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

# A Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT) Exercise for Nuclear Power Plant Fire Modeling Applications (NUREG/CR-6978)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6978, (PDF - 5.90 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 2007**Date Published:** November 2008

**Prepared by:** T.J. Olivier, S.P. Nowlen

Sandia National Laboratories Risk and Reliability Analysis Department 6761 P.O. Box 5800 Albuquerque, NM 87185

J. Dreisbach, D. Stroup, NRC Project Managers

**Prepared for:** Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code N6374

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report documents the results of a Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT) exercise performed for nuclear power plant (NPP) fire modeling applications conducted on behalf of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES). The PIRT exercise is performed via a facilitated expert elicitation process. In this case, the expert panel was comprised of seven international fire science experts. The panel was facilitated by Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). The objective of a PIRT exercise is to identify key phenomena associated with the intended application and to then rank the current state of knowledge relative to each identified phenomenon. The panel is presented with a series of specific fire scenarios, each of which is based on the types of scenarios typically considered in NPP applications. Each scenario includes a figure of merit; that is, a specific goal to be achieved in analyzing the scenario using fire modeling tools. To illustrate, one scenario involved a main control room fire. For this scenario the figure of merit was predicting the time to operator abandonment. Given each scenario, the panel identifies all those related phenomena that are of potential interest to an assessment based on the figure of merit. The phenomena are ranked relative to their importance in predicting the figure of merit. Each phenomenon is then further ranked for the existing state of knowledge and the adequacy of existing modeling tools to predict that phenomenon. The PIRT panel covered several fire scenarios and identified a number of areas potentially in need of further fire modeling improvements. The results are discussed in detail.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 8- 19 54

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Taen g Yan g
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Mi ch ael McNe il l; Set h W il so n; Mat th ew Tou pa l; Ci ty of St

. Pau l Po li ce Dep art m en t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 4, 2 01 9 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 7, 2 01 9 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, KE LLY, and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Taen g Yan g ap pe al s aft er th e di st ri c t co ur t di sm is se d hi s pr o se 42 U.S.C. 1 § 19 83 co m

pl ai nt as ti m e-b arre d, de ni ed hi m le av e to am e n d hi s co m pl ai nt on gr ou nd s th at th e pr op os ed am en dm en ts wou ld be fu ti le , an d de ni ed hi s po st -jud gm en t

m ot io n fo r rel ie f un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 59 (e). Upo n care fu l de no vo
rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in di sm is si ng Yan g’s co m pl ai nt

as ti m e-b arre d. See Hum ph rey v. Eure ka Gard en s Pu b. Faci li ty Bd ., 89 1 F.3 d 10 79 , 10 81 (8t h C ir. 2 01 8) (th is co ur t re vi ews de no vo whe th er sta tu te of li m it at io ns ba rs cl ai m ); se e al so W al la ce v. Kato , 54 9 U.S. 38 4, 38 8– 95 & 39 5 n.4 (2 00 7) (fal se -arr es t

an d fal se -impris on m en t cl ai m s accr ue whe n pl ai nt iff be co m es he ld pu rs ua nt to le ga l pr oc es s)

. W e fu rth er co nc lu de th at di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed Yan g’s m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d hi s co m

pl ai nt be cau se hi s pr op os ed am en dme n t s w o u ld ha ve be en fu ti le

. See Si lv a v. Met ro

. Life In s. Co ., 76 2 F.3 d 71 1, 71 9– 20 (8 th C i r

. 2 01 4) (d is tri ct co ur t m ay pr op erl y de ny le av e to am en d c o mpla in t whe n pr op os ed

am en dm en ts wou ld be fu ti le ; le ga l co nc lu si on s un de rlyin g di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng of fu ti li ty are rev ie wed de no vo ). Fi na ll y , we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g Yan g’s po st -jud gm en t m ot io n. See Mi l l e r v. Bak er Im pl em en t Co ., 43 9 F .3d 40 7, 4 14 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) (st an da rd of r ev ie w for de ni al of Fed . R. Civ . P. 59 (e) m ot io n) . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Jo an N. Eric ks en , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d r e c o mm e n da ti on s of th e Hon or ab le Leo I. Bri sb oi s, Un it ed Sta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. -2

-
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# PIMAL: Phantom with Moving Arms and Legs – Version 4.1.0 (NUREG/CR-7243)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7243 (PDF – 8.95 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** August 2016**Date Published:** December 2017

Version 4.1.0 Prepared by: S. Dewji and M. Hiller Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN, USA

PIMAL Development Team: S. A. Dewji, M. Hiller, M. Bellamy, H. Akkurt1, D. Wiarda, G. Kora, and K. Eckerman2 Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN, USA

K. Griffin Nuclear and Radiological Engineering Program Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA, USA

1 Current: Electric Power Research Institute2 ORNL, retired

T.Oxenberg and R. Tadesse, NRC Project Managers S. Sherbini, NRC Technical Monitor

NRC Job Code V6255

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Computational phantoms with articulated arms and legs have been developed to enable radiation dose estimation for male and female receptors in different postures. Using a user-friendly graphical user interface (GUI), the PIMAL (**P**hantom w**I**th **M**oving **A**rms and **L**egs) software can be employed to adjust the posture of a phantom, generate a corresponding input file for the Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP®) radiation transport code, and perform the radiation transport simulations for the dose calculations in MCNP®. The MCNP® code can be run natively from the PIMAL interface or externally in the MCNP® command prompt via the generated MCNP® PIMAL input file.

Before PIMAL 4.0, previous versions consisted of a single (hermaphrodite) phantom model. PIMAL 4.1.0 now includes a separate male and female stylized phantom with articulated limbs, in addition to housing the most recent International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 110 reference adult male and female voxel phantoms (no articulation). Both internal and external radionuclide sources can be simulated in PIMAL via a dropdown menu in the GUI. For external sources, the user can select the ICRP's standard external exposure geometries (AP, PA, LLAT, RLAT, or ISO), in addition to a point source, from the menu options.

PIMAL 4.1.0 contains an improved user interface. The design of the sliders to control the articulation of the limbs is connected with the textbox input, with the bounding conditions of limb articulation included. Source modes (i.e., photon, neutron) for Monte Carlo simulation have been pre-programmed with the source input (photon, neutron, x-ray, radionuclide) to simplify the definition of the radiation source.

This user manual describes the updates to PIMAL 4.1.0, in addition to aiding the user in installing PIMAL, exploring the geometry articulation and visualization capabilities, and radiation source definitions, in addition to providing sample tutorials for the PIMAL user for estimating organ doses.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
**Exhibit 23.1**

***CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM***

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-91316,333-102962, 333-122555, 333-123408 and 333-129033) of  Kinder Morgan Management, LLC of our reportdated February 28, 2007****relating tothe financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K, and of ourreport dated March 1, 2007 relating to the financial statements, management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingand the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of KinderMorgan Energy Partners, L.P., which appears in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners,L.P.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K which is included as Annex A in thisForm 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopersLLPHouston, Texas March 1, 2007

----
August 1, 2015

From: Kyle Ferreira, Bergen County Aerial Media

286 Werimus Road

Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677

Kyle.Ferreira@yahoo.com

(201) 913-8500

Re: Exemption Request under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act

To Whom It May Concern,

Today, 8/1/15, I received a letter advising that you are unable to process my request for an 

exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), stating that I must provide the reasons 

why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is how it would benefit the public as a 

whole. The following response is how I feel granting me this exemption would directly benefit the 

public’s interest and the community around me:

The use of an UAS in the real estate industry provides both buyers and sellers a higher level of 

service. It is able to capture images that allow for a higher level of marketing and advertising. This in 

turn makes the property appealing to more buyers, resulting in a quicker sale of their home. Quicker 

home sales also help accelerate the economy as a whole. Property Buyers experience the benefit of 

encompassing a whole property, sometimes several acres, in one photo or a short video. Not only does 

this benefit the specific home seller or home buyer, but it benefits the general public because it is much 

more efficient than traditional ways of using a plane or helicopter to achieve the same result. We can 

now provide this level of service while being conservative with fuel, time, emissions, noise, and other 

resources. Considering size, weight, speed, and absence of combustible fuels, my UAS will have much 

less of a safety concern for the general public when compared to larger manned aircraft.

If you have any further questions, or would like to speak to me personally please contact me at the 

above listed information

Respectfully Submitted,

Kyle Ferreira, Owner

Bergen County Aerial Media
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Standard Review Plan for Decommissioning Cost Estimates for Nuclear Power Reactors (NUREG-1713)

On this page:
        - Publication Information 
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1713 (PDF - 2.78 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed: October 2004 Date Published: December 2004**

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This Standard Review Plan (SRP) for decommissioning cost estimates provides guidance to Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) staff on how to evaluate each of the decommissioning cost estimates that are required to be provided by the power reactor licensees. The SRP includes guidance on evaluating decommissioning costs for both pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs). The SRP is divided into sections that are keyed to the sections in Regulatory Guide-1085, "Standard Format and Content of Decommissioning Cost Estimates for Nuclear Power Reactors," which was developed to provide guidance to licensees on decommissioning cost estimates. Each section of this NUREG is a separate SRP and presents the areas of review, acceptance criteria, review procedures, and evaluation findings for each of the decommissioning cost estimates required by 10 CFR 50.75 and 10 CFR 50.82.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### In re Larkin Crayton CATHEY, Jr. d/b/a Cathey Furniture Gallery, Bankrupt. Gene HOWARD, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES BEDDING COMPANY, INC., Defendant.

Bankruptcy B-79-877.

United States Bankruptcy Court, W. D. Louisiana.

Oct. 2, 1981.

Chatham H. Reed & Keith M. Welch, Simon, Fitzgerald, Cooke & Reed, Shreveport, La., for Gene Howard, Trustee.

U. S. Bedding was not represented by counsel.

*677FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

LeROY SMALLENBERGER, Bankruptcy Judge.

This is a proceeding initiated by the trustee in bankruptcy to recover a preferential transfer made to the United States Bedding Company, Inc. A hearing was held on this action on September 29, 1981, at Shreveport, Louisiana.

At the hearing the parties made an oral stipulation of facts to the effect that the payment was made on account of an antecedent debt, within four months of the adjudication in bankruptcy, while the debtor was insolvent, and such payment enabled the codebtor to receive a greater percentage of its debts than other creditors of the same class. The only issue left for the Court to decide was whether or not United States Bedding Company had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent under § 60(b) of the Bankruptcy Act.

The defendant, United States Bedding Co., Inc., was doing business in this state through various entities including The Eng-lander Company which hired the United Mercantile Agency, Inc., to collect a debt owed by Mr. Cathy, the bankrupt. The agency in turn hired the law firm of Cook & Egan to prosecute the matter. The evidence submitted at the hearing consisted of the correspondence between the law firm and the collection agency. That correspondence between the agents of the defendant sufficiently shows that the defendant had a reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfer. The check with which payment was originally attempted was presented twice and both times the check was returned for insufficient funds. Numerous promises to pay were made and never fulfilled. Moreover, it took nine months of notices, demands for payments and a law suit with impending judgment debtor rule to force the debtor to pay. In light of these facts and the similar situation in *Mizell v. Phillips,*(C.A. 5th 1957) 240 F.2d 738, this Court finds that such payment was a preferential transfer.

The payment of $1,050.51 in February of 1979 is a preferential transfer therefore the funds must be returned to the debtor.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Brian Nichols, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of First American Scientific Corp.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report 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 with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report.
4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15) for the registrant and we have:

a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Dated this 12th day of November, 2003.



| | /s/ Brian Nichols
Brian Nichols
Principal Financial Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------







---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1820 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1820

 To authorize Department of Veterans Affairs health care providers to 
      provide recommendations and opinions to veterans regarding 
               participation in State marijuana programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 30, 2017

  Mr. Blumenauer (for himself, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Polis, Mr. Amash, Ms. 
 Titus, and Mr. Rohrabacher) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize Department of Veterans Affairs health care providers to 
      provide recommendations and opinions to veterans regarding 
               participation in State marijuana programs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Equal Access Act''.

SEC. 2. PROVISION BY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS HEALTH CARE 
              PROVIDERS OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS REGARDING 
              VETERAN PARTICIPATION IN STATE MARIJUANA PROGRAMS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs shall authorize physicians and other health care 
providers employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs to--
            (1) provide recommendations and opinions to veterans who 
        are residents of States with State marijuana programs regarding 
        the participation of veterans in such State marijuana programs; 
        and
            (2) complete forms reflecting such recommendations and 
        opinions.
                                 <all>
```
The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been 

disposed of by the Supreme Court:

1. Kathy Pritchard

v. Jill Ruderman

 Record No. 0024-22-2

Opinion rendered by Chief Judge Decker

 on December 20, 2022

 Refused (230045)

2. Aleksey Gennadiyev Yemel’Yanov

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

 Record No. 0450-22-2

Opinion rendered by Judge Beales

 on January 10, 2023

 Refused (230103)

3. Daniel Rock

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

 Record No. 0343-22-3

Opinion rendered by Judge Huff

 on January 24, 2023

 Refused (230142)
No. 82-6010.

#### Lott *v.*Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
First Amendment - Scott A. Reinert


 Exhibit 10.3 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made on January 27, 2011 to the Employment Agreement dated effective January 24, 2011 Employment Agreement (the
“Employment Agreement”) entered into by and between BRE Properties, Inc. (the “Company”), and Scott A. Reinert (“Executive”) and is made effective as of January 1, 2011 (the “Amendment Effective Date”).

 For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby amend
the Employment Agreement as follows: 
 1. Modification to Section 8.2(a). Section 8.2(a) to the Employment Agreement is
deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
 (a) If within 12 months after the effective date of a Change in
Control (as defined below) this Agreement and Executive’s employment is terminated due to Executive’s death or Disability, then Executive or his estate (i) shall receive, within 90 days after the close of the fiscal year in which the
death or Disability occurred, a lump-sum payment equal to the estimated Annual Bonus that Executive would have earned for the fiscal year in question (based on actual performance relative to MBO Criteria for the fiscal year and Executive’s
contribution, in each case up to the date of termination), calculated on a pro-rated basis to the Termination Date; and (ii) shall be entitled to the vesting benefits set forth in any performance stock award agreement or other equity award
agreement whether now in existence or entered into during the term of this Agreement. 
 2. Interpretation and Advice of Counsel.
Executive was advised to seek the advice of counsel in connection with the negotiation of this Amendment. Executive has been given the opportunity to do so and this Amendment has been drafted jointly by the parties. Any uncertainty or ambiguity
shall not be construed for or against any party based on attribution of drafting to any party. 
 3. Definitions. Terms beginning with an
initial capital letter not defined herein shall have the meaning given to them in the Employment Agreement. 
 4. Effect of Amendment.
Accept as amended by this First Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 






 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been executed as of the Effective Date.

  

							
	BRE PROPERTIES, INC.	 		  	EXECUTIVE	  	
				
	 /s/ Constance B. Moore

Constance B. Moore
 CEO and President
	 		  	 /s/ Scott A. Reinert
 Scott A. Reinert