Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: edf4b0e7-a6b1-4168-a057-45a70ca5524d
Document Type: srp
Title: ADEQUACY OF DESIGN FEATURES AND FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITIES
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1227/ML12276A112.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 19
Section ID: 19.5
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
�spent fuel pool integrity maintained” criterion to be satisfied if the impact of a large commercial aircraft on the spent fuel pool wall or support structures does not result in leakage through the spent fuel pool liner below the required minimum water level of the pool. 7. The exterior wall of a structure to be unable to prevent penetration of the aircraft into the structure unless an analysis of an already existing design verifies that penetration is prevented, or the wall is specifically designed to prevent such penetration. 8. An intervening structure having all of the following features to be able to protect a building wall from aircraft impact: A. The location of the structure is fixed and not subject to plant-specific location changes without re-verifying that the AIA rule is satisfied. B. The exterior walls of the structure are made of reinforced concrete. C. Interior walls in the flight path are made of reinforced concrete. 2 Each design feature and functional capability incorporated into the design does not have to involve reduced use of operator actions; the overall reduction in use of operator actions must be judged for the complete set of design features and functional capabilities identified by the applicant to show that the acceptance criteria have been met. In this context, “operator action” includes actions of operators in the control room or at alternative control panels or control areas to control the reactor and the nuclear facility. This means that active operator intervention and initiation of responsive action to maintain core cooling or an intact containment, and spent fuel cooling or spent fuel pool integrity should be reduced. The designer need not strive to achieve the absolute minimum in operator action. In some cases, there may be countervailing considerations that weigh against reducing to the absolute minimum the use of operator action to show that the acceptance criteria are met. 19.5-6 Revision 0 – April 2013 D. The height,