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

# Lessons Learned in Detecting, Monitoring, Modeling and Remediating Radioactive Ground-Water Contamination (NUREG/CR-7029)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7029 (PDF - 24.51 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 2010**Date Published:** April 2011

**Prepared by:** T. Sullivan, M. Hauptmann, and W. Gunther

Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973-5000

J. Philip, NRC Project Manager T. Nicholson, NRC Technical Monitor

NRC Job Code N6937

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) is a multi-discipline Department of Energy (DOE) research institute that has been in operation since 1947. Historical operations included running accelerators, nuclear research reactors, and other large complex equipment. Some of these operations caused groundwater contamination. This report discusses the tritium plume from the High Flux Beam Reactor and several strontium plumes from past operations at the Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor, their discovery through monitoring, and their treatment. The tritium plume discovery led to public outrage; characterization, design, and implementation of a treatment system within 60 days; and eventual dismissal of Associated Universities Incorporated from the management of BNL despite the small health risk to employees or the public. Management of the strontium plume included a major alteration to the original regulatory cleanup agreement when field data showed the preferred alternative to be economically impractical. The report documents activities used to manage these contamination issues through source control, monitoring, modeling, plume and risk management, and communications. The lessons learned from these cleanup projects have altered the stewardship culture and methods of performing research, communicating with the public, and conducting work at BNL. These valuable lessons are highlighted in this report.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
FORM 10-Q


Exhibit 32.01








Certification of Principal Executive Officer


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 Silicon Image, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Camillo Martino, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.











Date: May 3, 2011


/s/ Camillo MartinoCamillo MartinoChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Form REP-702

Rev. 0, 4/2012

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 10/29/2012

Sample Number: 124573-001 Date Collected: 10/22/2012 08:00 Date Received: 10/22/2012

CPS Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Bromide, Br 23.9 mg/L 5 1 CRJ 10/26/2012 EPA 300.1

Chloride, Cl 2960 mg/L 20 5 CRJ 10/26/2012 EPA 300.1

Fluoride, F 55.6 mg/L 1 0.2 CRJ 10/26/2012 EPA 300.1

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 124573 Page 1 of 1
#### In re EMERALD OIL COMPANY, Debtor. William C. SANDOZ, Trustee in Chapter 11, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRAIN BROTHERS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 82-3070.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 20, 1982.

*89Stockwell, Sievert, Viccellio, Clements & Shaddock, Emmett C. Sole, Lake Charles, La., for defendant-appellant.

Sandoz, Sandoz & Schiff, Gerald H. Schiff, Opelousas, La., for plaintiff-appel-lee.

Before WISDOM, RANDALL, and TATE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We dismiss this appeal because the judgment appealed from is not final and appeal-able. In this bankruptcy case, the defendant-creditor Crain Brothers, Inc. (Crain) seeks to appeal an interlocutory order: the district court’s reversal of the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment in Crain’s favor. The trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of Crain’s former debtor, Emerald Oil Company (Emerald), had sued Crain for the return to the estate the amount of $50,485.70 in payment for Crain’s services that Emerald alleged was a preferential transfer voidable by the trustee under section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code of 1978,11 U.S.C. § 547. The bankruptcy court entered summary judgment dismissing Emerald’s claim because the transfer was not made within ninety days of the filing of the petition of bankruptcy, a prerequisite to voidability, and fell within the “transfers made in the ordinary course of business exception” to section 547. On Emerald’s appeal, the district court reversed the ruling of the bankruptcy court.

The district court’s reversal is not an appealable “final judgment, order, or decree”, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1293(a)(b) (1978), see *Matter of Kutner,*656 F.2d 1107, 1111 (5th Cir.1981); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291,1334 (1978), for there was no final determination of the rights of the parties to secure the relief they seek in this suit. Further, there was no section 1292(b), 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), certification and neither court directed entry of a final judgment by a Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) order as to the issues they had decided. The case thus awaits further proceedings in the bankruptcy and district courts before there is an appealable final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal of an interlocutory order for lack of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3563

___________________________

In re: Stephen Wayne Carlson, I; Victoria Leah Carlson, Vikki Carlson

lllllllllllllllllllllDebtors

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

Stephen Wayne Carlson, I

lllllllllllllllllllllAppellant

v.

U.S. Bank, N.A.

lllllllllllllllllllllAppellee

____________

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy

 Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit

____________

 Submitted: April 22, 2015

Filed: April 27, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Stephen Wayne Carlson, I, appeals the bankruptcy appellate panel’s order, in 1

which it affirmed the bankruptcy court’s orders denying his motions for relief and

2

dismissing his chapter 13 case. After careful review of the record provided, see In

re Peoples, 764 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review), we reject

Carlson’s legal arguments and affirm the decision of the bankruptcy court, see 8th

Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

The Honorable Thomas L. Saladino and Anita L. Shodeen, United States 1

Bankruptcy Judges for the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit.

The Honorable Katherine A. Constantine, United StatesBankruptcy Judge for

2

the District of Minnesota.

-2-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2779

WILLIAM M. COYNE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION; K. C. LEUNG;

THOMAS ULRICH; CHARLES ATHAS; THOMAS PARR,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA95-1175-CCB)

Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 19, 1998

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William M. Coyne, Appellant Pro Se. Gary Howard Simpson, Bethesda,

Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order entering summary

judgment in this action brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination

in Employment Act. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Coyne v. Computer

Sciences Corp., No. CA-95-1175-CCB (D. Md. Nov. 19, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Michael Dellacona et al., Respondents, v Barry Dorf et al., Defendant, and Franklin Hospital Medical Center, Appellant.

[774 NYS2d 776]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant Franklin Hospital Medical Center appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated January 29, 2003, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, the cross motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

In support of its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, the defendant Franklin Hospital Medical Center (hereinafter Franklin Hospital) made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see *O’Shaughnessy v Hines,*248 AD2d 687, 688 [1998]). The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact by submitting an expert’s affidavit attesting to a departure from accepted practice and containing an opinion that Franklin Hospital’s acts or omissions were a competent producing cause of the injury *(see Domaradzki v Glen Cove Ob/Gyn Assoc.,*242 AD2d 282 [1997]). The conclusory affidavit of the plaintiffs’ medical expert failed to differentiate between the acts and omissions of the different defendants and failed to demonstrate that any alleged departure of Franklin Hospital was a proximate cause of the injured plaintiffs injuries. This was insufficient to defeat summary judgment *(see Kaplan v Hamilton Med. Assoc.,*262 AD2d 609, 610 [1999]; *Yasin v Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp.,*254 AD2d 281, 283 [1998]). Ritter, J.P., H. Miller, Crane and Cozier, JJ, concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 4551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01568]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Publication of Housing Price Inflation Adjustment

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary (Personnel and Readiness), DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act prohibits a landlord from 
evicting a Service member (or the Service member's family) from a 
residence during a period of military service except by court order. 
The law as originally passed by Congress applied to dwellings with 
monthly rents of $2,400 or less. The law requires the Department of 
Defense to adjust this amount annually to reflect inflation and to 
publish the new amount in the Federal Register.

DATES: Effective Date: January 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lt Col Ryan Oakley, Office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, (703) 571-9301.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We have applied the inflation index required 
by the statute. The maximum monthly rental amount for 50 U.S.C. App. 
section 531 (a)(1)(A)(ii) as of January 1, 2015, will be $3,329.84.

     Dated: January 23, 2015.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2015-01568 Filed 1-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 8.1 CLAXSON INTERACTIVE GROUP INC. List of Significant Subsidiaries  1.
    
    Claxson Chile S.A., incorporated under the laws of the Republic of
Chile  2.
    
    Iberoamerican Radio Holdings Uno, S.A., incorporated under the laws
of the Republic of Chile  3.
    
    Red de Television Chilevision S.A., incorporated under the laws of
the Republic of Chile  4.
    
    CTG Inversora, S.A., incorporated under the laws of the Republic of
Argentina  5.
    
    Imagen Satelital, S.A., incorporated under the laws of the Republic
of Argentina  6.
    
    Lifford International Co. Ltd., incorporated under the laws of the
British Virgin Islands (holding Claxsons 81% interest in the Playboy
TV Latin America joint venture)
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the quarterly report of Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. (“PPD”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Linda Baddour, Chief Financial Officer of PPD, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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 PPD as of, andfor, the periods presented in the Report. 

Date: November 6, 2006
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series Publications

# Brochures Prepared by NRC Staff

*Brief publications about NRC programs, designed for the general public and licensees. Other brochures may be available in ADAMS.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, December 19, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Publications Prepared by NRC Staff
          - Brochures Prepared by NRC Staff
          - Conference Proceedings Prepared by NRC Staff or Contractors
          - Publications Prepared by NRC Contractors
          - Publications Resulting from International Agreements
          - Publications Prepared by NRC Staff for Knowledge Management
          - Publications Available in Adams
          - Drafts for Comment

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

#### Search NUREG-Series Pubs

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, December 19, 2022
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 117B

Toxicity Characteristic Amendment

57 FR 23062-23063

June 1, 1992

(RCRA Cluster III, HSWA provision)

Note: The Toxicity Characteristic rule [55 FR 11798 (March 29, 1990); Revision Checklist 74] and its 

subsequent amendments [55 FR 26986 (June 29, 1001) and 57 FR 30657 (July 10, 1992); Revision Checklist 74] 

omitted changing the reference to the "Extraction Procedure Toxicity Characteristic" at 261.3(a)(2)(i). The 

March 3, 1992 reissuance of the "mixture" and "derived-from" rules, reissued 261.3 with that error still in it. The 

June 1, 1992 amendment (57 FR 23062) to that reissued code corrected this error. Because this change makes 

the Federal code more stringent, it is required and was placed in a checklist separate from the other provisions 

(considered optional, for States) addressing the reissuance of the "mixture" and "derived-from" rules.

Name of state: Washington

State Statutory Authority: Chapter 70.105 RCW

Title of Regulations: Chapter 1730-303 WAC Effective Date: July 31, 2009

Date Checklist Completed: May 10, 2010

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION STATE ANALOG IS:

EQUIVALENTLESS

STRINGENT

MORE 

STRINGENT

BROADER 

IN SCOPE

PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

SUBPART A - GENERAL

DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

change "Extraction 

Procedure Toxicity 

characteristic" to 

"Toxicity Characteristic"

261.3(a)(2)(i) No direct analog, 

but use 070(3), 

except (a)(iii) and 

(c)

More stringent 

because the state 

does not exclude 

mining wastes

X X
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Assessment of RELAP5/MOD3 With the LOFT L9–1/L3–3 Experiment Simulating an Anticipated Transient With Multiple Failures (NUREG/IA-0114)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0114 (PDF 4.11 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** February 1994

**Prepared by:** Young Seok Bang, Kwang Won Seul, Hho Jung Kim

Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety P. O. Box 16, Daeduk–Danji Taejon, Korea

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange under the International Thermal-Hydraulic Code Assessment and Application Program (ICAP)

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The RELAP5/MOD3 5m5 code is assessed using the L9-1/L3-3 test carried out in the LOFT facility, a 1/60-scaled experimental reactor, simulating a loss of feedwater accident with multiple failures and the sequentially-induced small break loss-of-coolant accident. The code predictability is evaluated for the four separated sub-periods with respect to the system response; initial heatup phase, spray and power operated relief valve(PORV) cycling phase, blowdown phase and recovery phase. Based on the comparisons of the results from the calculation with the experiment data, it is shown that the overall thermal-hydraulic behavior important to the scenario such as a heat removal between the primary side and the secondary side and a system depressurization can be well-predicted and that the code could be applied to the full-scale nuclear power plant for an anticipated transient with multiple failures within a reasonable accuracy. The minor discrepancies between the prediction and the experiment are identified, in reactor scram time, post-scram behavior in the initial heatup phase, excessive heatup rate in the cycling phase, insufficient energy convected out the PORV under the hot leg stratified condition in the saturated blowdown phase and void distribution in secondary side in the recovery phase. This may come from the'code uncertainties in predicting the spray mass flow rate, the associated condensation in pressurizer and junction fluid density under stratified condition.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### Charles W. Hanson *vs.*Waterville, Oakland and Fairfield Street Railway.

Kennebec County.

Decided October 10, 1922.

*Percy A. Smith,*for plaintiff.

*Perkins & Weeks,*for defendant.

The only issues * involved at the trial of this case were of facts and were submitted to the jury, we must assume, under proper instructions.

The jury heard all the witnesses and found a verdict for the defendant company. It must have rejected the plaintiff’s testimony, and that of his last attending physician, as to the cause of his present condition and of the trouble from which he suffered in the fall following his injury in March, 1920; and must further have found that the injuries he suffered by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendant were superficial and left no permanent effect, and also that such damages as he suffered thereby were either fully compensated for by the full time pay he received while incapacitated and the paymefit of his medical expenses, and that if there were any additional and measurable damages they were waived by him, since no claim against the company or complaint was made by him during his later employment or when he left the defendant’s employ four months after the injury.

After a careful ’examination of the evidence we cannot say the verdict of the jury was so manifestly wrong as to require interference by this court. Motion, overruled.
No. 91-473.

#### Gulf States Utilities Co. *v.*Louisiana Public Service Commission et al.

Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.