https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0625/ML062540068.pdf
“several additions and modifications”
A previous licence still containing the 5 hull limit:
After submitting Amendment No.10, the response letter from the NRC states:
“Please note that the changes made to your license are printed in bold font.”
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1619/ML16190A100.pdf
I don’t believe there was ever a limit imposed by the NRC. Also, the amended license must’ve come in amendment No.7 or 8, based on the fact we have 06, 09, and 10, and none of them are marked in bold.
That does not hinder changes to be made without being in bolded in other amendments.
The letter clearly states that changes has been made.
The original application for renewal states in the begining “all prior amendments are consolidated into this application” (something close to that, I’m on mobile and don’t have the document). And the application for renewal still had the 5 hull limit.
How can you not believe that? Amendment 6. Clearly has that limit written into the licence.
And as previously stated, the application consolidated all prior amendments and did contain the 5 hull limit.
The license, as far as we can tell has had 10 amendments, and likely an 11th that renewed the license beyond 2017. Every amendment made has changed what the licensee is requesting of the governing body. Again, the governing body can set limitations based on the rules for the radiological material. Did you ever wonder why the person signing the letter here is a Health Physicist? The point of the license is about human safety.
The initial five hulls were made to train crews and to test the exposure levels, hence the limited license in amendment No.06 is expanded sometime before amendment No.9, as we have amendment No.9 and it states the “as needed”. Because these amendments are both chronological and serial, we know that the change has to occur in No.07 or No.8.
Amendments No.1-5 therefore are what is covered under the “consolidated into this application”.
Again this is a radiological safety document, it’s not a great source for armor protection. We don’t even know if the designed the armor for the 5 hulls to test for just exposure, or for the exposure level of the armor package.
The amendments 7 and 8 would also be a part of the applications consolidation since the response to that application is amendment no 9. amendment no 7 and 8 has already been given before amendment 9 and thus also before the application since amendment 9 is the response to that application. Otherwise the respons to the application would have been no 7 had it not already been given before the application.
There is absolutely nothing pointing to the change from 5 hull limit to as needed happening in 7 or 8.
How would the application only contain 1-6 and then get the 9 as an answer?
I don’t have access now but later I can show you letters detailing further changes to the same amendment (10) without changing numbers or having new applications since there was an error in it. It only adds an ML number (a letter) as source for changes.
I’m not sure if English is your first language, I don’t mean to insult you, but the convention by which these licenses exist is partially to renew an already existing license.
Prior amendments could be almost clerical, they could just be renewing things, or they could have massive changes. We know that Amendment No.6 came out no later than 09/15/1999 (check the document code). In No.6 there were only 5 authorized hulls for US Army TACOM to possess (radiological material).
No. 9 existed by February 22, 2006 per your link above, as the application is acknowledged by the NRC dated 2006. No.9 did not likely expand the license to be “as needed” instead of the 5 hulls, as we’ve seen changes and amendments by both the Licensee and the NRC be bolded to illustrate changes.
That means between September 15th, 1999 and February 22, 2006, there was an amendment, either No.7 or No.8 that requested the change to “as needed”.
It wouldn’t. I’m stating there’s other, more precise correspondence out there between TACOM and NRC regarding the hulls and how many would be unlimited, and that had to happen in No.7 or No.8, from the date range listed above.
1 Like
Not coping, not conducting mental gymnastics either.
Sure, here’s the full portion:
“This license shall be deemed to contain the conditions specified in Section 183 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended…”
The subject is: “This license”, which is a noun. It is modified by the phrase: “shall be deemed to contain”. That means the Subject, which is the license, is passive. It is containing something. What does it contain? “The conditions specified in Section 183 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended”.
Here’s Section 183 of the original law.
I’ll include the intro and section A which was repealed in 1964, because, that’s an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
"SEC. 183. TERMS OF LICENSES.—Each license shall be in such
form and contain such terms and conditions as the Commission
may, by rule or regulation, prescribe to effectuate the provisions of
this Act, including the following provisions:
a. Repealed by Pub. L. 88–489, § 18, 78 Stat. 607, Aug. 26,
1964."
I’ll let you read the rest of Section 183, but it basically says all radiological material in the United States is the property of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and said “special materials” can be revoked at any time per section 108. That’s it. It’s not rules about amending a license, it’s not rules for the Army, it’s not the Form 374 itself being an amended form. What makes it an amended form has nothing to do with this portion of the the Form.
That is what I was respectfully trying to point out to you.
But since you want to be an a$$hole, I’ll continue, because it’s fun giving people a taste of their own medicine.
Here’s a list, current as of 2017, of all the amendments to Section 183.
Here’s a list of a few (all?) Title 42 amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2020-title42/html/USCODE-2020-title42-chap23-divsnA-subchapI-sec2011.htm
So, let me repeat that for you, “The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended” specifically refers to both the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 AND it’s subsequent amendments to US Title Code, not the license renewal Form 374.
I’ll correct your graphic as well for you.
This is correct. Again, you misunderstood your own source.
It was amended while being renewed*
And I have nothing to say on the matter. I’m trying to point you hopeless US mains in the right direction. Go find Amendment No.7 and No.8 to help tighten up your timeline.
Spoiler
Not spam :)
Remember when you were coping and doing mental gymnastics? Because you totally were.
Okay. Nothing here refutes the fact it’s an amended form. Finish the part that states the LICENSE is being amended.
“…and is subject to all
applicable rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission now or hereafter in effect and to ANY CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BELOW.”
It doesn’t change the fact this is an amendment form, and changed the conditions of License SUB-1536.
Amendment No. 09, resulted in “several additions and modifications have been made to your NRC license.”
“3. License number SUB-1536 is RENEWED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO READ AS FOLLOWS”
The material being licensed and its uses are defined in this document, with status changes from the last document Gaijin cited. You sending us on a wild goose chase to find the red herrings of the previous and superseded documents does nothing to change that this is an amended form, and it renewed and changed SUB-1536, with specific changes to the use of DU armor in turrets and hulls. It removed any mention of limits on the use of DU in hulls, both turrets and hulls have received unlimited status of DU use.
Until you find a newer document that changes this, telling us to find previous documents that are now obsolete because of these amendments does nothing to support your very incorrect claims. This was an amendment form. It amended, or changed, License Number SUB-1536. The correspondence between the officials throws out any wild theories, mental gymnastics, and copes you have had.
Here are later version of License Number SUB-1536. Even though they were renewed and amended, they still authorized unlimited use of DU in turrets AND HULLS.
Find something that makes SUB-1536 restrict hulls again, because reality states these were amendment forms, and they changed SUB-1536.
You’re not trying to do US mains any favors. You are trying to deflect, deny, and cope because reality is these forms authorize DU armor in hulls and turrets without limits, and changed the terms of the license Gaijin tries to claim is proof that DU can’t be in hulls.
11 Likes
My turret ring bug report and the fuel cell bulkheads bug report both got submitted to the developers as suggestions. If we don’t get DU inserts in the hull, we’re still looking at a HUGE frontal protection buff for the Abrams
5 Likes
Didn’t you hear, only competitive balance matters. But the Abrams in its current form is fine, even though everything below the turret is an artificial weakspot…
1 Like
I agree. Just saying at least we’re all making progress somewhere
2 Likes
This thread is still going huh? How’s the progress been lmao
Gaijin left this thread open so people will wear themselves out arguing with air. Gaijin wont change a thing, the Russian commission of propaganda will continue.
Edit: This is the thread Making Russian Tank Protection more realistic
10 Likes
I might be remembering wrong, but wasn’t SUB-1536 the same one that was the reason Gaijin ever bothered to “try” to model DU turrets?
3 Likes
Yes.
incredible
1 Like
Turret ring buff would be amazing. It’s insane that it has been left in its current state for so long.
3 Likes
Do we have exact numbers for the armor value of the rings protective layer or is the 300mm solid?
Another question if the 300mm is exact does that include the angle or exclude?
…and for those that say these amendment forms never changed anything about the limits on hulls…Spot the difference between Amendment No. 06 from September 1999, and Amendment No. 09 from August 2006.:
Notice in the fields regarding the materials being licensed, how they are to be used, and the maximum amount that licensee may possess at any one time under this license? Because they removed any quantity limit on hulls and granted them the same permission as turrets as of Aug 24 2006.
9 Likes
Have you submitted this in a bug report?