Slashdot Mirror
NRC Chairman Resigns
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.
In case anyone was wondering.
Because for a minute there I was really worried about the Norwegian Refugee Council.
a "chilled work environment" is a great thing for any NOC. maybe NRC not so much...
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
It appears to be just as good a place as any to dispose of nuclear waste..... certainly better than leaving it in the plants, waiting for a disaster (like Fukushima where some of the stored waste was washed out to sea). Stupid politicians. Yucca has been shown to be stable. Just do it.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
it's always "the appropriate time to continue ... efforts ... in a different forum" when you're about to be slammed with "allegations of ... misconduct."
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Maybe the people whining about how safe nuclear waste storage is should volunteer to keep it in their basement.
You win! The first NIMBY comment of the article!
And what is your prize you might wonder? Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt by the hogshead.
Please sir, tell us, how do you plan to spend your winnings?
Hell, if the US government wants to pay me for it, they can store it in my basement. Those travel canisters they use are as damn near to indestructible as you can get. And the armed guards they'd have to supply would take care of any security monitoring I'd want.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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.
We need a number of new reactors. In particular, we need the micro to medium size reactors that can be built in a factory. In addition, we need GE's IFR (to burn up nuke 'waste'), as well as thorium reactors.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
I htought the entire point of Yucca mountain was to store the valuable "waste" for when we decided it was OK to use it (in a breeder reactor).
If you do the sane thing and let spent nuclear fuel sit on site for a few years, it won't be "hot" any more, and can be handled like any industrial waste - toxic, sure, but nothing special. It's just that this particular waste is a strategic resource, against a future where we'd need to start stockpiling nukes at cold war levels once more.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
A house committee watched while Jaczko's four fellow NRC board members, two of which were appointed by Obama, publicly condemned him while sitting to his immediate left and right. In recent congressional history, that scene is only trumped by Vollmer claiming executive privilege.
Understand that their world, political appointees near the very top of regulatory bureaucracy, is one of connections. You don't do dramatic things in public unless you really, really mean it, because whatever you do will be with you forever. Jaczko has to be some kind of way over-the-top SOB to wind up in that situation before Congress.
He's never offered one genuine, unqualified note of concession about any of it. Everyone else is wrong. "I believe strongly in safety" is as close as he's ever gotten to an explanation. Turning the NRC board of commissioners into a snake pit is somehow supposed to promote safety.
You-know-who will just foist another anti-energy extremist on the NRC after the election, so don't bet on any improvement.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
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
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Ship it to France.
Apparently they have the facilities to reprocess it into new usable fuel for their reactors.
Apparently America is too stupid to do the same.
First off, it never should have been built in Nevada. The best site was west Texas. But it was a decision that Poppa Bush made, hence the reason why NV was chosen.
Second, there is loads of energy in nuclear 'waste'. We should be burning it up. Right now, we are talking about transporting loads of 'waste' all over the USA. Instead, on all of the sites that are to be retired, we could instead put up a number of new GE IFR reactors. These would then be loaded with a small amount of normal nuke fuel, that is then mixed with on-site waste. Then in the future, nothing but on-site 'waste' fuel would be added. So, would there be waste from this? Absolutely. But NONE of it would be useful for a regular bomb (but it would work for a dirty bomb). In addition, the worst of it would be done within 200 years, rather than 20,000 years.
Note the difference with this approach. Basically, you have a site that has active cooling, transmission lines, generators, etc. and some old reactors. You put up enough GE reactor to replace one or more of the old ones, start it, and then start the destruction of one or more of the old reactors. Basically, you keep the site going to provide power. At the same time, we put up a NEW reactor that is based on a NEW design with physics behind it that prevents melt downs.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Note that none of the criticism was about technical issues, it was all about "style". Jaczko was publicly critical about failings in the safety culture at the NRC and the industry, and his position became more pronounced after Fukushima. He was saying that we were at risk for a similar accident because the NRC was not holding the reactor operators to a high enough standard. So if his concern about poor risk management is correct, and they want to get rid of him, the best option is a personal attack, which is exactly how this is playing out.
In that vein, there were just a reports on KCBS in Southern California about serious safety lapses at the now closed San Onofre nuclear plant:
If that isn't bad enough, the NRC is now cutting back on evacuation planning requirements.
Given this context, there is a good case to be made that Jaczko being forced out is an example of how meaningful criticism is punished by inbred bureaucrats. This is exactly the same mechanism that lead the Japanese regulators to ignore tsunami warnings at Fukushima and make equally bad decisions about on site back up power.
Don't be surprised when we have a serious nuclear accident here in the US. With this kind of broken regulation, it is inevitable.
Why is Snark Required?
I htought the entire point of Yucca mountain was to store the valuable "waste" for when we decided it was OK to use it (in a breeder reactor).
Yucca was a political solution that didn't meet the original DOE specifications for appropriate geology, until the specifications were revised. Recent research has shown that the original "Defence in Depth" approach the DOE were advocating was indeed the correct one, i.e. Granite. Radio isotopes that leak out of the containment are captured by the geology. Further - a granite containment is also the ideal place for a systematic reactor like IFR (Integral means the reprocessing is done on site) which also mean the energetic return of the reactor is improved by being able to dispose of the reactor in situ. Unfortunately Yucca is Pumice.
Idaho only got Yucca because one of their representatives didn't show up, so by default the vote went against them. A much better approach is a containment facility based on good science and engineering.
If you do the sane thing and let spent nuclear fuel sit on site for a few years, it won't be "hot" any more, and can be handled like any industrial waste - toxic, sure, but nothing special. It's just that this particular waste is a strategic resource, against a future where we'd need to start stockpiling nukes at cold war levels once more.
This is the standard procedure anyway, the spent fuel is thermally hot so it has to cool for many years before containment and transport is possible.
In any case a good burner reactor program has it's foundation in an strong containment policy. For example a facility like NORAD in the Rocky mountains would be a similar construction project that could include research and commercial burner reactors, fuel, reprocessing and disposal of fissile ash could all be conducted on site. However you only get the energetic return if you can dispose of the reactor by sealing it in the mountain thus avoiding all the energy spent when decommissioning the reactor.
Based on current estimates of the U.S's pu-239 and u-238 reserves, a program like this could provide electric power for America for roughly 5000 years whilst providing approximately one third more electricity than current reactor programs provide and a powerful option for worldwide Nuclear weapons disarmament.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.