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

# NRC Staff to Meet with Commonwealth Edison to Discuss Possible Fitness-for-Duty Program Violations at Zion

----

----

RIII-97-103

November 25, 1997

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH COMMONWEALTH EDISON TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE FITNESS-FOR-DUTY PROGRAM VIOLATIONS AT ZION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet Monday, December 1, with representatives of Commonwealth Edison Co. for a predecisional enforcement conference on possible violations of the utility's fitness-for-duty program at the Zion Nuclear Power Station. The Zion Station is located in Zion, Illinois.

The meeting will be at 1 p.m. in the Third Floor Conference Room, NRC Region III Office, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois. The meeting is open to public observation, although a portion of the meeting may be closed if privacy issues are involved.

The fitness-for-duty program provides procedures and guidance to assure that Zion plant employees are not impaired by recent drug or alcohol use or other problems.

The predecisional enforcement conference will cover five instances between September of last year and June of this year when the Zion plant staff did not follow the fitness-for-duty procedures when an employee may have consumed alcohol prior to reporting for work.

These instances are of low safety significance because none of the individuals was involved in direct operation of the plant.

The decision to hold an enforcement conference does not mean the NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety significance; to provide the licensee an opportunity to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection report; and to enable the company to outline its proposed corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement action, such as a fine, will be made at this conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC officials at a later date.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Air Advisors Continue to Build Partnerships in the INDO-PACIFIC 

By Staff Sgt. Divine Cox36th Wing Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1850 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1850

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 907 Fourth Avenue in Lake Odessa, Michigan, as the ``Donna Sauers 
                          Besko Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DONNA SAUERS BESKO POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 907 Fourth Avenue in Lake Odessa, Michigan, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Donna Sauers Besko Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Donna 
Sauers Besko Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 11, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1850

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 907 Fourth Avenue in Lake Odessa, Michigan, as the ``Donna Sauers 
                          Besko Post Office''.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Velocity Express Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 2, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel
R. DeFazio, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. (S)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.


                                        /s/ Daniel R. DeFazio
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Daniel R. DeFazio
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        February 14, 2005
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Analysis of PANDA Experiments P3 and P6 Using RELAP5/MOD3.2 (NUREG/IA-0196)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0196 (PDF 1.18 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** January 2001

**Prepared by:** L. Batet, E Reventós

Department of Physics and Nuclear Engineering University Politecnica de Cataluna 08028 Barcelona SPAIN

**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

Between 1996 and 1998 Technical University of Catalonia (UPC) has been participating in the "Technology Enhancement for Passive Safety Systems" (TEPSS) project, in the Fourth Framework Program of the Commission of the European Communities.

One of the purposes of TEPSS has been the study of the residual heat removal by passive means after a loss of coolant accident into a simplified boiling water reactor (ESBWR) type containment. To that end, eight experiments have been performed in PANDA experimental facility of Paul Scherrer Institute in Villigen (Switzerland). PANDA represent a ESBWR scaled 1:1 in elevation and 1:40 in volume.

UPC has supplied analytical support of PANDA tests P3 and P6, using RELAP5/Mod3.2. P3 and P6 simulate Main Steam Line Break scenarios with different initial conditions and different passive safety systems available.

This report shows the results obtained in the simulation of those experiments. Discrepancies between calculated and measured parameters are identified and discussed.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CEO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
I, Stephen N. Joffe, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of LCA-Vision Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  August 3, 2004 /s/ Stephen N. Joffe   Stephen N. Joffe   Chief Executive Officer
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00096-CV

REV. LEO GRAVES, Appellant

V.

CITY OF CARTHAGE, AND BRENDA SAMFORD, CITY MANAGER, Appellees

On Appeal from the 123rd District Court

Panola County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-304

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
2

ORDER

Gerald J. Smith, counsel for the appellant, Rev. Leo Graves, has filed a motion to extend 

time to file the appellant’s brief. The brief was due October 1, 2013.

In his motion, counsel does not provide the Court with a reasonable explanation of the 

need for an extension of time. This Court interprets Rule 10.5(b)(2) of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure as requiring counsel to provide the Court with specific information to 

justify the requested extension, including the cause numbers of other briefs filed, the dates they 

were filed, the dates of trials, how long those trials are expected to last, etc. Broad, general 

statements do not provide the required facts and are not adequate to meet the requirements of the 

rule. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b)(2).

All future motions to extend time must contain case-specific information adequate to 

justify the request, or they will be denied.

In this instance, we grant the motion for an extension, for a period of twenty-one days, 

making appellant’s brief now due October 22, 2013. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: October 2, 2013
3D J H  3D J H  3D J H  3D J H  3DJ H  3DJ H  3DJ H  3DJ H  3DJ H  3DJ H  3DJ H  3DJ H  3DJ H  3DJ H  3DJ H  3DJ H  3DJ H  3DJ H  3DJ H  3DJ H
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 14 ,

2015

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 15

- 00276

- CR

BLANCA ESTHER VEGA , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1433929

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A p p ellant Blanca Esther Vega has signed and filed a written request to
withdraw her notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this c ourt has not delivered an opinion, we grant appellant ’ s request.
Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed. We direct the c lerk of the c ourt
to issue the mandate of the c ourt immediately.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P

. 47.2(b)
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# Know Your EEO Rights: Equal Employment Opportunity is the Law (NUREG/BR-0333)

Revision 1 to be published in the near future.

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Preface

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0333 (PDF - 2.56 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** May 2007

Office of Small Business and Civil Rights (SBCR)U. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

## Preface

The Commission believes that fostering equal employment opportunity (EEO) and enhancing diversity management are sound business practices that enable the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to utilize the full potential of everyone in the organization and enhance the effectiveness of our programs. As the NRC recruits, develops, and takes positive steps to retain a high-quality workforce that possesses the skills required to achieve its mission, it must also maintain an innovative, effective, and discrimination-free organizational environment. One strategy to assist with maintaining this environment is utilization of the EEO process.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, August 02, 2023
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1998

# Note to Editors: NRC Meeting with Public on December 14 at Millstone Station

----

----

I-98-126

December 9, 1998

**NOTE TO EDITORS:**

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with the public on Monday, December 14, to discuss the status of the Employee Concerns and Safety Conscious Work Environment Programs at Millstone Station in Waterford, Conn. The NRC staff also will solicit public comment on the proposed closing of the October 24, 1996, order requiring, among other things, third party oversight of the employee concerns program at Millstone.

The meeting will be held from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m. in the Wateford Town Hall, 15 Rope Ferry Road.

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

<ARTICLE> 5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         984,625
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,857,387
<ALLOWANCES>                                   272,986
<INVENTORY>                                    478,942
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,645,153
<PP&E>                                       6,200,462
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,606,702
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,927,615
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,787,865
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,485
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,031,461
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,927,615
<SALES>                                      4,351,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,351,607
<CGS>                                        2,744,070
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,878,344
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              62,694
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (589,063)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (589,063)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (589,063)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.17)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2015083EN.01000301.xml

| 11.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/3

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 10 March 2015

designating the sites awarded the European Heritage Label in 2014

(2015/C 83/03)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Decision No 1194/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 establishing a European Union action for the European Heritage Label (1), and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,

1

Whereas:

| (1) | On 17 December 2014, the European panel transmitted to the Commission its report regarding the selection process of sites for the attribution of the European Heritage Label in 2014 and, taking into account its recommendations, the Commission should designate the sites to be awarded the label. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 17 December 2014, the European panel transmitted to the Commission its report regarding the selection process of sites for the attribution of the European Heritage Label in 2014 and, taking into account its recommendations, the Commission should designate the sites to be awarded the label.

| (2) | In accordance with Article 15 of Decision No 1194/2011/EU, each site awarded the label should be monitored on a regular basis in order to ensure that it continues to meet the criteria and that it respects the project and work plan submitted in its application for the selection, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In accordance with Article 15 of Decision No 1194/2011/EU, each site awarded the label should be monitored on a regular basis in order to ensure that it continues to meet the criteria and that it respects the project and work plan submitted in its application for the selection,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The European Heritage Label is awarded to the heart of Ancient Athens (Greece), the Abbey of Cluny (France), the Archive of the crown of Aragon (Spain), the Union of Lublin (Poland), the Sites of the Peace of Westphalia (Germany), the Biblioteca Geral da Universidade de Coimbra (Portugal), the 3 May 1791 Constitution (Poland), the Hambach Castle (Germany), the Charter of Law of Abolition of the Death Penalty (Portugal), the Residencia de Estudiantes (Spain), the Kaunas of 1919-40 (Lithuania), the Franja Partisan Hospital (Slovenia), the Robert Schuman’s House (France), the Museo Casa Alcide de Gasperi (Italy), the Historic Gdansk Shipyard (Poland) and the Pan-European Picnic Memorial Park (Hungary).

Done at Brussels, 10 March 2015.

For the Commission

Tibor NAVRACSICS

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 22.11.2011, p. 1.

1

---
JUNE TERM, 1828.

#### Den ex dem. of Arthur Walker & wife *v*. Fen and Samuel Greenlee.

From Wilkes.

A Judge of the Superior Court h.,s power to continue a cause upon the condition of reading absolutely the deposition of a resident witness ; and a party accepting the terms, cannot on the trial, insist upon the production of the witness.

Ejectment, tried on the last circuit, before his Honor Judge DonNEXX.

At the term before the trial, the Defendant had applied for a continuance, which was granted, upon condition that several depositions then filed in the cause, and among them that of one *Ford,*should be read absolutely. On the trial, the deposition.of *Ford,*was offered by the lessor of the Plaintiff, and objected to by the Defendant, upon the ground that the witness being a resident of this State, the Judge who made the order, had no power to impose upon the Defendant the terms <>f permitting it to be read absolutely. The presiding Judge overruled the objection, and a verdict being returned for the lessors ef the Plaintiff, the Defendant appealed.

*369From this decision, the Defendant appealed to this Court.

*Nash,*for the Defendant, was stopped by the Court, No Counsel appeared for the petitioner.

Hall, Judge.

In the case of *Hawkins*v. *The County of Randolph,*(1 *Murph.*118) it was decided that an appeal would not lie to the Superior Court, from an order of the County Court, concerning a public road. By the act of 1813, *(Rev. ch.*862) an appeal is given in such cases, but nothing is said either by the Court in the case of *Wood*v. *Hood,*or by the Legislature in that act, respecting private ways or cartways ; jurisdiction of which is given to the County Courts, by the act of 1798.

In *Wood*v. *Hood,*it was held, that a petition for a cartway so far resembled a petition for a public road, that an appeal would not lie from a decision made on it, before the passage of the act of 1813, and that the act gave an appeal.

I think the act of 1813, does not give an appeal with respect to cartways, &c.~ but is confined altogether to public roads. In the present case, the appeal is proper under the act of 1777, it being á contest between two individuals, and it does not fall within the reasons upon which an appeal was refused, with regard to public roads.

The judgment of the Superior Court, dismissing the appeal, must therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded. .

Per Curiam. — Judgment of the Court below reversed and writ of *procedendo*awarded.