№ files_lp_4_process_3_132366
File format: docx
Character count: 15319
File size: 176 KB
The document discusses the human rights and environmental risks associated with carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, and hydrogen as potential climate change solutions, highlighting their toxicity and implications for human rights.
Year:
2023
Region / City:
International
Topic:
Climate Change, Human Rights, Toxic Pollution
Document Type:
Submission
Institution:
Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
Author:
Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
Target Audience:
Special Rapporteur on hazardous substances and wastes, Policy makers, Environmentalists
Period of Action:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
March 2023
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Year:
2000
Region / City:
Statewide
Subject:
Environmental Protection, Water Quality
Document Type:
Regulatory Rule
Agency / Institution:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Author:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Target Audience:
Regulatory bodies, environmental agencies, stakeholders in water quality
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
2000
Amendment Date:
N/A
Year:
2020
Region / City:
Kigali, Rwanda
Subject:
Disposal of surplus pesticides and associated toxic waste
Document type:
Notification
Authority:
Rwanda Standards Board (RSB)
Target audience:
Relevant stakeholders in the pesticide and agrochemical industry
Effective period:
To be determined
Approval date:
To be determined
Date of amendments:
Not specified
This notification provides the details for the draft standard DRS 210:
2020 concerning safety procedures for the disposal of pesticide waste and associated toxic waste.
Year:
2016
Region / City:
UK
Topic:
Dermatology, Acute cutaneous drug reactions
Document Type:
Medical Guidelines
Organization:
British Association of Dermatologists (BAD)
Author:
Creamer, D., Walsh, S. A., Dziewulski, P., Smith, C. H.
Target Audience:
Healthcare professionals
Period of Action:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Contextual description:
Medical guidelines for the identification and management of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis, including causes, treatment, and mortality prediction.
Year:
Not specified
Region / City:
Not specified
Topic:
Environmental review, hazardous substances, contamination
Document type:
Policy, guidelines
Agency / Organization:
HUD
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
HUD program applicants, environmental assessors
Effective period:
Not specified
Approval date:
Not specified
Amendment date:
Not specified
Note:
Year
Subject:
Environmental Impact Assessment
Document Type:
Policy Guidance
Agency / Institution:
HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development)
Year:
2025
Region / City:
New Zealand
Topic:
Regulatory Assessment, Fees
Document Type:
Regulatory Fee Structure
Organization:
ACVM
Author:
ACVM
Target Audience:
Applicants for registration or variation of trade name products
Validity Period:
2025
Approval Date:
July 2025
Modification Date:
Not specified
Year:
2007–2012
Location:
United States
Topic:
Hazardous substance incident surveillance and response
Document type:
Meeting notes and stakeholder list
Organizations:
U.S. Department of Health, state health departments, EPA, NIH, DOT, CSB, MKOPSC, other federal and state agencies
Authors:
Multiple coordinators and program officials listed by agency
Audience:
Government officials, public health and safety professionals
Meetings:
In-person partner meetings, federal partner meetings, MKOPSC roundtables, roadmap sessions
Dates of events:
March 30, 2009; September 25–26, 2007; June 6, 2012; November 28–29, 2007; other email follow-ups March–June 2012
Purpose:
Documentation of stakeholder consultations and site visit needs assessments
Year:
2021
Region:
Minnesota, Metro
Topic:
Environmental Remediation, Renewable Energy
Document Type:
Funding Proposal
Organization:
University of Minnesota - College of Biological Sciences
Project Manager:
Kathryn Fixen
Target Audience:
Environmental researchers and state agencies
Funding Requested:
$171,000
Proposed Completion Date:
2023-06-30
Funding Category:
Small Projects (H), Secondary Category: Water Resources (B)
Project Location:
Statewide
Contaminants Addressed:
Halogenated aromatic compounds (PCBs, chlorinated benzenes, pesticides)
Primary Method:
Photosynthetic bacterial bioremediation
Expected Outcomes:
Reduction of HACs in contaminated sites, hydrogen biofuel production
Year:
2025
Target audience:
16-year-old students
Subject:
Personal development and social relationships
Type of document:
Educational worksheet
Institution:
Secondary school
Author:
Unspecified teacher or curriculum developer
Activities included:
Pair exercises, individual homework, reflection questions
Key topics:
Toxic friendships, social media influence, emotional well-being, boundary setting
Sources cited:
https://www.toonpool.com/cartoons/my%20morning%20blog_63143 (accessed 20 November 2025)
Skills practiced:
Critical thinking, empathy, self-reflection, communication
Country:
United States
Organization:
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Document type:
Informational fact sheet / FAQ
Law:
PACT Act (Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act)
Topic:
Veterans’ health care and disability benefits related to toxic exposure
Target audience:
Veterans and survivors
Veteran service periods referenced:
Vietnam era; Gulf War era; Post-9/11 era
Key subject:
Eligibility for VA health care and benefits for veterans exposed to burn pits and other toxic substances
Medical conditions referenced:
Asthma; Brain cancer; Chronic bronchitis; COPD; Chronic rhinitis; Chronic sinusitis; Constrictive bronchiolitis; Emphysema; Gastrointestinal cancers; Glioblastoma; Granulomatous disease; Head cancers; Hypertension; Interstitial lung disease; Kidney cancer; Lymphatic cancers; Lymphoma; Melanoma; MGUS; Neck cancer; Pancreatic cancer; Pleuritis; Pulmonary fibrosis; Reproductive cancers; Respiratory cancers; Sarcoidosis
Government forms mentioned:
VA Form 21-526EZ; VA Form 10-10EZ
Services described:
VA disability claims; VA health care enrollment; toxic exposure screening
Geographic scope:
United States
Contact channels:
VA.gov websites, toll-free hotline, VA medical centers and clinics
Publication date:
March 2024
Version:
3.0
First published:
January 2015
Last updated:
December 2022
Region:
England
Type:
Clinical commissioning policy
Organization:
NHS England
Indication:
Toxic plasma methotrexate concentration due to delayed methotrexate elimination
Target population:
Adults and children receiving high-dose methotrexate chemotherapy
Therapeutic area:
Oncology / Haematology
Administration:
Urgent intravenous use
Expected annual use:
5–20 patients
Evidence base:
Phase II studies, case reports, pooled compassionate-use trials
Risk assessment:
Life-threatening methotrexate toxicity
Ethical framework:
NHS healthcare commissioning principles, Individual Funding Request guidance
Year:
2016
Region:
Arizona, United States
Topic:
Health Education / Tobacco and E-Cigarette Awareness
Document Type:
Lesson Plan / Educational Material
Organization:
Law-Related Education Academy, Arizona Foundation for Legal Services & Education
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Middle and High School Students
Funding:
Arizona Department of Education School Safety Program
Duration:
50 minutes
Key References:
Surgeon General’s Fact Sheet on E-Cigarettes (December 2016), ARS 13-3622
Objectives:
Understanding legal protections for health, FDA regulations on tobacco and vaping products, creation of local laws
Materials:
Posters, markers, sticky notes, handouts
Activities:
Group discussions, brainstorming, poster creation, class presentations
Note:
Date
Theme:
Resignation Letter
Document Type:
Formal Letter
Target Audience:
Employees
Context:
Formal resignation letter written by an employee due to a toxic work environment.
Year:
2021
Jurisdiction:
California, United States
Subject:
Airborne toxic control, diesel emissions, transport refrigeration units
Document type:
Regulatory amendment appendix
Authority:
California Air Resources Board
Referenced legislation:
Health and Safety Code Sections 39600, 39601, 39618, 39650–39675, 42400–42410, 43013, 43018, 43019.1
Scope:
TRUs, TRU generator sets, associated facilities, vehicle owners, operators, drivers, freight brokers, carriers, shippers, receivers, lessors, lessees, manufacturers, dealers, repair shops, engine rebuilders
Effective period:
Proposed changes over 15 days from public release
Date of original proposal:
July 27, 2021
Document format:
Track changes with accessible format
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Arizona, USA
Topic:
Relationship education, toxic relationships
Document Type:
Lesson plan
Organization / Institution:
Law-Related Education Academy, Arizona Foundation for Legal Services & Education
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Middle and High School Students
Funding Source:
Arizona Department of Education
Duration:
40 minutes
Materials:
Posters, slips of manipulation types, facilitator guide, relationship rights handout, scenarios, tape
Objectives:
Identify manipulation types, respond to toxic behaviors, develop decision-making skills
Teaching Method:
Team teaching with classroom teacher and facilitator
Standards Correlation:
Arizona State Standards for Civics and Government, Key Ideas and Details, Craft and Structure, Comprehension and Collaboration, Health
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Malawi
Subject:
Education, Infrastructure Development, Environmental and Social Management
Document Type:
Report
Organization / Institution:
Government of the Republic of Malawi, Ministry of Education
Author:
Government of Malawi
Target Audience:
Government officials, education sector stakeholders, contractors
Implementation Period:
December 2021 – December 2025
Approval Date:
February 2024
Revision Date:
February 2024
Note:
Study Summary 1.1 Please provide a brief summary of the study in the table below. A complete description of the study with detailed information should be provided in the body of the protocol. For sections not applicable to the study, mark them as N/A. Study Title Study Design Primary Objective/Purpose Secondary Objective(s)/Purposes Research Intervention(s) ClinicalTrials.gov NCT # Study Population Sample Size Study Duration for individual subjects Study Specific Abbreviations/ Definitions
Background 3.1 Provide the scientific or scholarly background for, rationale for, and significance of the research based on the existing literature and how will it add to existing knowledge. :
this section should be limited to only information directly related to the research questions and objectives. Do not include your full dissertation proposal. 3.2 Describe any relevant preliminary data (e.g. pilot data).
Procedures Involved 5.1 Describe and explain the study design. 5.2 Please select the methods that will be employed in this study (select all that apply):
☐ Audio/Video Recording ☐ Psychophysiological Recording ☐ Behavioral Interventions ☐ Record Review - Educational ☐ Behavioral Observations and Experimentations ☐ Record Review - Employee ☐ Deception ☐ Record Review- Medical ☐ Focus Groups ☐ Record Review - Other ☐ Interviews ☐ Specimen Collection or Analysis ☐ Investigational Medical Device – (e.g. Medical Mobile Applications) ☐ Surveys and/or Questionnaires ☐Psychometric Testing ☐ Other Social-Behavioral Procedures Provide a description of all research procedures being performed and when they are performed. (Upload any surveys, questionnaires, interview scripts, focus group scripts, debriefing scripts, psychometric tests, stimulus materials, intervention manuals, and data collection forms on the Local Site Documents page in the IRB application.) 5.3 Describe the procedures or interventions that are going to be conducted as part of the research project, but that would have been conducted anyway, even if the research was not occurring (i.e. standard of care procedures, activities that would occur in a classroom). 5.4 Describe the procedures performed to lessen the probability or magnitude of risks of items selected in 5.2.5. 5 If accessing or collecting existing data, describe: The data that will be collected during the study (e.g. demographics, medical history, etc.). Attach the data capture sheet(s) on the Local Site Documents page in the IRB application. How the data will be obtained, including how you have the authority to access the data. The source or location of the data (e.g. USF Epic, TGH Epic, Hillsborough County School records, CANVAS records, publicly available databases, etc.). 5.6 If collecting and/or analyzing biological specimens, describe: How the biological specimens will be or have been collected. How the biological specimens will be stored. How long the biological specimens will be stored. How the biological specimens will be used. The laboratories that will be used. Whether the collected biological specimens will undergo genetic testing. If so, indicate if this study is part of a Genome Wide Association Study (GWAS) and whether the data will be forwarded to the NIH dbGaP. 5.7 If there are plans for long-term follow-up (once all research related procedures are complete), what data will be collected during this period.
Data and Specimen Storage for Future Research 6.1 If data or specimens will be banked for future research studies, describe where the data or specimens will be stored, how long it/they will b:
the process to request a release, approvals required for release, who can obtain data or specimens, and the data to be provided with specimens.
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters
Year:
2020
Region / city:
Johns Hopkins University
Topic:
Coronavirus, Medical Research, Virus Characteristics
Document type:
Informational Article
Organization / institution:
Johns Hopkins University
Author:
Irene Ken
Target audience:
General Public, Researchers
Period of validity:
Ongoing
Date of approval:
4/3/2020
Date of changes:
N/A
Year:
2022
Region / City:
Beijing, China
Topic:
Neutronics, Fusion Energy, Tritium Breeding Ratio
Document Type:
Research Paper
Organization / Institution:
CAEP Software Center for High Performance Numerical Simulation, Institute of Applied Physics and Computational Mathematics
Authors:
Xin Wang, Rui Li, Yuanguang Fu, Guiming Qin, Li Deng, Xueming Shi
Target Audience:
Researchers and Engineers in Fusion Energy
Period of Action:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification Date:
Not specified
Acknowledgement:
Sponsored by National MCF Energy R&D Program (No. 2022YFE03160001)
Note:
References
Li Deng, Gang Li, Bao-Yin Zhang, et al., A High Fidelity General Purpose 3-D Monte Carlo Particle Transport Program JMCT 3.0, Nuclear Science and Techniques, 33:
108 (2022)
Wang, X., Li, JL., Wu, Z. et al., CMGC:
A CAD to Monte Carlo Geometry Conversion Code, NUCL SCI TECH 31, 82 (2020)