NRC Chairman Resigns 100
After years of accusations of creating a 'chilled work environment,' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko resigned this morning (PDF). His largest achievement was perhaps killing the Yucca Mountain waste repository, and he oversaw the certification of the AP1000 reactor. It is unknown whether a new chairman will be appointed from within the NRC. Quoting the Washington Post: "The reason for his resignation is unclear. He is stepping down before the release of a second inspector general report rumored to be into allegations of Mr. Jaczko's misconduct. NRC spokesman Eliot Brenner told The Washington Times that the report had no impact on the timing of Mr. Jaczko's resignation announcement. Mr. Jaczko's statement was vague, saying that it 'is the appropriate time to continue my efforts to ensure public safety in a different forum. This is the right time to pass along the public safety torch to a new chairman...' While his statement did not specifically touch on the embarrassing revelations of his tyrannical approach to the job or its impact on NRC staff, he did sound a defiant note by claiming the NRC was 'one of the best places to work in the federal government throughout my tenure.'"
Today also marks the start of the annual nuclear industry conference.
NRC = Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Score:5, Informative)
In case anyone was wondering.
Re:What's wrong with Yucca Mountain? (Score:5, Informative)
Senator Reid
http://www.reid.senate.gov/issues/yucca.cfm [senate.gov]
Re:What's wrong with Yucca Mountain? (Score:2, Informative)
Because of three reasons. First, is that people believe that our nuclear waste is safer than it really is where it currently is. Second, people believe that our nuclear waste is extremely dangerous when transported and will radiated all over the place. And finally people would rather not think about it at all (hence why most nuclear transports are done in secret, not due to the whole "terrorist" thing).
Re:What's wrong with Yucca Mountain? (Score:4, Informative)
Precisely, WA State has had serious issues with the way the Federal government has been managing the waste they left at Hanford, the process of cleaning up the dump has cost huge amounts of money and much of it has been stored in leaky barrels. IIRC they're restoring it in a sort of radioactive glass so that it doesn't leak into the ground water, but still.
Yucca Mountain might not have been the only option, but at this point it pretty much is and I haven't yet heard where all that material is going to be stored.
Re:What's wrong with Yucca Mountain? (Score:5, Informative)
>>>First, is that people believe that our nuclear waste is safer than it really is where it currently is
Well that's dumb. I'd rather have it buried underground in a safe manner, than sitting literally ~30 miles from my house in a pool of water, just waiting for an accident.
>>>Second, people believe that our nuclear waste is extremely dangerous when transported and will radiated all over the place
Also dumb. I've seen tests where nuclear cannisters were blown-up, and nothing happened. The cannister didn't even crack. (Again: Safer than leaving it in a pool of water 30 miles from my house.)
>>>finally people would rather not think about it at all
Well they must be doing SOME thinking, or they wouldn't be protesting Yucca Mountain disposal.
Re:Had to do with his management style, not policy (Score:3, Informative)
You may be right, but also consider this. Commissioner Svinicki, a Republican, is up for re-nomination. Reid has already committed to letting her renomination vote come to the floor. With Jaczko timing his announcement now, it now gives Reid a lot more leverage with Republicans in being able to hand pick another anti-Yucca mountain lackey. The wildcard is whether Obama will nominate that lackey as Chairman, or whether he will nominate Commissioner Magwood.
Re:Had to do with his management style, not policy (Score:5, Informative)
If we'd actually build some modern reactors, we'd not really need Yucca, honestly. Most that waste can be burnt up for more energy. Eventually, sure, Yucca.. but a much lesser quantity would be stored there. Enough that it'd really not be an issue for decades whether or not we shove it in there or not.
Re:Had to do with his management style, not policy (Score:5, Informative)
I'm afraid you're in for disappointment if you do more reading. Yucca was for permanent storage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository#Original_standard [wikipedia.org]