Skip to main content

Jaczko, Svinicki Confirmed as NRC Commissioners

The Senate last week confirmed the nominations of Gregory Jaczko and Kristine Svinicki to serve as commissioners on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jaczko was re-nominated for a second term in December. Prior to his appointment, he served as a science policy adviser for Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and advised members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on nuclear policy. Click here for more on Jaczko from the NRC.

Svinicki, nominated last May, served as a staff member for the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, focusing on the national security aspects of nuclear energy, Energy Department defense programs and environmental management issues. Svinicki also served as senior policy adviser on nuclear and environmental issues for Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho). Click here for more on Svinicki from the NRC.

Comments

Stephen said…
Not too bad, but I'd really like to see them get some more industry people in and less of the political crowd. The agency needs a good shakeup. I doubt this will change much but they're at least pretty solid choices
Anonymous said…
I am sorry, but I don't agree with Stephen. Gregory Jaczko worked for Senator Harry Reid against Yucca Mtn before coming into the NRC. In a deal with President Bush, pro-nuclear power Senator Domenici's Peter Lyons also came into the NRC to offset Gregory Jaczko. Now Kristine Svinicki doesn't appear to be a bad choice, but Gregory Jaczko's term should not have been renewed. Read his speeches at the NRC web site, and compare the tenor and tone in those speeches with those of the Chairman and Peter Lyons. Gregory Jaczko (and any appointee like him) will be the person to whom anti-nuclear activists will go for obstructionist regulatory action. Now consider the very real possibility of an Obama or Hillary coronation: either of those two will appoint more Gregory Jackzo's, and we'll have an anti-nuclear power NRC which will act to emasculate the rennaissance of US nuclear energy. Even worse, either of those two will kill GNEP and cut off all funding for new nuclear power plants. We'll have a DOE Secretary intent on the twirling blades of windmills and the shiny surfaces of solar cells while we choke to death in coal dust fumes.
Anonymous said…
Given that Excelon Corp. is one of the biggest donors to Obama, I seriously doubt that nuclear power will be blackballed by an Obama administration.

On the other hand, Clinton would a big time problem for nuclear power. It was the previous Clinton administration that put the amazingly incompetent Hazel O'Leary in charge of the DoE. So, if that's any indication, another Clinton administration would be an unvarnished disaster.
Anonymous said…
It's very telling to see anonymous industry comments that the NRC should be stacked with industry representatives. Refreshingly honest, if still anonymous.

The NRC's statutory mission is to regulate nuclear power to ensure public health & safety and protect the environment and national security. PROMOTING nuclear energy is the job of DOE and the private sector.
Anonymous said…
Ideally the NRC commissioners would be neither pro- nor anti-nuclear but instead stoic supporters of public safety that would neither promote nor discourage developments in the nuclear sector only allow it to progress of its own accord as long as it is in a manner that doesn’t negatively affect public health and safety.

But since that’s unlikely to happen, I would much rather have industry people who are familiar with how things actually work in practice, understand what are true public safety concerns and are in favor of continued safe operation of nuclear power than someone who’s never worked at a nuclear facility, would give credence to false or overblown safety concerns that are a staple of the anti-nuclear stall tactics and actively seek to put themselves out of a job by over regulating the industry to the point that no new facilities could ever be constructed.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …