Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 83a8f386-800e-4c29-992a-98030c7ea7d6
Document Type: srp
Title: AIRCRAFT HAZARDS
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1003/ML100331298.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 3
Section ID: 3.5.1.6
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
ication, the reviewer should clearly articulate the bases for the staff=s conclusions. The reviewer verifies that the applicant has provided sufficient information and that the review and calculations (if applicable) support conclusions of the following type to be included in the staff=s safety evaluation report (SER). The reviewer also states the bases for those conclusions. Specifically, the reviewer drafts an introductory paragraph for the evaluation findings describing the procedure used in evaluating the aircraft hazards with respect to the safety-related SSCs. The reviewer verifies that the site location is acceptable and meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 100, 10 CFR 100.10, or 10 CFR 100.20, as appropriate and is in accordance with 10 CFR 50.34 for a CP and an OL and 10 CFR 52.17 for an ESP and 52.79 for a COL. The basis for the above findings may be strictly in terms of the probabilities associated with potential aircraft crashes on site. If the aircraft crash statistics applicable to the onsite facilities are such that SRP Section 2.2.3 criteria are met without explicit consideration of plant design features, then conclusions of the following type should be included in the staff=s SER: The staff concludes that the operation of the _____________ plant in the vicinity of _______________ does not present an undue risk to the health and safety of the public and meets the relevant requirements of 10 CFR Part 100 and 10 CFR 100.10 (or 10 CFR 100.20, as appropriate). This conclusion is based on 3.5.1.6-12 Revision 4 - March 2010 the staff=s independent verification of the applicant=s assessment of aircraft hazards at the site that resulted in a probability less than about 10-7 per year for an accident having radiological consequences worse than the exposure guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100. In addition, plant sites reviewed in the past which had equivalent aircraft traffic in equal or closer proximity were, after careful examination, found to present no undue