Any concerns over recent choices of NRC Chairpeople

  • Thread starter Thread starter Goldenlemur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Choices
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on concerns regarding the recent appointments of Greg Jaczko and Allison Macfarlane as chairpeople of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Participants explore the implications of their backgrounds, qualifications, and potential biases in relation to nuclear power regulation, touching on both technical and social aspects of the nuclear industry.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the technical knowledge of Jaczko and Macfarlane, noting Jaczko's theoretical physics background and Macfarlane's focus on geological aspects of nuclear waste.
  • Others suggest that the current challenges in the nuclear industry are more social than technical, advocating for a politically savvy nominee over a purely technical expert.
  • Concerns are raised about Macfarlane's stance on waste reprocessing and the Yucca Mountain facility, with some viewing her opposition as a significant issue.
  • Participants express skepticism about the influence of political agendas on the appointments, particularly in relation to the confirmation process in the Senate.
  • There are references to external opinions from pro-nuclear bloggers that align with the concerns expressed in the thread.
  • Some participants believe that Jaczko's tenure has complicated regulatory processes, and they anticipate similar challenges with Macfarlane's leadership.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of concerns regarding the qualifications and potential biases of the appointees, indicating a lack of consensus on their suitability for the role. Multiple competing views on the importance of technical expertise versus political acumen remain evident.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the influence of political dynamics on the appointment process, particularly regarding the Yucca Mountain facility and the implications of NIMBYism. There are also references to external sources that may not be universally accepted or verified.

Goldenlemur
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I am talking about Greg Jaczko and now Allison Macfarlane.

I do not think they are incapable per say, but I question their technical knowledge. Nuclear reactors are highly engineered systems. Jaczko does have a PhD in physics, but it seems to me his dissertation was quite theoretical. Macfarlane is a geologist who does study nuclear waste issues. However, that is only one aspect of nuclear power.

Perhaps I am being baised being a nuclear engineer myself?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Seen that the principal issues for the nuclear industry currently are social rather than technical, I'd be quite open to a savy politician being nominated to the role rather than a technical expert.
 
etudiant said:
Seen that the principal issues for the nuclear industry currently are social rather than technical, I'd be quite open to a savy politician being nominated to the role rather than a technical expert.
I'd prefer someone who a technical expert who is a savvy politician, and who does not have an agenda either way. Regulation should be objective and impartial.

Macfarlane's bio brief - http://esp.gmu.edu/people/facultybios/macfarlane.html

I have to wonder what is her agenda regarding spent fuel and/or HLW disposal in a repository.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Atomicinsights.com voices my concerns very well. I have the same objections.

However, the word in Rockville is this a done deal. I hope the rumors are wrong. Any of the other Commissioners would have been a much better choice.
 
Since the appointee has to be confirmed by the senate, I don't think anyone could be confirmed that is pro- or neutral on the subject of Yucca Mountain while Harry Reid is the majority leader. I see a continuation of the 4-1 vote history with the chairperson being the 1.
 
The congressional hearings have convinced me that what I have heard was accurate. They will appoint Dr. Macfarlane. The atomic insights blog seems to agree with me here.

My real curiosity lies in what is contained in the IG report. Rod Adams seems to think it is pretty bad.
 
Jaczko seemed to have a concerted effort to slow the process down; all of his reorganization of paperwork has done is put another layer of cruft in the bureaucratic morass. Not surprising, seeing as he was nominated by an oil man.
Macfarlane will likely be just as obstinate and obtuse, being nominated by a "green energy" messiah.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
20K