x.com/KarbonVT/status/2103867756244582546

The claim is inaccurate in two important ways:

1. It does not apply to all U.S. nuclear power plants.
   NRC’s own page on aircraft-impact assessments says the rule applies to applicants for new nuclear power reactors and then lists specific categories such as new construction permits, new operating licenses tied to new construction permits, certain design certifications, standard design approvals, combined licenses, and manufacturing licenses. That is a much narrower category than “all nuclear power plants in America.” Existing plants were not all put under a blanket legal requirement to prove this.

2. The regulation does not specify a Boeing 747.
   The text of 10 CFR 50.150 says the assessment must be based on the impact of “a large, commercial aircraft used for long distance flights in the United States”. In other words, the rule is framed around a generic large commercial aircraft scenario, not a named requirement to withstand a Boeing 747 specifically.

So the post turns a narrower new-reactor aircraft-impact assessment rule into a much broader statement about every nuclear plant in the U.S. and also replaces the regulation’s generic aircraft language with a specific aircraft model that the rule does not name.