. -Judgment reversed and judgment for
# O flS s Memorandu m Ttansportotlo n '-• " •'-- ^ ' ' A 11 - 3 3 Offic e o f th e Secretor

y ofTronsporiatio n Subject : Subcontracte dFlyin g b y Alask aSeaplan e for Wing s o f

Date

- February 11 , 201 1 : a From : Denni s J . D^^ny , Chie f <Z S Michae l Martin, X-5 3 EA S an dDomesti c Analysis , X-5 3 ^''*

- ^^49 4 To : Gregory Frazier , S-3. 6 Reference : Orde r

2010-8- 9 Orde r 2010-8- 9 selecte dWing s o f Alask at o provid e subsidize dEA S a t Excursion Inle t throug h Augus t

31 , 2012 . Th e servic e wa s t o consis t o f thre e nonsto p roun dtrip s pe r wee k t o Junea u i n th e 16-wee k peak perio dan don e nonsto p roun dtri p pe r wee k t o Jimea u i n th e 36-wee k

off-pea k period . Al l o f

th e servic e wa s t o b e provide dwith 5-seat Cessn a20 7 aircraft , with weekl y ceiling s o f $1,21 2 i n th e peak

an d$40 4 i n th e off-peak . Wing s o f Alask aha s indicate dthat Excursio n Inle t

doe s no t plo w it s runwa y i n th e winter , an ds o unti l th e sno w melts , whic h ma y b e for severa l months , wheele daircraft , th e onl y aircraf

t currentl y flown b y Wing s o f Alaska , canno t

operate . Seaplan e servic e coul dstil l b e provide dwhe n th e runwa y i s closed . Wing s o f Alask aha s discusse d subcontractin g it s servic e a t Excursio n Inle t

t o Alask aSeaplan e servic e for severa l months durin g th e winte r whe n i t i s unabl e t o operate . We hav e contacte dth e community , an di t doe s no t object . Wing s wil l b e require dt o indicat e o n it s monthl y billing s th e day s whe n th e subcontrac t servic e wa s provide dan d th e aircraf t typ e an dseat s use do n tha t service . Bot h Wing s o f

Alask aan dAlask a Seaplan e wil l b e require dt o kee p record s consisten t with ou r carrier-selectio n orders . Payment s wil l continu e t o b e mad e t o Wing s o f Alask a- Wing s o f

Alask aan dAlask a Seaplan e ar e responsibl e fo r payment s t o eac h other .

cc : Ro b McKinney , Wing s o f Alask a Crai g Loken , Alask aSeaplan e Rebecc aJ . Cronkhite , Alask aDepartmen t o f Transportatio n an dPubli c Facilitie s
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Globix Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Peter K. Stevenson, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                         
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | The Report
  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
|
| | (2) | The
  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 8, 2006

| |  |                          
| |  | -------------------------
| |  | /s/ Peter K.
  Stevenson 
| |  |                          
| |  | Peter K.
  Stevenson     
| |  | Chief
  Executive Officer

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001002531
<NAME> TOLLGRADE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       3,191,388
<SECURITIES>                                12,414,888
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,875,303
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (50,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  8,705,838
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,783,914
<PP&E>                                       3,776,761
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,203,409
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,525,299
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,542,788
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,113,527
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,664,942
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,525,299
<SALES>                                     27,112,057
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,112,057
<CGS>                                       13,435,042
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,435,042
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,388,037
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,422,695
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,965,342
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.67
        

</TABLE>
10/28/2015 CAVITT, DONALD RAYJR

N3B 793IS OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURTOF CRIMINAL.APPEALS OFTEXAS OFPi'Q!AO.xSi3^iVG^SSOLSTAT10N-^Ay^JMAS, ,7I7i} STATE OF TEXAS 

### PENALTYFOR ^S^n^ PRIVATE USE df&2frF<Z U.S. POSTAGE»PITNEYBOWES
J* 

## M/,3$il '"ft. 

# w„ pce|g^i|o-K This Court has previously entergdHan^order" citing you for abuse of the writ of habeas corpus. The applicationtor^/n^Mabeas corpus filed by you in the 27th District Court, received by this CourToTOednesday, October 14, 2015, does not 

### satisfy the requirements for consideration set out in the order described above. Therefore, the Court will take no action on thiswrit. „ Abel AcostarClerKv\ ZIP 78701 02 m 00014016030CT 29 2015 WR-32,756-12

R F.P DONALD RAY CAVITT JR. MTC

- WEST TEXAS ISF - TDC # 1888682 P:0. BOX 1359 brownfield, tx 79316 i'1i'mII',HIi''i'''IiII|I|i'^iIm'MI''Ii'ii'iII''i,'Iii''II'
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5

<S>                                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                          JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                                  1,201,029
<SECURITIES>                                                            1,552,197
<RECEIVABLES>                                                           1,803,591
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                                                33,986
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                        5,222,995
<PP&E>                                                                    251,079
<DEPRECIATION>                                                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                          7,925,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                   3,696,336
<BONDS>                                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                                    5,002
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                                              3,864,330
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                            7,925,943
<SALES>                                                                 6,756,416
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                        6,756,416
<CGS>                                                                   3,430,839
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                           3,430,839
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                        2,661,466
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                           683,226
<INCOME-TAX>                                                              148,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                       535,226
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                              470,032
<EPS-BASIC>                                                                 .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                                 .09


</TABLE>
# **Exhibit 32.1**

# ** **

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002)

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Refocus Group, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof  (the “Report”), Terence A. Walts, as Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, and Mark A. Cox, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, eachhereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

 

1.               The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

Date:  March 30, 2004

 

 
|   |   /s/ Terence A. Walts    |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |   Terence A. Walts        |
|   |   Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                           |
|   |   /s/ Mark A. Cox         |
|   |   Mark A. Cox             |
|   |   Chief Financial Officer |

 

Thiscertification accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Refocus Group, Inc. for purposesof Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Refocus Group, Inc. and will be retained by Refocus Group, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### In the Matter of Ronald Davidson, Petitioner, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 949]

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The determination of respondents that petitioner violated various inmate rules by completing magazine subscription order forms in the names of two facility employees, causing them to receive and to be billed for numerous unwanted magazines, is supported by substantial evidence. Both employees testified at the disciplinary hearing and a handwriting expert from the State Police laboratory testified by telephone and submitted a report containing his conclusion that petitioner’s handwriting was on the order forms. Petitioner’s denial of the charges raised an issue of credibility that the Hearing Officer was entitled to resolve against petitioner *(see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin,*76 NY2d 964, 966). The Hearing Officer did not abuse his discretion in *844denying petitioner’s request for a 30-day adjournment to secure the services of a handwriting expert. The hearing took place on several days over an 11-day period, and, during that time period, petitioner was able to offer only his unsubstantiated hope that he could secure the services of an expert. Thus, the Hearing Officer properly concluded that the hearing should not be further delayed.

Petitioner was afforded effective employee assistance. He was provided with a copy of the misbehavior report and all other relevant documents. Petitioner’s remaining requests were for documents that did not exist *(see, Matter of Serrano v Coughlin,*152 AD2d 790, 793) or that were irrelevant to the preparation of a defense to the charges *(see, Matter of Garcia v Coughlin,*194 AD2d 896, 897). It is apparent from the record that petitioner requested numerous irrelevant or non-existent documents in order to harass prison authorities.

The penalty imposed, two years in the special housing unit and loss of telephone privileges, is not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 223). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Balio, JJ.