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

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…