Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

As the world turns at the NRC

By

The latest episode in the distracting soap opera at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has provided more fodder for the political pundits in their efforts to turn nuclear energy deployment and regulation into a partisan issue. Fortunately, some of the players seem to understand that the subject is too important and has too many nuances to allow it to be decided by party affiliation.

Will Davis, my friend who blogs at Atomic Power Review, provides some commentary and links that will help you unravel the story of how the renomination of a mild mannered, technically competent, publicity shy nuclear engineer – Kristine Svinicki – to a second term on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has become a political lightning rod.

The saga became really interesting as two powerful senators, Boxer and Reid, established strong, public positions in opposition to her renomination. Incredibly enough, Senator Reid said that a part of his concern was that Ms. Svinicki had a poor record on nuclear safety, despite having dedicated her career to ensuring that US nuclear energy maintains its exceptional safety record. The Huffington Post published an article about the saga that has collected more than 2,800 comments.

In a move that surprised many, a White House official confirmed rather quickly that President Obama intended to renominate Ms. Svinicki. Some friends of mine have speculated that the announcement was a public way of telling Senator Reid that any debts associated with his assistance in the 2008 election have already been repaid. What do you think?

Reader Interactions

Comments

  2. We’re in a sad state when the NRC becomes political. Until recently I doubt many people even thought about whether a commissioner were a Democrat or a Republican. Of course it’s hard to yell hurrah to a person like Senator McConnell (who is supporting Svinicki), who has engaged in the most destructive political obstructionism I’ve ever seen.

  3. Reid was responsible for holding hostage over 50 Bush appointments until he got his man Jaczko onto the Commission in 2005. Then, within months of his inauguration, Obama elevated him to Chair.

    Obama can say or do anything he wants to sound reasonable, knowing Harry has the unilateral power to squash Svinicki’s confirmation like a bug; the same way he has single-handedly and unconstitutionally blocked implementation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, despite it being the law of the land.

      • Like any good nuke I erred on the conservative side. This recent article says the number was 175!

        http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=170036

        It’s amazing that Bush held out for so long.

        And if doing prior work on Yucca-related issues is a disqualification for serving on the Commission, as Boxer seems to want, then Dr. J himself is contaminated with this sin.

  4. So Ionnes I assume by your comment that you are supporting Gregory Jaczko against Ms. Svinicki’s re-appointment?!

    I thought you were pro-nuclear??

    See http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0420/War-on-women-rhetoric-turns-nuclear-power-spat-radioactive

    for the context of my comment.

    I think in this political climate, Mme. Curie herself would be labeled a ‘militant lesbian.’ Remember that her daughter Irene WAS indeed a member of the French _Parti Communiste_.

  6. @Rod, in the second paragraph you mistakenly call Commissioner Svinicki “Karen” when her first name is Kristine.

    @SteveK9: The Commission has always been and will always be political; that’s the nature of the beast when the Commission is set up as it is. I will agree that this particular Chairman has taken his political viewpoints much farther than most.