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

# The Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Fire of 1975 Knowledge Management Digest (NUREG/KM-0002, Revision 1)

On this page: 
        - Publication Information
        - Introduction

Download complete document
        - NUREG/KM–0002, Revision 1 (PDF – 3.48 MB)
        - This report also contains a DVD with a database of Documents and Multimedia. Please send an email to the RES Fire Research Branch ( RES_DRA_FRB@nrc.gov ) with your address and we will mail you a DVD through the US Postal service.

## Publication Information

**Date Published:**February 2014

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

Availability Notice

## Introduction

Fire events provide a unique source of historical data, but only when the lessons learned provide advancements in safety. When these lessons are learned but not preserved, they are often repeated.

The purpose of this knowledge management NUREG (NUREG/KM) and DVD is to preserve the history and impact of the fire at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) on regulations and to educate future generations of safety professionals. This is the second report in the NUREG/KM-Series.

Fire protection in commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs) has been a longstanding challenge since operations began. In the 1960s and 1970s, when most of today's nuclear power reactors were under construction, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) predecessor—the Atomic Energy Commission—began adopting rules and regulations to ensure fire safety. The first adopted fire protection regulation was General Design Criterion (GDC) 3, "Fire Protection," as Appendix A, "General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," of "Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," in February 1971. The GDC 3, in part, states that:
> 
*Structures, systems, and components important to safety shall be designed and located to minimize, consistent with other safety requirements, the probability and effect of fires and explosions. Noncombustible and heatresistant materials shall be used wherever practical throughout the unit, particularly in such locations as the containment and control room.*

During this time, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) also developed several standards for fire protection safety in the nuclear industry. These first standards were:
        - IEEE 279-1971,"Criteria for Protection Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations"
        - IEEE 383-1974, "IEEE Standard for Type Test of Class 1E Electric Cables, Field Splices, and Connections for Nuclear Power Generating Stations"
        - IEEE 384-1974, "IEEE Standard Criteria for Independence of Class 1E Equipment and Circuits"

The NRC issued Regulatory Guide 1.75, "Physical Independence of Electric Systems," in February 1974, and provided the basis for complying with the IEEE 384-1974 standard.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             191
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,041
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     13,592
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         27,106
<ALLOWANCE>                                        163
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,174
<DEPOSITS>                                      17,468
<SHORT-TERM>                                     4,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                635
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,562
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,509
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  44,174
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,804
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  738
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,542
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 688
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 903
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,639
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       16
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (1)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    922
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    717
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       443
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.24
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   148
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  163
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            163
        

</TABLE>
#### Neacy, Appellant, vs. Thomas and others, Respondents. Same, Respondent, vs. Same, Appellants.

*November 16, 1911*

January *30, 1912.*

*Appealable orders: Examination of party as adverse witness.*

An order requiring a party, upon his examination as an adverse witness under sec. 4096, Stats. (Laws of 1909, ch. 84), to answer certain questions and sustaining his claim of privilege as to others, is not appealable under sec. 3069, Stats. (1898).

Appeals from orders of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: F. 0. Esci-iwexlee, Circuit Judge.

*Dismissed.*

Eor the plaintiff there was a brief by *Quarles, Spence & Quarles,*and *Irving Fish,*of counsel, and oral argument by *W. 0. Quarles.*

Eor the defendants there was a brief by *Adolph Huebsch-mann*and *Arthur B. Barry,*and oral argument by *Mr. Huebschmann.*

The following opinion was filed December 5, 1911:

Winslow, C. J.

In an action of libel the defendant *Berger*declined to answer a large number of questions which were asked him in the course of his examination as an ad*92verse witness under see. 4096, Stats. (Laws of 1909, ch. 84), on the ground that he believed that his answers might tend to incriminate him. The commissioner certified the matter to the circuit court, where‘an order was entered requiring the witness to answer certain of the questions, and sustaining his claim of privilege as to a large number of the questions. The plaintiff appeals from those parts of the order sustaining the claim of privilege, and the defendants *Berger*and the *Social Democratic Publishing Company*appeal from those parts of the order requiring *Berger*to answer certain questions.

Both appeals must be dismissed under the authority of *Phipps v. Wis. Cent. R. Co.*130 Wis. 279, 110 N. W. 207. The orders complained of are merely rulings upon evidence, made in the course of the examination. They are not final orders in a special proceeding, nor do they in any proper sense grant, refuse, continue, or modify a provisional remedy. *State v. Wis. T. Co.*134 Wis. 335, 113 N. W. 944.

*By the Court.*— Appeals dismissed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied January 30, 1912.
ATADVAPTERS* STATES AIR FORCE

THE INSP GENERAL

SPECIAL PROJECTS

Date 16 Mar 70

• • : •••

• 

. • •.- MEMORANDUM FOR

Dr. Naha

Draft of the Memo to NASA. Would

appreciate your consents and suggestion

as to whoa it should be addressed.

per our discussion with you and

Col esterday, the 2nd part of the

letter s ould be added by the staff.

7/irthi)

•
•

1;11"14;-"'

#7.‘ . •

•

DRAFT

Letter to NASA

SUBJECT: U-2C/G Aircraft

The NRO has been maintaining a number of U-2C/G aircraft

in flyable storage to replace U-2R attrition as it occurs.

The attrition rate of the U-2Rs has been less than predicted.

Therefore, there is a possibility that a limited number of the

U-2C/G aircraft could be made available to another agency.

By virtue of the U-2's unique altitude, air speed and

loiter capabilities (approximately 70,000 feet, mach .72, fr4w-Ir

hrs), the aircraft might serve as a valuable collection platform for your earth resources program. If you have an interest

in the U-2C/O's, I will be happy to arrange a meeting for

further discussion.

Dr NeLucas

WORKING COPY

r•-•-n•"%••••••n •7•••

j.."• -; ;cm u 

r'
# C_2005069EN.01000302.xml

| 19.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/3

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 19 October 2004

in Case C-425/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Milazzo in Provvidenza Regio v AXA Assicurazioni SpA (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 69/07)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-425/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Giudice di pace di Milazzo (Italy), made by decision of 18 April 2003, received at the Court on 6 October 2003, in the proceedings between Provvidenza Regio and AXA Assicurazioni SpA the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 19 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Giudice di pace di Milazzo, by decision of 18 April 2003, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  inforamtion  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter  ended  September  30, 2000 and is  qualified in its entirity by
reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       6-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   Mar-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                        Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                                 8,200
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        233,493
<ALLOWANCES>                                          20,344
<INVENTORY>                                          220,103
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     466,965
<PP&E>                                             2,683,871
<DEPRECIATION>                                     2,518,241
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       632,595
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1,359,198
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                        2,400,000
<COMMON>                                              61,674
<OTHER-SE>                                        (3,190,603)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         632,595
<SALES>                                              892,559
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     892,559
<CGS>                                                309,397
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        582,940
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    12,495
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (12,273)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (12,273)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (12,273)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0.00



</TABLE>
Andre Gagne’s review of the impact to smaller transit car based on 

the committee’s discussions of inter-car doorways.

Impact	of	Proposed	Changes	/	NYCT	Subway

NOTES

- Clear end door opening is 30.75’’ at the cab end, increasing it to more than 32’’ would 

restrict the driver’s field of vision;

- Wheelchair area would further infringe upon side door entrance which is already 

undesirable;

- Cab door opening also restricts wheelchair passage even before it reaches the end door;

- Side door clear opening is 50’’,which is much higher than the proposed 32’’;

- Vertical (floor to ceiling) stanchions prevent wheelchairs from moving down the aisle;

GENERAL	COMMENTS

- Should consider keeping the 30’’ requirement at cab ends only;

- Facing side doors are not always in line with each other, and some vestibules have a side 

door only on one side of the vehicle;

Impact	of	Proposed	Changes	/	Chicago	Transit

NOTES	

- End door clear opening is 19’’ (including handholds), increasing it to more than 32’’ at 

the cab end would severely restrict the driver’s field of vision;

- There is only 26” of clearance between the two convertible seats, which prevents 

wheelchairs from moving down the aisle;

- Side door clear opening is 50’’;

Impact	of	Proposed	Changes	/	BART

NOTES

- Side door clear opening is 54’’; 

- Minimum aisle width is 32’’;

- Position of tripod was found to be detrimental to wheelchair maneuverability, even 

though the 32’’ path was clearly provided;

- Non-cab end door clear opening is 39’’

- Cab end (crew) door clear opening is 28’’, increasing it to more than 32’’ would severely 

restrict the driver’s field of vision;

Vision	Field	Comparison

Field of Vision directly forward is 44.80 degrees for a 95th percentile seated male.

Changing the door width to 32” from 28” reduces the field of vision to 40 degrees.

Field of Vision directly forward is 43.60 degrees for a 5th percentile seated female.

Changing the door width to 32” from 28” reduces the field of vision to 38.6 degrees.

GENERAL	COMMENTS

- Wheelchairs are oriented transversally;

Impact	of	Proposed	Changes	/	MONTREAL

NOTES

- Side door clear opening is 65’’;

- Wheelchairs cannot go towards cab end (restricted by 15’’ aisle width);

- Minimum aisle 33’’ except width is 33 at cab ends (see above);

- Tripods are located in the center of each vestibule, wheelchairs need to go around them 

in order to travel along the train set, the aisle width between a tripod and the side of 

the vehicle is about 39’’;

- Intercar passageways are provided at all non-cab ends, they offer 53’’ nominal clear 

width between vehicles;
# C_2005045EN.01002003.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/20

---

Removal from the register of Case C-163/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 45/43)

(Language of the case: German)

(Language of the case: German)

By order of 25 October 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-163/04 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Franz Werner v Finanzamt Cloppenburg.

---

(1)  OJ C 118 of 30.4.04.

1

---
# C_2005106EN.01002101.xml

| 30.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/21

---

Removal from the register of Case C-38/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 106/41)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 4 February 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-38/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.

---

(1)  OJ C 71 of 20.03.2004.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


         CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF OCEAN ENERGY, INC.
           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, James T. Hackett, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Ocean Energy, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the
Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 and
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2002 pursuant to
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the
Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.

         I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.


                                       /s/ James T. Hackett
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Name:  James T. Hackett
                                       Title: Chairman of the Board, President
                                              and Chief Executive Officer
                                       Date:  August 14, 2002
# C_2005143EN.01003201.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/32

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 5 April 2005

in Case T-336/02 Susan Christensen v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Staff case - Selection procedure for temporary staff - Composition of the Selection Committee and conduct of the procedure)

(2005/C 143/60)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-336/02: Susan Christensen, residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the decision of Selection Committee COM/R/A/01/2000, for the constitution of a reserve list for recruitment of temporary staff in category A, not to include the applicant on the reserve list, and for compensation — the Court of First Instance (A.W. Meij, Single Judge) D. Christensen, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 April 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.

1

---
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

v. Amison, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2879.] 

NOTICE 

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-2879

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE, v. AMISON,

APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State v. Amison, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2879.] 

Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on authority of State v. Paige.

(No. 2017-0887―Submitted April 10, 2018―Decided July 24, 2018.) 

APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 

No. 104728, 2017-Ohio-2856. 

_________________ 

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of 

State v. Paige, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2018-Ohio-813, ___ N.E.3d ___. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE,

and DEGENARO, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and 

Gregory Ochocki, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant and cross-appellee. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Mark A. Stanton, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Paul Kuzmins, 

Assistant Public Defender, for appellee and cross-appellant, Vance G. Amison. 

_________________
# C_2005057EN.01003101.xml

| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/31

---

Action brought on 9 December 2004 by François Pilat against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-484/04)

(2005/C 57/53)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 December 2004 by François Pilat, residing in Honfleur (France), represented by Jean-François Péricaud, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities jointly and severally to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 377 253, alternatively the sum of EUR 325 579, together, in either event, with interest from the date when this application was brought; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities jointly and severally to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 377 253, alternatively the sum of EUR 325 579, together, in either event, with interest from the date when this application was brought;

| — | order the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities jointly and severally to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities jointly and severally to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are the same as those raised by the applicants in Case T-440/03 (1)
  Arizmendi and Others v Council and Commission.

1

Arizmendi and Others v Council and Commission

---

(1)  OJEU C 59, of 06.03.2004, p. 31.

1

---
**EXHIBIT
      32(b)**


MICROS
      SYSTEMS, INC.





Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
      to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C.
      1350





In
      connection with the quarterly report of MICROS Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q (Form 10-Q”) for the three months ended September 30, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gary C.
      Kaufman, Executive Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of my
      knowledge:




(1) The
        Form
        10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
        Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2) The
        information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.




Date:
                November 9, 2007
            
            
            /s/ Gary
                C. KaufmanGary
                C. Kaufman