alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Technical Assistance Request, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, VA, Policy Guidance Concerning Use of Xenon-133 in Saline

## HPPOS-319 PDR-9307060010

See the memorandum from J. E. Glenn to D. M. Collins dated June 25, 1993. 

This memo responds to a technical assistance request from Region I, dated May 29, 1992, concerning a request from the Medical College of Virginia for policy guidance. The licensee requested clarification whether xenon-133 (Xe-133) in saline should be considered a gas and the subsequent applicability requirements of 10 CFR 35.205. The licensee intended to administer Xe-133 in saline intravenously to patients for cerebral blood flow studies. These patients cannot be moved into a room at negative pressure for the studies without creating a potential health risk.

Xe-133 dissolved in saline is technically not a gas. Therefore, the licensee does not need to adhere to the requirement to administer radioactive gases only in rooms that are at negative pressure compared to surrounding rooms as stipulated in 10 CFR 35.205 (b). However, in case of a spill of the saline solution before administration, the xenon will be released from the suspension as a gas. The licensee should indicate if the xenon is dissolved in saline under pressure. If so, additional precautions may be necessary if the vial containing the Xe-133 is inadvertently punctured. The rebreathing system should recapture all exhaled xenon. It will be essential for the licensee to post spilled gas clearance times and have adequate safety precautions to ensure minimal exposure of personnel and patients in the Neuroscience Intensive Care Unit.

Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 35.205 (a), (c), (d), and (e), that stipulate air concentrations be within 10 CFR Part 20 limits, calculation and posting of spilled gas clearance times, monthly checks of the operation of the reusable collection systems, and measurement of ventilation rates in the area each six month, should be instituted as part of the licensee's protocol for use of Xe-133 in cerebral blood flow studies.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 35.205

**Subject codes:** 12.19, 9.1, 11.2, 11.3

**Applicability:** Byproduct Material

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 31, 2017
### [§1506. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §133(h), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 41]

Section, added Pub. L. 86–770, §2(a), Sept. 13, 1960, 74 Stat. 912, provided that if a case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the district courts was filed in the Court of Claims, the Court of Claims, if it were in the interest of justice, had to transfer such case to any district court in which it could have been brought at the time such case was filed, where the case would proceed as if it had been filed in the district court on the date it was filed in the Court of Claims.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as an Effective Date of 1982 Amendment note under section 171 of this title.
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateGeneric Issues

# Policy and Procedures for Generic Issues Program

The following policy documents include public law, NRC Commission's Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM), and staff responses in several Secretary of the Commission (SECY) Papers that resulted in development of and improvements to the GIP to ensure comprehensive, timely, and effective resolution of GIs. The following procedural documents include the governing GIP procedures and instructions that provide staff guidance and process flow associated with performing GIP activities.

## Policy Documents

        - Program for Resolution of Generic Issues Related to Nuclear Power ( 43 FR 1565; January 10, 1978 )
        - Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants ( 50 FR 32138; August 8, 1985 )
        - Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants ( 51 FR 28044; August 4, 1986 as corrected and republished at 51 FR 30028; August 21, 1986 )
        - Program for Resolution of Generic Issues Related to Nuclear Power Plants, Withdrawal ( 54 FR 24432; June 7, 1989 )
        - Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power Plants ( 59 FR 35461; July 12, 1994 )
        - Regulatory Guide 1.174 , An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis
        - SECY-07-0022 , Status Report on Proposed Improvements to the Generic Issues program, January 30, 2007

**Staff Requirements Memoranda**
        - SRM to the EDO, " SECY-97-052  - Committee To Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) - Scope of Review and Periodic Review Activities," April 18, 1998
        - SRM to the EDO, " SECY-05-0126  - Summary of Activities Related to Generic Safety Issues," Auguest 31, 2005

## Procedures

        - Management Directive 6.4
        - TEC-002

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, January 6, 2023

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Policy and Procedures Documents
          - Frequently Asked Questions
          - How to Propose a New Generic Issue

#### 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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, January 6, 2023
### §987. Branch transactions

In the case of any taxpayer having 1 or more qualified business units with a functional currency other than the dollar, taxable income of such taxpayer shall be determined—

(1) by computing the taxable income or loss separately for each such unit in its functional currency,

(2) by translating the income or loss separately computed under paragraph (1) at the appropriate exchange rate, and

(3) by making proper adjustments (as prescribed by the Secretary) for transfers of property between qualified business units of the taxpayer having different functional currencies, including—

(A) treating post-1986 remittances from each such unit as made on a pro rata basis out of post-1986 accumulated earnings, and

(B) treating gain or loss determined under this paragraph as ordinary income or loss, respectively, and sourcing such gain or loss by reference to the source of the income giving rise to post-1986 accumulated earnings.

(Added Pub. L. 99–514, title XII, §1261(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2586; amended Pub. L. 100–647, title I, §1012(v)(1)(B), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3528.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1988—Par. (4). Pub. L. 100–647 struck out par. (4) which provided for translation of foreign income taxes paid by each qualified business unit of the taxpayer in the same manner as provided under section 986(b).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–647 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if included in the provision of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99–514, to which such amendment relates, see section 1019(a) of Pub. L. 100–647, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1986, with certain exceptions and qualifications, see section 1261(e) of Pub. L. 99–514, set out as a note under section 985 of this title.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Stephan Kuppenheimer, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Merrill Lynch
Depositor, Inc., on behalf of PreferredPLUS Trust Series BLC-1;

         2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports;

         4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement
and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and trustee
have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

         5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
compliance by the depositor or trustee with the minimum servicing or similar
standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant,
after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling
or servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York and
its officers and agents.


Date:  March 27, 2006
                                             /s/ Stephan Kuppenheimer
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             President
RATS ID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-CV-22606-GOODMAN [CONSENT CASE]

ERIC CHAVEZ, ET AL.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GRILL ENTERPRISES, LLC AND 

RUBEN SIERRA, 

Defendants.

_______________________/

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS CO-COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS

Brian H. Pollock, Esq., of the FairLaw Firm, notifies the Court and all parties of his 

appearance in this action as co-counsel for Defendants, Grill Enterprises, LLC and Ruben Sierra, 

and requests that all pleadings, correspondence, and documents related to this matter be served on 

him at the below address/email address.

Dated this 10th day of April 2023.

s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq. (174742)

brian@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Tel: (305) 230-4884

Co-Counsel for Defendant(s)

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 141 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2023 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No. 20-80048-WPD 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

JUSTIN SMITH, 

 DEFENDANT, 

 / 

Notice of Appearance 

Please enter the appearance of Stephen J. Gripkey as counsel for the United States 

in the above-entitled case. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 ARIANA FAJARDO ORSHAN 

 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

 GUSTAV W. EYLER 

DIRECTOR 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

CONSUMER PROTECTION BRANCH 

 /s/ Stephen J. Gripkey 

STEPHEN J. GRIPKEY 

Court ID A5502620 

Trial Attorney 

Consumer Protection Branch 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 386 

Washington, D.C. 20044-0386 

(202) 307-0048 

stephen.gripkey@usdoj.gov 

Case 9:20-cr-80048-WPD Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2020 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on September 3, 2020, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to 

be filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court by way of the CM/ECF system. Notice of this 

filing will be sent to all counsel of record by operation of CM/ECF system. Parties may access 

this filing through the CM/ECF system. 

/s/ Stephen J. Gripkey 

Stephen J. Gripkey 

 Trial Attorney 

 U.S. Department of Justice 

Case 9:20-cr-80048-WPD Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2020 Page 2 of 2
-cr-06216-LSS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2000 P
-cr-06216-LSS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2000 P
-cr-06216-LSS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2000 P
-cr-06216-LSS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2000 P
-cr-06216-LSS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2000 P
-cr-06216-LSS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2000 P
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.1003 Grounds for filing a VOSB or SDVOSB status protest. ( a ) *Veteran status.* In cases where the protest is based on service-connected disability, permanent and severe disability, or veteran status, the Judge will only consider a protest that presents specific allegations supporting the contention that the owner(s) cannot provide documentation from the VA, Department of Defense, or the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration to show that they meet the definition of veteran, service-disabled veteran, or service-disabled veteran with a permanent and severe disability.
( b ) *Ownership and control.* In cases where the protest is based on ownership and/or control, the Judge will consider a protest only if the protester presents credible evidence that the concern is not 51% owned and controlled by one or more veterans or service-disabled veterans.
( c ) *Ostensible subcontractor.* In cases where the protest is based on an allegation that the prime contractor appears unduly reliant on one or more, non-VOSB or non-SDVOSB subcontractors, or the non-VOSB or non-SDVOSB subcontractor is performing the primary and vital requirements of the contract, OHA will consider a protest only if the protester presents credible evidence of the alleged undue reliance or credible evidence that the primary and vital requirements will be performed by the subcontractor(s).
( d ) *Joint ventures.* A VOSB or SDVOSB joint venture may be protested regarding the status of the managing VOSB or SDVOSB joint venture partner or for failure to meet the requirements of § 128.402 of this chapter. If the joint venture is found to be ineligible solely based on failure to meet the requirements of that section, the joint venture will be ineligible for the contract at issue. The finding of ineligibility is limited to that contract and will not affect the underlying eligibility of the VOSB or SDVOSB joint venture partner.
( e ) *Date for determining eligibility.* ( 1 ) If the VOSB or SDVOSB status protest pertains to a procurement, the Judge will determine a protested concern's eligibility as a VOSB or SDVOSB as of the date of its initial offer or response which includes price. For a protest challenging an ostensible subcontractor or a joint venture's compliance with the joint venture agreement requirements set forth in § 128.402(c), the Judge will determine eligibility as of the date of the final proposal revision for negotiated acquisitions or as of final bid for sealed bidding.
( 2 ) If the VOSB or SDVOSB status protest does not pertain to a procurement, the Judge will determine a protested concern's eligibility as a VOSB or SDVOSB as of the date the VOSB or SDVOSB status protest was filed.
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to this park navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to this park information section
Skip to the footer section






National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Thomas Cole
National Historic Site
New York


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


Alerts In Effect Dismiss
 more information on current conditions...
 Dismiss View all alerts


Contact Us
  Basic Information
 Physical Address
Directions
Operating Hours & Seasons
Weather
Fees & Passes
Visitor Centers
Internet & Cellular Access
Internet & Cellular Access Details

To learn more about the site visit: http://www.thomascole.org/
 Last updated: August 24, 2021
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: PO Box 426
218 Spring Street
Catskill,
NY
12414
 Phone: 518.943.7465 Contact Us
 Tools FAQ
Site Index
Español
 Stay Connected


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, James J. Baumberger, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of First Republic Preferred Capital Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of
the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

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

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

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: March 23, 2006



/s/    JAMES J. BAUMBERGERName:

James J. BaumbergerTitle:

President and chief executive officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Operating Partners 1992-C, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of operations con-
tained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         421,321
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  841,462
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,276,193
<PP&E>                                         13,336,106
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,703,659)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,386,496
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          187,356
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,682,710
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,386,496
<SALES>                                        750,321
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               761,141
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  458,711<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                233,478
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            233,478
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   233,478
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
No: II-23-004 April 3, 2023 

Contact: Dave Gasperson 404-997-4417 

NRC Proposes $70,000 Fine to Urenco USA Uranium Enrichment Facility

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a $70,000 civil penalty for Urenco USA 

for two violations of agency requirements related to improperly implementing safety controls at its 

Eunice, New Mexico, plant. 

The first violation occurred during a March 2022 event when plant staff found three 

construction vehicles parked near a building that handles uranium hexafluoride without physical 

barriers in place. The company notified the NRC as required and the agency launched a special 

inspection in response and documented its findings in a May 10, 2022, report. 

The second violation occurred during a June 2022 event when plant management observed 

an employee not following established safety procedures for trucks entering an area near a building 

containing uranium hexafluoride cylinders. The company notified the NRC and the agency 

conducted a follow-up inspection Aug. 24, 2022. 

During that inspection, NRC inspectors found that Urenco USA failed to implement 

adequate safety measures during both incidents. Specifically, the company did not take enough 

precautions to prevent a potential accident sequence involving construction vehicles damaging the 

facility or the uranium hexafluoride inside – increasing the risk to plant workers and the public. 

Urenco USA was notified of the apparent violations Dec. 8, 2022. The company submitted 

a written response to the NRC Feb. 8, 2023, admitted the violations, and discussed their plans for 

corrective actions. 

The NRC reviewed Urenco USA’s response and determined that while the incidents did not 

result in the release of radioactive material, the potential safety consequences of the violations 

warrant the proposed fine. 

The company has 30 days to pay the proposed penalty or contest it. The NRC will consider 

any response from the company before making a final determination on the matter.