THESE REACTORS ARE A SCAM – PLAIN AND SIMPLE! IT IS UP TO YOU – THE PEOPLE – TO SEE IT FOR WHAT IT IS AND “DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!” – OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES. We all grow weary from the constant affronts to our health, essential resources, health care, jobs, lame politicians we elect to do one thing then they do WHAT THEY WANT! But you have to understand – that is AMERIKA – the one YOU CHOSE, with Russia’s help, at the ballot box in 2016 and now must endure. But the Nuclear Crime Syndicate, if left on its own will kill each and everyone of you one way or another – STAY FOCUSED – they are you prime, clear and present danger going forward.. I chose to leave and have a healthy, safe and rewarding life elsewhere so it is no longer my problem. But it IS AND REMAINS your primary concern day-in-and-day-out. Happy Holidays to ALL.. 😳😖😫😵😜
Posted — December 18, 2019
Comment Now! https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=NRC-2019-0180-0003 Deadline Dec 19 2019, at 11:59 PM ET
NuScale nuclear claims that the old rules for calculating embrittlement of nuclear reactor pressure vessels are outdated and they want to replace them with new rules. They say that the old rules are too conservative, and they want to relax the rules. However, the original rules were based on basic science. Furthermore, NuScale reactor pressure vessels are apparently more at risk than regular nuclear reactors for sudden catastrophic pressure vessel failure, and thus catastrophic nuclear disaster.
According to a study commissioned by the US DOE, NuScale, and similar designs, have thinner nuclear reactor pressure vessel shells, but “significant radiation damage occurs through a greater fraction of wall thickness“. Thus, they suffer from more embrittlement and therefore would be more subject to sudden through wall cracking and pressure vessel failure.
And, yet, Thomas A. Bergman, on behalf of NuScale Power, LLC “requests that the NRC amend 10 CFR part 50 to alleviate a requirement for calculating the embrittlement for advanced reactor designs and add the embrittlement trend curve formula for calculating the mean value of the transition temperature shift described in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E900-15…” https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NRC-2019-0180-0003 The earlier examples are of differing designs from NuScale. A mean value is the arithmetic average and doesn’t take into consideration scatter. If you add Bill Gates’ wealth with your own, and divide by two, it probably doesn’t reflect your wealth. That’s an arithmetic average. In many cases we want the median average – half above and half below. However, when it comes to nuclear disaster, we want the value which is the most safe and conservative. The safest, of course, is no more nuclear reactors. They are unnecessary and the risks are too high.
Shippingport was a PWR (Pressurized light water reactor) with around the same output as NuScale and had a reactor pressure vessel thickness of over 8 inches — roughly twice as thick as the figure we found for NuScale. It only ran for 25 years, meaning that less embrittlement would occur.
NuScale Nuclear Reactors Appear More At Risk For Reactor Pressure Vessel Embrittlement/Failure; NuScale Calls US NRC Standards Too “Conservative” & Wants To Weaken Them; Comment By Thursday Night (11.59 PM ET)