Skip to main content

McGaffigan to Leave NRC

By Eric McErlain
Just off the wire from NRC:
NRC COMMISSIONER EDWARD McGAFFIGAN TO LEAVE AGENCY

ROCKVILLE, MD – Nuclear Regulatory Commission member Edward McGaffigan, Jr., a 31-year veteran of public service and member of the Commission since 1996, announced today he will leave the regulatory body upon the confirmation of a successor.

McGaffigan, 59, announced his intention in letters to President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev, dated Jan. 4, 2007. The longest-serving member in the NRC’s 32-year history and the only member to have served over 10 years, McGaffigan is undergoing treatment for metastatic melanoma.

“Ed McGaffigan has made exceptionally valuable contributions to the work of the NRC over the past decade. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family,” said NRC Chairman Dale Klein.
For a look back at McGaffigan's career, click here.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Stewart Peterson said…
That's what we need right now--the commissioner with the most experience and the one with his head squarest on his shoulders leaving.

IIRC, this is the second vacancy in the last three months, coming right before the first COL applications. Would it not also leave Jaczko as the longest-serving commissioner? Wonderful time for this to happen.

Prepare for a logjam as the lawyers pick off each "second bandwagon market" nuke as it comes out of the government meat grinder.
January 5, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Anonymous said…
Uh... do you let politicians run your nuclear safety bureau?

The thought of doing that chills me to the bone.
January 7, 2007 at 4:59 AM
Anonymous said…
I can understand why McGaffigan is leaving - he is seriously ill.

I don't undertand why Merrifield wants to leave in June.

Jaczko started his term four days before Lyons did, so Stewart is correct.

I hope that solid candidates are named to replace McGaffigan, and then [in June] Merrifield.

This is one matter where I believe that Bush needs to appoint technically competent, but forthright people. Bush's appointees should have a track record of both competence and also support for nuclear energy.

I certainly don't want to hear about any more "old chums" or "ideologues" being appointed - I remember too well the situations with Michael Brown [FEMA and the botched Katrina situation] and the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination.

I don't trust Bush's judgment on the NRC completely....Jaczko was a Bush nominee with a proven track record of opinion against Yucca Mountain. Clinton didn't give us Jaczko...Bush did.

If the Senate gives any partisan fight over a ~well-qualified~ nominee for NRC Commissioner, I believe that the Republicans and the talk radio guys should definitely make an issue out of the matter.

By the way, I say this as a political independent. I side with the Dems on a few issues [mostly economic stuff like the minimum wage], but I have a lot of problems with the California and Northeastern Dems' policies on nuclear energy [and other issues not relevant to the work of the NRC].

I don't want to see Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer etc. to have undue influence in the choice of NRC Commissioners. I would like Democrats who are favorable to nuclear energy to use their input to help select candidates who are committed to nuclear energy but can work with constructive members of both parties.
January 7, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Anonymous said…
John Breaux would be a good choice, if he could be persuaded to take it. The Dems would have a hard time voting against one of their own ex-Senators. If there is another opening, select someone from academia and/or with national lab experience. John Marburger might fit the bill. Just say no to Ernie Muniz. His role in the HFBR debacle is just too much of an albatross.
January 8, 2007 at 8:38 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more