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

# Glossary of Risk-Related Terms in Support of Risk-Informed Decisionmaking (NUREG-2122)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-2122 (PDF - 2.51 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** May 2013**Date Published:** November 2013

**Prepared by:** M. Drouin1, M. Gonzalez1, S. Herrick1, J. S. Hyslop1, D. Stroup1 J. Lehner2, T. Pratt2 M. Dennis3, J. LaChance3, T. Wheeler3

1U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

2Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973

3Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 87185

M. Drouin, NRC Project Manager

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The policy statement on the “Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Methods in Nuclear Regulatory Activities” (Ref. 31) expressed the Commission’s belief that the use of PRA technology in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulatory activities should be increased. Consequently, the NRC carried out numerous risk-informed activities in all areas of NRC regulation. With increased risk-informed activities came the recognition that the agency could enhance regulatory stability and efficiency if it implemented the many potential applications of risk information in a consistent and predictable manner. An essential part of consistent and predictable implementation is the use of consistent terminology to ensure accurate communication and transfer of information. Further, the NRC recognizes that some risk-related terms have been used in ambiguous ways by practitioners. The increased development of guidance documents, regulations, and procedures related to risk-informed activities makes the fundamental understanding of these risk-related terms more imperative. Consistent terminology is essential to the appropriate implementation of risk-informed activities and the communication between the NRC and its stakeholders. It allows practitioners to eliminate communication issues and avoid unnecessary discussions that may have been erroneously perceived as technical issues. Therefore, a glossary with agreed-upon definitions of risk-informed related terms is an essential tool for future risk-informed activities. This glossary addresses risk-related terms used in the context of risk associated with a reactor of a nuclear power plant.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,161
<SECURITIES>                                    13,620
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,544
<ALLOWANCES>                                       122
<INVENTORY>                                      2,285
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,770
<PP&E>                                           2,885
<DEPRECIATION>                                     936
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,025
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,086
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,112
<SALES>                                          5,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,399
<CGS>                                            1,576
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,576
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,145)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,145)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,145)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.17)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2005047EN.01002101.xml

| 23.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/21

---

Corrigendum to Commission notice of invitation to tender for refunds on common wheat exported to certain third countries

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 22, 27 January 2005
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 22, 27 January 2005

(2005/C 47/09)

On page 19, under ‘III. Tenders’, in the third address:

for:

‘Fax 33 92 69 48’,

read:

‘Fax 33 95 80 18’;

on page 20, in the sixth address:

for:

‘Tel. (371) 702 42 47

Fax (371) 702 71 20’,

read:

‘Tel. (371) 702 72 47

Fax (371) 702 78 38’.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            Certification Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Daou Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Neil R. Cassidy, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (3)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
     (4)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


/s/ Neil R. Cassidy
-----------------------
Neil R. Cassidy
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002

                                       20
EXHIBIT 31.b

I, Marc N. Teal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "Assignor");
2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 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:



1. 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 report is being prepared;
2. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
3. disclosed in this 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



1. 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 functions):



1. 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
2. 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.



|November 14, 2007 | /s/ Marc N. Teal                                     
|----------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|                  | Marc N. Teal                                         
|                  | (Principal Financial Officer), BCTC IV Assignor Corp.
|                  |
# C_2004168EN.01000602.xml

| 26.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/6

---

Action brought on 1 April 2004 by Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Case T-129/04)

(2004/C 168/11)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 2004 by Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG, Unterhaching (Germany), represented by H.P. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 January 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 January 2004;

| — | order the defendant Office to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

| Community trade mark sought: | A three dimensional mark in the shape of a plastic bottle – Application No 2579381. |
| --- | --- |
| Goods or services: | Goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32 (inter alia, tomato pulp, milk and milk products, mayonnaises, ketchup, fruit drinks). |
| Decision contested before the Board of Appeal: | Refusal by the examiner to register the mark. |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Dismissal of the appeal. |
| Pleas in law: | Infringement of Articles 74(1) and 45 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), infringement of Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, insofar as the defendant Office stated that it is not bound by earlier registrations in Member States, and infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94. |

Community trade mark sought:

A three dimensional mark in the shape of a plastic bottle – Application No 2579381.

Goods or services:

Goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32 (inter alia, tomato pulp, milk and milk products, mayonnaises, ketchup, fruit drinks).

Decision contested before the Board of Appeal:

Refusal by the examiner to register the mark.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law:

Infringement of Articles 74(1) and 45 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), infringement of Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, insofar as the defendant Office stated that it is not bound by earlier registrations in Member States, and infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20185 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELIDA MARTINEZ-ARRAMBIDE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-715-1

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

October 29, 2001

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Elida Martinez-Arramide (Martinez) appeals a 77-month

sentence imposed following her plea of guilty to a charge of

being present in the United States after deportation, a violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. She contends that because her prior statecourt conviction for mere possession of cocaine does not qualify

as an “aggravated felony,” the district court erred by basing her

sentence on a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).
No. 01-20185

-2-

Martinez acknowledges that her contention is foreclosed by

this court’s decisions in United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130

F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 1997), and United States v. Hernandez-Avalos,

251 F.3d 505 (5th Cir. 2001). However, she seeks to preserve the

issue for review by the Supreme Court. See McKnight v. General

Motors Corp., 511 U.S. 659, 659-60 (1994). Accordingly, the

district court’s judgment must be AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.
# L_2015288EN.01001602.xml

| 4.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 288/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/16

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 285 of 30 October 2015
  )

On the cover page:

for:

‘Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014 ...’,

read:

‘Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015 ...’.

---
# C_2004262EN.01002501.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/25

---

Action brought on 7 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

(Case C-385/04)

(2004/C 262/46)

An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Mr Wouter Wils, acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1) | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

1)

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

1

| 2) | order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 20 April 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 110, 20.04.2001, p. 1.

1

---
### Devany , Denni s (OST) -. ^ 

# t)«.(^-- ^ as^-ltfM^ ^ pi'inTMCf^To r From : Sent : To : Cc : Subject : 

## •hSPORWiO N

. ; U OFrRATlON S Alic e Roone

y [rooney@aptalaska.net] Thursday , Januar

y 20 , 201 1 1:0

4 A M LaHood , Ra

y (OST ) Devany , Denni s (OST) ; Sean.Parnell@aiaska.gov ; Marc.Luikejnj@a|^i5lja^ov»comm46sioner ; Kurland , Susa n (OST

) "^^ ^ JAiUL rA M-U ^ Docke t #OS T 1988-489 9 Alask a Airline s Essentia l Ai rServic e Dea r Mr . Secretary : I n m y las t conversatio n wit

h th e late Senato r

Ted Stevens , I specificall y aske d hi mabou t th e Alask aAirline s essentia l ai r servic e progra

mand whether

ther e wa s any risk

o f i t bein g i n jeopardy . H e assure d m e that h e woul d continu e t o d o everythin g i n hi s powe

r t o ensure th e continuatio n o f ou r dail y je t service . It' s no w u

p to us , th e citizen s directl y affected , t o advocate fo r thi s program . I don' t kno w if you hav e aclea

r understandin g o f

th e uniqu e geography o f

Southeas t Alask aan d th e importanc e o f our daily Alask aAirline s je t

service . It' s ver

y different fro myou r beautifu l home state o f

Illinois . W

e woul d lov e t o hav e you come and se e fo r yourself ! If

not , a t leas t the n g o t o Googl e Eart

h an d tak e avirtua

l journe y fro

mKetchika

n t o Juneau . 8 0 o r

s o mile s o f water fro mKetchika

n t o Wrangell . 3 0 o r

s o mile s fro

mWrangel l t o Petersburg . 12 0 o r s o mile s fro

mPetersbur g t o Juneau . Transportatio n i s limite d t o ai r an d wate r

modes . Gustavus , Cordova , an d Yakuta t are othe r remot e communitie s needin g thi s program . Many o f th e communitie s too k

amajo r economi c blo w wit

h th e closin g o f

th e Tongas s National Fores t t o commercial logging . Some tw o decade s later other form s o f viabl e economi c developmen t ar e evolving . Los s o f

ou r Alask aAirline s subsidy an d subsequen t los s o f dail y je t servic e t o our communitie s woul d caus e th e shu t dow n o f man y o f thes e businesse s an

d hi t u s hard . Wrangel l i s th e bes t

plac e o n earth , m

y home fo r th e pas t 3 5 years . Je t

servic e arrive d i

n 1976 , and I recal l watchin g th e first Alask aAirline s fligh

t land . I sa

w th e differenc e je t

servic e made here , no t

jus t fo r convenienc e and qualit

y o f lif e but fo r th e busines s community . Th e EA S progra mha s allowe d Alask aAirline s t o continu e servic e t o thes e smal l communitie s wit h th e necessar y financial backin g t o make improvement s suc h a s improve d navigatio n an d freigh t deliver y systems . Pleas e giv e thi s matter

you r mos t carefu l attention . Pleas e continu e thi s program .
#### Walters, Appellant, vs. Eakins and another, Respondents.

*October 21*

November *16, 1920.*

*Appeal: Order setting aside stipulation.*

Under sec. 3069, Stats., an order setting aside a stipulation is not appealable.

Aureal from an order of the circuit court for Juneau county: Jam.es O’Neill, Circuit Judge.

*Dismissed.*

Replevin. This suit was begun to recover possession of a Fordson tractor. The defendants claimed to be holding the same as security for the amount of $102.17 repairs. The controversy between the parties was as to whether, or not the plaintiff had properly oiled the tractor during the period of its operation. After the case had been brought to trial the parties entered into a stipulation by the terms of which a settlement was agreed upon, the liability of the respective parties to be determined by test as to how much oil it would require to fill the engine case to a point where the oil would drip from the lower pet-cock. The defendants claimed that it would require more than three quarts. The test was made and decided in favor of the claim of the plaintiff. Thereupon the defendants moved the court, upon a proper showing, to have the stipulation set aside. The court, after hearing, set aside the stipulation, and from the order setting aside the stipulation the plaintiff appeals.

For the appellant there was a brief by *Clinton G. Price*of Mauston, attorney, and *James H. Hill*of Baraboo, of counsel; and the cause was argued orally by *Mr. Price.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *McFarlane & Loomis*of Mauston, and oral argument by /. *A. McFarlane.*

Rosenberry, J.

Although the question is not raised in briefs of counsel, we cannot take jurisdiction of this matter unless the order appealed from is in fact an appeal-able order. We find no provision of the statutes, sec. 3069, *627authorizing an appeal from an order setting aside a stipulation. The order does not prevent a judgment from which an- appeal may be taken, neither is it a final order. It does not grant or refuse a provisional remedy, nor does it vacate or refuse to set aside an order made at chambers, nor does it grant a new trial. Inasmuch as there must be a new trial, we refrain from any statement or discussion of the facts.

*By the Court.*— The appeal to this court is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 11

                                    KSW, INC.

                         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION
                                OF LOSS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       THREE MONTHS                  THREE MONTHS
                                                          ENDED                         ENDED
                                                      MARCH 31, 2003                MARCH 31, 2002
                                                      --------------                --------------
<S>                                                   <C>                           <C>
Net loss                                               $    (58,000)                 $ (1,840,000)
                                                       =============                 =============


Loss Per Share - Basic
----------------------
Weighted average shares outstanding
    during the period                                      5,470,311                     5,470,311
                                                       =============                 =============

Loss per common share -
Basic                                                  $       (.01)                 $       (.34)
                                                       =============                 =============

Loss Per Share - Diluted
------------------------
Weighted average shares outstanding
    during the period                                      5,470,311                     5,470,311


Effect of stock options dilution                                   0                             0
                                                       -------------                 -------------

Total shares outstanding for purposes of
calculating diluted earnings                               5,470,311                     5,470,311
                                                       =============                 =============

Loss per common and common Equivalent share -
Diluted                                                $       (.01)                 $       (.34)
                                                       =============                 =============

</TABLE>





                                       20