DOCSLIB.ORG

Part 2 of 2, Molycorp, Washington, PA, Final Status Surveys for Buildings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Part 2 of 2, Molycorp, Washington, PA, Final Status Surveys for Buildings Appendix F Building 29 Data Package Molycorp Washington, PA Building 29 Data Package This data package contains final status survey information for Building 29, Molycorp, Washington, PA site. Field data collection forms, survey report forms, statistical test results, and comparisons to release limits are provided. Summary During the final status survey of Building 29, elevated radioactivity was identified in multiple localized areas on the concrete floor and on several structural support components of the building (purlins). The building's classification was changed from unaffected to affected, and an affected final status survey was performed. It was determined that the activity identified on the floor was fixed into the concrete, and required surface removal of the concrete in the identified areas. The activity identified on the purlins was also determined to be fixed contamination. The structural integrity of the building was evaluated without the affected purlins (removed due to fixed contamination). It was concluded that the purlins needed to remain in place until building demolition. The areas on the purlins, identified as contaminated, have been marked with a bright florescent paint and recorded as being contaminated in a log controlled by the project manager. These contaminated purlins will remain in place until just prior to building demolition. Remediation of the concrete was performed. All post-remedial surveys indicated that remediation activities were successful, and that all the affected concrete was removed. Elevated levels of background radiation, from soil radioactivity, continued to be a presence during survey activities of Building 29. Results from the final status survey of Building 29 provides evidence that release criteria have been met, demonstrates that residual radioactivity is below the unrestricted use criteria, and confirms that Building 29 is suitable for unrestricted use, excluding the contaminated purlins that will be removed just prior to building demolition. Results of Surface Scans Molycorp - Building 29 Survey Unit (Affected Area) Building Floor Location Beta Scan Beta Scan Alpha Scan Alpha Scan (see map) gross cpm net cpm gross cpm net cpm F1 1500 30 10 3.6 F2 1500 30 11 4.6 F3 1550 80 9 2.6 F4 1600 130 12 5.6 F5 1600 130 12 5.6 F6 1600 130 8 1.6 F7 1800 330 14 7.6 F8 1700 230 12 5.6 F9 1450 -20 13 6.6 F10 1650 180 10 3.6 F1l 1600 130 11 4.6 F12 1500 30 8 1.6 F13 1600 130 14 7.6 F14 1550 80 12 5.6 F15 1600 130 12 5.6 F16 1700 230 16 9.6 F17 1700 230 14 7.6 F18 12500 11030 26 19.6 F19 15000 13530 60 53.6 F20 1600 130 12 5.6 F21 1300 -170 12 5.6 F22 1700 230 10 3.6 F23 1750 280 15 8.6 F24 1700 230 12 5.6 F25 4000 2530 20 13.6 F26 12000 10530 16 9.6 F27 1800 330 14 7.6 F28 1800 330 11 4.6 F29 1700 230 12 5.6 F30 1650 180 8 1.6 F31 1600 130 13 6.6 F32 1900 430 15 8.6 F33 13000 11530 84 77.6 F34 5000 3530 22 15.6 F35 3600 2130 30 23.6 F36 2300 830 12 5.6 F37 1700 230 9 2.6 F38 1470 0 10 3.6 F39 1600 130 16 9.6 F40 1800 330 14 7.6 F41 1780 310 12 5.6 F42 1600 130 10 3.6 F43 1600 130 13 6.6 F44 1450 -20 8 1.6 F45 1600 130 11 4.6 F46 1700 230 12 5.6 Page 1 of 2 F47 1700 230 12 5.6 F48 2100 630 14 7.6 F49 1900 430 10 3.6 F50 20000 18530 100 93.6 F51 1820 350 14 7.6 F52 1700 230 10 3.6 F53 1550 80 12 5.6 F54 2000 530 14 7.6 F55 1600 130 12 5.6 F56 1600 130 11 4.6 F57 10000 8530 100 93.6 F58 3600 2130 26 19.6 F59 1830 360 12 5.6 F60 1600 130 12 5.6 F61 1600 130 15 8.6 F62 2400 930 14 7.6 F63 1950 480 10 3.6 F64 1800 330 11 4.6 F65 1600 130 12 5.6 F66 1700 230 14 7.6 F67 1600 130 12 5.6 F68 1600 130 12 5.6 F69 1800 330 10 3.6 F70 1700 230 13 6.6 F71 1500 30 14 7.6 F72 1700 230 12 5.6 F73 1800 330 14 7.6 F74 1600 130 15 8.6 F75 13000 11530 20 13.6 F76 6000 4530 15 8.6 F77 1980 510 12 5.6 F78 2000 530 13 6.6 F79 1650 180 11 4.6 F80 1700 230 15 8.6 F81 1620 150 12 5.6 F82 1900 430 10 3.6 F83 2000 530 12 5.6 F84 3200 1730 18 11.6 F85 2300 830 12 5.6 F86 2300 830 14 7.6 F87 1800 330 10 3.6 All floor scans performed with Ludlum 239-1 F (2350-1 No.95359) with 43-37 No. 92503 Floor Monitor Info: Scan MDA Beta - 188 dpm/detector area Scan MDA Alpha - 16 dpm/detector area Scan background Beta - 1470 cpm Scan background Alpha - 6.4 cpm ')etector Eff. Beta - .27 Oetector Eff. Alpha - .207 Page 2 of 2 Results of Surface Scans Molycorp - Building 29 Survey Unit (Affected Area) Building Walls (Interior) Location Beta Scan Beta Scan Alpha Scan Alpha Scan (see map) gross cpm net cpm gross cpm net cpm W1 300 36 0.6 -0.4 W2 265 1 0.6 -0.4 W3 225 -39 1 0 W4 265 1 1 0 W5 245 -19 0.2 -0.8 W6 250 -14 0.5 -0.5 W7 300 36 1.2 0.2 W8 260 -4 0.4 -0.6 W9 280 16 1 0 W10 300 36 1 0 WI1 220 -44 0.4 -0.6 W12 340 76 1.4 0.4 W13 290 26 1 0 W14 360 96 1.8 0.8 W15 360 96 1 0 W16 330 66 0.5 -0.5 W17 280 16 1 0 W18 290 26 0.4 -0.6 W19 300 36 1 0 W20 310 46 1.8 0.8 W21 320 56 1 0 W22 300 36 1.4 0.4 W23 280 16 0.8 -0.2 W24 300 36 1 0 W25 300 36 1 0 W26 330 66 1.8 0.8 W27 260 -4 1 0 W28 290 26 1 0 W29 270 6 2 1 W30 290 26 1.2 0.2 W31 340 76 1 0 W32 320 56 2 1 W33 300 36 1 0 W34 260 -4 1 0 W35 280 16 2 1 W36 280 16 2 1 W37 270 6 1.6 0.6 W38 260 -4 1.2 0.2 W39 240 -24 1 0 W40 260 -4 1 0 W41 280 16 1.4 0.4 W42 260 -4 2 1 W43 260 -4 1 0 W44 270 6 1 0 W45 280 16 0 -1 Page 1 of 2 W46 300 36 1.2 0.2 W47 310 46 2 1 W48 300 36 3 2 W49 290 26 0 -1 W50 280 16 1 0 W51 280 16 2 1 W52 270 6 1 0 W53 280 16 2 1 W54 260 -4 1 0 W55 260 -4 2 1 W56 240 -24 1 0 W57 250 -14 1 0 W58 240 -24 1 0 W59 200 -64 0 -1 W60 220 -44 0.6 -0.4 W61 220 -44 0.6 -0.4 W62 250 -14 0 -1 All interior wall scans performed with Ludlum 2350-1 No.117014 with 43-106 No. 133866: Scan MDA Beta - 620 dpm/detector area Scan MDA Alpha - 45 dpm/detector area Scan background Beta - 264 cpm Scan background Alpha - I cpm Detector Eff. Beta - .248 Detector Eff. Alpha - .211 Page 2 of 2 Results of Surface Scans Molycorp - Building 29 Survey Unit (Affected Area) Building Interior Bathroom Location Beta Scan Beta Scan Alpha Scan Alpha Scan (see map) gross cpm net cpm gross cpm net cpm WI 300 36 2 W2 280 16 2 1 01 W3 340 76 2 W4 320 56 1 0 F1 350 86 2 C1 300 36 1 0 C2 280 16 1 0 All bathroom scans performed with Ludlum 2350-1 No.117014 with 43-106 No. 133866: Scan MDA Beta - 620 dpm/detector area Scan MDA Alpha - 45 dpm/detector area Scan background Beta - 264 cpm Scan background Alpha - I cpm Detector Eff. Beta - .248 Detector Eff. Alpha - .211 Page 1 of 1 Results of Surface Scans Molycorp - Building 29 Survey Unit (Affected Area) Building Ceiling (Interior) Location Beta Scan Beta Scan Alpha Scan Alpha Scan (see map) gross cpm net cpm gross cpm net cpm C1 260 -4 0 -1 C2 260 -4 0 -1 1 C3 280 16 0 C4 280 16 1 0 C5 280 16 0 C6 260 -4 0 -1 C7 290 26 0 -1 C8 270 6 1.4 0.4 C9 280 16 1 0 C10 270 6 1.2 0.2 C11 280 16 1 0 C12 260 -4 0 -1 C13 280 16 1.4 0.4 C14 290 26 1.6 0.6 C15 290 26 0 -1 C16 290 26 1 0 C17 280 16 2 1 C18 270 6 1 0 C19 270 6 1 0 C20 280 16 2.2 1.2 C21 270 6 1.2 0.2 C22 280 16 2 1 C23 280 16 2 1 C24 290 26 1 0 All ceiling scans performed with Ludlum 2350-1 No.117014 with 43 106 No.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Athletics Classification Rules and Regulations 2
    IPC ATHLETICS International Paralympic Committee Athletics Classifi cation Rules and Regulations January 2016 O cial IPC Athletics Partner www.paralympic.org/athleticswww.ipc-athletics.org @IPCAthletics ParalympicSport.TV /IPCAthletics Recognition Page IPC Athletics.indd 1 11/12/2013 10:12:43 Purpose and Organisation of these Rules ................................................................................. 4 Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 4 Organisation ........................................................................................................................ 4 1 Article One - Scope and Application .................................................................................. 6 International Classification ................................................................................................... 6 Interpretation, Commencement and Amendment ................................................................. 6 2 Article Two – Classification Personnel .............................................................................. 8 Classification Personnel ....................................................................................................... 8 Classifier Competencies, Qualifications and Responsibilities ................................................ 9 3 Article Three - Classification Panels ................................................................................ 11 4 Article Four
    [Show full text]
  • Warm Springs Road and Green Valley Parkway Clark County, Nevada
    Request for Letter of Map Revision Green Valley Area Warm Springs Road and Green Valley Parkway Clark County, Nevada Prepared for: CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 500 S. Grand Central Parkway Las Vegas, NV 89155 Prepared by: PBS&J 2270 Corporate Circle, Suite 100 Henderson, Nevada 89074 (702) 263-7275 April 2, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Description Paqe 1.o Introduction.. .................................................... 1 2.0 Area Descriptions.. .............................................. 1 2.1 Area A Description.. ............................................ ..l 2.2 Area B Description............................................... 2 2.3 Area C Description............................................... 2 2.4 Area D Description............................................... 2 3.0 Hydrologic & Hydraulic Modeling......................... .3 3.1 Area A Analysis .................................................... 3 3.2 Area B Analysis .................................................... 3 3.3 Area C Analysis .................................................... 5 3.4 Area D Analysis ....................................................6 4.0 Conclusion......................................................... 7 5.0 References......................................................... 7 Request for LOMR - Green Valley Area 4/02/04 Warm Springs Road and Green Valley Pkwy -I- APPENDICES A. FEMA Forms (Area’s A - D) Separate Set for Each of Four Area’s FEMA ‘Overview and Concurrence Form’ - MT-2 Form 1 FEMA ‘Riverine Hydrology
    [Show full text]
  • Finish Top 20 Schools Scores 1 Arkansas Tech 296 306 602 +26 2
    Sonoma State Women's Fall Invitational Foxtail Golf Club Rohnert Park, CA Par 72-5982 Yards Dates: Oct 17 - Oct 18 finish top 20 schools scores 1 Arkansas Tech 296 306 602 +26 2 Art, Academy of 301 306 607 +31 3 CSU - Chico State 297 318 615 +39 4 Sonoma State 316 301 617 +41 5 Holy Names 305 326 631 +55 6 CSU - East Bay 318 319 637 +61 7 Western Washington 327 311 638 +62 8 Point Loma 319 327 646 +70 9 Dominican (CA) 331 331 662 +86 finish top 20 players school scores 1 Avery Struck Arkansas Tech 70 75 145 +1 2 Vicky Kuo Art, Academy of 73 74 147 +3 3 Courtney Newport Holy Names 75 73 148 +4 4 Bianca Armanini CSU - Chico State 72 77 149 +5 5 Shu-Lin Lin Art, Academy of 77 74 151 +7 6 Sterling Hawkins Art, Academy of 74 78 152 +8 T7 Anna Frandsen Arkansas Tech 75 78 153 +9 T7 Caroline Fredensborg Arkansas Tech 76 77 153 +9 T7 Stephanie Sewell Western Washington 80 73 153 +9 T7 Haley Whitbeck Sonoma State 81 72 153 +9 T11 Erin Martens Sonoma State 80 74 154 +10 T11 Abbey McGrew CSU - Chico State 74 80 154 +10 T11 Sabrina Virtusio Sonoma State 76 78 154 +10 T14 Roxanne Matta * Art, Academy of 82 74 156 +12 T14 Samantha Oliva Sonoma State 79 77 156 +12 T16 Madison Beckett Dominican (CA) 78 79 157 +13 T16 Michelle Picca Point Loma 78 79 157 +13 T16 Jessica Sachs Arkansas Tech 75 82 157 +13 T19 Jamie Lopez Holy Names 74 84 158 +14 T19 Emily Rotter CSU - Chico State 78 80 158 +14 T19 Madison Stephens CSU - Chico State 73 85 158 +14 T19 Taylor Wyss CSU - East Bay 80 78 158 +14 GOLFSTAT COLLEGIATE SCORING SYSTEM Mark Laesch - COPYRIGHT © 2016,
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Multi-Class Athletes Competition Handbook
    LAQ Multi-Class Athletes Competition Handbook July 2018 LAQ Multi-Class Athletes - Competition Handbook Introduction In 2013, classified Multi-Class (athletes with disabilities) were endorsed to compete in limited events under their own classification at Little Athletics Queensland conducted competitions up to State-level, as determine by the Competition Committee. The following rules are to be read in conjunction the LAQ Competition Handbook. Where applicable, all LAQ and IAAF rules of competition shall apply unless specified in this document. The Association recognises that events as detailed in this handbook may not be offered at weekly Centre meets. However, wherever feasible and appropriate the conditions and rules detailed in this handbook should be adhered to. Centre Committees may offer additional modified events not detailed in this handbook provided the event / equipment specifications are not greater than those detailed in the LAQ Competition Handbook and the Implement Weights for Para athletics “Open & Underage” athletes with a Disability document. Rules and events pertaining to the Multi-Class athletes at LAQ competitions will be reviewed every two years. July 2018 LAQ Multi-Class Athletes - Competition Handbook 1. CLASSIFICATION 1.1. Classification is a way of grouping athletes of similar function or ability for the purpose of competition. 1.2. Athletes with a disability have to be formerly classified by a recognised organisation, prior to competing in LAQ Carnivals and the Winter, Regional and State Championships i. Intellectual Impairment (T/F 20) - through Sports Inclusion Australia (previously AUSRAPID) or Australian Paralympic Committee ii. Physical Impairment (T/F 31-38, 40-47, 51-57) - through Athletics Australia – Provisional PI is acceptable for Regional and Carnival competitions iii.
    [Show full text]
  • Women in the 2000, 2004 and 2008 Olympic and Paralympic Games an Analysis of Participation, Leadership and Media Opportunities
    September 2009 Women in the 2000, 2004 and 2008 Olympic and Paralympic Games An Analysis of Participation, Leadership and Media Opportunities A Women’s Sports Foundation Research Report Authorship and Acknowledgments TThis report was authored by Maureen Smith, Ph.D., California State University, Sacramento, and Alison M. Wrynn, Ph.D., California State University, Long Beach. The report was reviewed by Donna A. Lopiano, Ph.D.; Don Sabo, Ph.D.; Marjorie A. Snyder, Ph.D.; Linda Mastandrea; Terri Lakowski; Carly Adams, Ph.D., University of Lethbridge; Ellen Carlton, Ph.D., Sonoma State University; Kerrie Kauer, Ph.D., California State University, Long Beach; Cheryl Cooky, Ph.D., California State University, Fullerton; Matthew Llewellyn, Pennsylvania State University; and Jennifer Piatt, Ph.D., California State University, Sacramento. The initial data collection was assisted by graduate students at California State University, Sacramento: Brandon Babcock, Kristi Jouett, Fred Kelley, Louis Lopez, Lindsey McEuen, Rusty Price, K.V. Vigil and Kelli White as well as graduate students from California State University, Long Beach. All data that was obtained from the Internet was accurate as of April 2009. Every attempt was made to obtain the most accurate and up-to-date data for this report. Special thanks to Deana Monahan for her editorial and graphic design expertise. Published September 2009, by the Women’s Sports Foundation® Eisenhower Park, 1899 Hempstead Turnpike, Suite 400 East Meadow, NY 11554 [email protected] www.WomensSportsFoundation.org © 2009, Women’s Sports Foundation, All Rights Reserved This report may be downloaded from www.WomensSportsFoundation.org. This report may be reproduced and distributed only in its entirety.
    [Show full text]
  • NCAA Raleigh Regional Lonnie Poole Golf Course at NC State Raleigh, NC 2018 NCAA Raleigh Regional Dates: May 14 - May 16
    NCAA Raleigh Regional Lonnie Poole Golf Course at NC State Raleigh, NC 2018 NCAA Raleigh Regional Dates: May 14 - May 16 1 2 Team Scores 1 1 Texas 271 273 544 -24 3 2 North Carolina State 275 277 552 -16 10 T3 Duke 281 272 553 -15 2 T3 Georgia Tech 274 279 553 -15 T7 5 Liberty 280 277 557 -11 T4 6 Arizona State 276 283 559 -9 T7 7 Middle Tennessee St. 280 281 561 -7 6 8 Augusta 278 284 562 -6 T7 9 Missouri 280 283 563 -5 T4 10 Santa Clara 276 290 566 -2 11 11 California 284 285 569 +1 12 12 Campbell 289 281 570 +2 14 13 Davidson College 296 294 590 +22 13 14 Iona College 295 301 596 +28 GOLFSTAT COLLEGIATE SCORING SYSTEM Mark Laesch - COPYRIGHT © 2018, All Rights Reserved, Golfstat NCAA Raleigh Regional Lonnie Poole Golf Course at NC State Raleigh, NC 2018 NCAA Raleigh Regional Dates: May 14 - May 16 Pos. Team/Player (seed) Rd 1 Rd 2 Total 1 Texas 271 273 544 1 Doug Ghim (1) 64 66 130 T4 Scottie Scheffler (2) 69 65 134 T22 Spencer Soosman (3) 69 71 140 T22 Steven Chervony (4) 69 71 140 T63 Drew Jones (5) 75 74 149 2 North Carolina State 275 277 552 2 Benjamin Shipp (2) 67 64 131 T4 Stephen Franken (1) 65 69 134 T33 Easton Paxton (4) 71 71 142 T54 Justin Hood (3) 73 73 146 T57 Harrison Rhoades (5) 72 75 147 T3 Duke 281 272 553 T6 Jake Shuman (3) 71 64 135 T14 Chandler Eaton (2) 69 70 139 T22 Adrien Pendaries (5) 70 70 140 T30 Alex Smalley (1) 71 70 141 T30 Evan Katz (4) 73 68 141 T3 Georgia Tech 274 279 553 T9 Tyler Strafaci (1) 68 69 137 T14 Noah Norton (2) 70 69 139 T14 Andy Ogletree (5) 70 69 139 T22 Luke Schniederjans (3) 68 72 140 T33 Chris Petefish (4) 68 74 142 5 Liberty 280 277 557 T11 Gabe Lench (5) 69 69 138 T14 Mickey DeMorat (4) 70 69 139 T22 Alexandre Fuchs (3) 70 70 140 T42 Ervin Chang (1) 71 72 143 T42 Isaiah Logue (2) 74 69 143 6 Arizona State 276 283 559 T6 Chun An Yu (2) 65 70 135 T11 Koichiro Ishika (4) 71 67 138 T33 Mason Andersen (3) 69 73 142 T50 Blake Wagoner (5) 71 73 144 T54 Alex del Rey (1) 71 75 146 7 Middle Tennessee St.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Blade Technology on Paralympic Sprint Performance Between 1996 and 2016: Bilateral Amputees’ Competitive Advantage
    Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, (Ahead of Print) https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.2020-0064 © 2021 Human Kinetics, Inc. BRIEF RESEARCH NOTE The Impact of Blade Technology on Paralympic Sprint Performance Between 1996 and 2016: Bilateral Amputees’ Competitive Advantage Yetsa A. Tuakli-Wosornu Xiang Li Yale School of Public Health Yale School of Public Health and Cornell Law School Kimberly E. Ona Ayala Yinfei Wu Yale School of Medicine Yale School of Public Health Michael Amick and David B. Frumberg Yale School of Medicine It is known that high-performance sprinters with unilateral and bilateral prosthetic lower limbs run at different speeds using different spatiotemporal strategies. Historically, these athletes still competed together in the same races, but 2018 classification rule revisions saw the separation of these two groups. This study sought to compare Paralympic sprint performance between all-comer (i.e., trans- femoral and transtibial) unilateral and bilateral amputee sprinters using a large athlete sample. A retrospective analysis of race speed among Paralympic sprinters between 1996 and 2016 was conducted. In total, 584 published race results from 161 sprinters revealed that unilateral and bilateral lower-extremity amputee sprinters had significantly different race speeds in all three race finals (100 m, p value <.001; 200 m, <.001; 400 m, <.001). All-comer bilateral amputee runners ran faster than their unilateral counterparts; performance differences increased with race distance. These data support current classification criteria in amputee sprinting, which may create more equal competitive fields in the future. Keywords: classification, clinical/sport biomechanics Tuakli-Wosornu is with the Dept. of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, and Li and Wu, the Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of the Running Performance of Athletes with Lower-Limb Amputation at the Paralympic Games 2004–2012
    Sports 2015, 3, 103-115; doi:10.3390/sports3020103 OPEN ACCESS sports ISSN 2075-4663 www.mdpi.com/journal/sports Article An Overview of the Running Performance of Athletes with Lower-Limb Amputation at the Paralympic Games 2004–2012 Hossein Hassani 1,2,*, Mansi Ghodsi 1, Mehran Shadi 1, Siamak Noroozi 3 and Bryce Dyer 3 1 The Statistical Research Centre, Business School, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth BH8 8EB, UK; E-Mails: [email protected] (M.G.); [email protected] (M.S.) 2 Institute for International Energy Studies (IIES), 65 Sayeh St., Vali-e-Asr Ave., Tehran 1967743 711, Iran 3 School of Design, Engineering and Computing, Bournemouth University, Poole House P124, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Bournemouth BH12 5BB, UK; E-Mails: [email protected] (S.N.); [email protected] (B.D.) * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +44-1202-968708. Academic Editor: Eling Douwe de Bruin Received: 16 February 2015 / Accepted: 3 June 2015 / Published: 16 June 2015 Abstract: This paper analyses the performances of lower-limb amputees in the 100, 200 and 400 m running events from the 2004, 2008 and 2012 Paralympic Games. In this paper, four hypotheses are pursued. In the first, it investigates whether the running performance of lower-limb amputees over three consecutive Paralympic Games has changed. In the second, it asks whether a bi-lateral amputee has a competitive advantage over a uni-lateral amputee. In the third, the effect of blade classification has been considered and we attempt to see whether amputees in various classifications have different level of performance.
    [Show full text]
  • HRD-87-66 Social Security
    l United States General Accounting O;L”Iice ) Report to Congressional Requesters iiA0mI - March 1987 SOCIAL SECURITY Staff Reductions and Sertice Quakilyy 132662 538+23> GAO/HRD-8766 unitedstate5 General Accountind Office Wa&in#on,D,C.Ulbae Iiuman Re5ource5 Dlvidon B-2264$4 March lo,1987 The Honorable Lawton Chiles, Chairman Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Eklucation Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable William H. Natcher, Chairman Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives This is the first of three required reports on Social Security Administration (SSA) staff reductions and the quality of service SSAprovides to the public. The other two reports will be forwarded to you later this year. This report (1) discusseschanges in traditional SSAservice level indicators, such as payment accuracy and claim processing time; (2) analyzes current and past SSA staffing levels; (3) presents the views of 9s~employees, managers, and clients on the quality of SBAservice; (4) analyzes workloads and processing times for 16 SSAfield offices that experienced significant staff reductions; and (6) examines ss~ staff reduction actions in implementing its fiscal year 1987 budget. As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to other interested congressionalcommittees and members; the Secretary of Health and Human Services;the Director, Office of Management and Budget; the Commissioner, @IA;and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-20 Valspar Caddie Incentive Program FINAL.Xlsx
    2019-20 Valspar Caddie Incentive Program_FINAL 2019-20 Caddie Incentive Plan thru TOUR Championship Position Position Top Ten Color hat Total Rounds After After Finish additional Points CADDIE NAME TOURNAMENT PLAYER Played Round 2 Round 3 Position points Earned A- Antus, Chad A Military Tribute Peter Malnati 2 T25 wd 1 3 Sanderson Farms Peter Malnati 4 T43 T38 2 6 Safeway Open Peter Malnati 2 T123 c 1 3 Shriners Hospitals Peter Malnati 2 T117 c 1 3 Houston Open Peter Malnati 4 1 T3 2 10 Maykoba Peter Malnati 4 t63 t66 2 6 RSM Peter Malnati 2 T145 c 1 3 Sony Open in Hawaii Peter Malnati 4 T24 T16 2 8 AmEx Desert Classic Peter Malnati 3 T110 T107 1.5 4.5 Farmers Insurance Open Peter Malnati 2 T108 c 1 3 Waste Management Peter Malnati 2 T68 c 1 3 AT&T Pebble Beach Peter Malnati 4 T24 6 2 14 Genesis Peter Malnati 2 T97 c 1 3 Honda Classic Peter Malnati 2 T125 c 1 3 PLAYERS Peter Malnati 1 0.5 1.5 74 RBC Heritage Peter Malnati 4 T62 T63 2 6 Travelers Championship Peter Malnati 2 T152 1 3 Rocket Mortgage Peter Malnati 2 T71 1 3 3M Open Peter Malnati 2 T129 1 3 Barracuda Peter Malnati 4 T50 T60 2 6 Wyndham Peter Malnati 4 T17 T7 2 10 31 Aton, Derell A Military Tribute Mackenzie Hughes 2 T131 c 1 3 Safeway Open Mackenzie Hughes 2 T129 c 1 3 Shriners Hospitals Mackenzie Hughes 2 T106 c 1 3 Houston Open Mackenzie Hughes 4 T10 T29 2 8 17 2019-20 Valspar Caddie Incentive Program_FINAL B- Bailey, Lance Shriners Hospitals Isaiah Salinda 4 T60 T72 2 6 Houston Open Chad Campbell 4 T31 T15 T9 2 13 RSM Chad Campbell 2 T90 c 1 3 Sanderson Farms Chad Campbell
    [Show full text]
  • River States Conf Championship Lassing Pointe Golf Club Union, KY Championship Tees Dates: Apr 23 - Apr 24
    River States Conf Championship Lassing Pointe Golf Club Union, KY Championship Tees Dates: Apr 23 - Apr 24 1 Team Scores 1 Midway University 314 +30 2 West Virginia Tech 316 +32 3 Ohio Christian 317 +33 4 Indiana U. - East 319 +35 T5 Asbury University 320 +36 T5 Indiana U - Kokomo 320 +36 7 Brescia University 321 +37 8 Point Park 325 +41 9 Alice Lloyd College 330 +46 10 Cincinnati Christian 345 +61 11 Rio Grande, Univ. of 360 +76 12 Carlow 401 +117 GOLFSTAT COLLEGIATE SCORING SYSTEM Mark Laesch - COPYRIGHT © 2018, All Rights Reserved, Golfstat River States Conf Championship Lassing Pointe Golf Club Union, KY Championship Tees Dates: Apr 23 - Apr 24 Start Finish Player Team Scores - 1 Kieren Samarakoon West Virginia Tech 74 +3 - T2 Taylor Fletcher Indiana U - Kokomo 75 +4 - T2 Austin Mitchell Midway University 75 +4 - T2 Jarod Lemaster Rio Grande, Univ. of 75 +4 - T5 Matthew McCurry Asbury University 76 +5 - T5 Casey Moore Ohio Christian 76 +5 - 7 Cody French Midway University 77 +6 - T8 Logan Sheets Rio Grande, Univ. of 78 +7 - T8 Sam Seagrave Indiana U - Kokomo 78 +7 - T8 Callum Langford West Virginia Tech 78 +7 - T8 Austin Welch * Indiana U - Kokomo 78 +7 - T12 Trevor Brown Brescia University 79 +8 - T12 Austin Taylor Cincinnati Christian 79 +8 - T12 Tyler Pearson Indiana U. - East 79 +8 - T12 DJ Graham Ohio Christian 79 +8 - T12 Max Kaminsky Point Park 79 +8 - T12 Ben Campbell Asbury University 79 +8 - T12 Kole Schofield Indiana U. - East 79 +8 - T12 Daniel Steele Brescia University 79 +8 - T12 Gino DiPardo Point Park 79 +8 - T12 Michael Cooper Ohio Christian 79 +8 - T12 Tyler Brewer Alice Lloyd College 79 +8 - T23 Jared Albright Alice Lloyd College 80 +9 - T23 Chance England Brescia University 80 +9 - T23 Josh Koester Midway University 80 +9 - T23 Evan Williams Indiana U.
    [Show full text]
  • World Para Athletics Classification Rules and Regulations, March 2017 2
    World Para Athletics Classifi cation Rules and Regulations March 2017 O cial Partners of World Para Athletics www.worldparaathletics.org @ParaAthletics ParalympicSport.TV /ParaAthletics Organisation Part One: General Provisions.................................................................................................5 1 Scope and Application ...................................................................................................5 2 Roles and Responsibilities .............................................................................................7 Part Two: Classification Personnel ........................................................................................8 3 Classification Personnel ................................................................................................8 4 Classifier Competencies, Training and Certification ........................................................9 5 Classifier Code of Conduct .......................................................................................... 11 Part Three: Athlete Evaluation ........................................................................................... 12 6 General Provisions ...................................................................................................... 12 7 Eligible Impairment .................................................................................................... 12 8 Minimum Impairment Criteria ..................................................................................... 15 9 Sport
    [Show full text]