NRC nuclear regulatory commission

belated see jaczko<div>
</div><div>omfg
COVID COVER BS?<div style=""><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; cursor: pointer; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); box-sizing: inherit; white-space: pre-wrap; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit;"><u class="sDZYg" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); box-sizing: inherit;">p<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/06/2020-04506/transfer-of-very-low-level-waste-to-exempt-persons-for-disposal" target="top" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="2qJYG blog-link-hashtag-color _3Sq3W" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; cursor: pointer; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); box-sizing: inherit;">roposal to Change Rule on Nuclear Waste Disposal </a><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); box-sizing: inherit; white-space: pre-wrap;"><u class="sDZYg" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); box-sizing: inherit;">

<span style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); box-sizing: inherit; white-space: pre-wrap;">A proposal from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would allow for the disposal of some nuclear waste in municipal landfills, rather than a licensed nuclear waste facility.

<span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); box-sizing: inherit;">Status: Proposed rule change published March 6, 2020; public comment period closes April 20, 2020.</div><div style="">
</div><div style="">Proposal to Change Rule on Nuclear Waste Disposal </div><div style="">A proposal from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would allow for the disposal of some nuclear waste in municipal landfills, rather than a licensed nuclear waste facility.</div><div style="">Status: Proposed rule change published March 6, 2020; public comment period closes April 20, 2020.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div>=intercept 719find shillenberger connects]<div data-reactid="216" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;">TUESDAY, a dark-money effort linked primarily to the Ohio nuclear industry delivered an audacious payoff, as a newly elected state legislature overcame years of opposition to shower a $1.1 billion bailout on two state nuclear plants.Several dark-money groups spent millions to replace key Republican state legislators in the spring of 2018, followed by a furious lobbying campaign to make sure those new lawmakers elected a new House speaker — one who was amenable to the subsidy. The nuclear industry in Ohio has been on the brink of failure for several years, but previous legislatures had objected to a bailout, reading the writing on the wall: Nuclear power is neither a cost-effective solution for power nor an effective response to climate change, despite hopes for its success.
The dark-money effort deployed a <a href="https://oklahomawatch.org/2018/09/14/oklahomas-biggest-dark-money-players/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; letter-spacing: 0.01em; box-sizing: border-box;">variety of vehicles</a> that went by names like the Conservative Leadership Alliance and the Ohio Clean Energy Jobs Alliance. Murray Energy, a coal company, <a href="https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?committee_id=C00410985&two_year_transaction_period=2018&data_type=processed" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; letter-spacing: 0.01em; box-sizing: border-box;">also gave heavily </a>to current state House Speaker Larry Householder and his allied candidates, and the bailout from Ohio also includes subsidies to prop up failing coal plants in the state.In April 2018, two nuclear plants, both owned by the electric utility FirstEnergy, <a href="https://www.cleveland.com/business/2018/03/firstenergy_solutions_bankrupt.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">filed for bankruptcy</a> and have been threatening to cease operations if not bailed out. They were under <a href="https://www.cleveland.com/open/2018/04/firstenergy_pac_writes_big_che.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">increasing pressure</a> to compete with cheaper alternatives, ranging from natural gas to wind and solar. The <a href="https://www.energyandpolicy.org/firstenergy-bailout/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">bankruptcy filings</a> give a glimpse into the company’s political spending: more than $30 million from 2018-2019 on lobbying and campaigns in Ohio and Pennsylvania (where the company also sought a bailout, so far unsuccessfully).The payoff is extraordinary in degree — something like $30 million for campaigns in Ohio and Pennsylvania to win $1.1 billion in government subsidy. But it is similar in kind to other nuclear projects across the country. According to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit devoted to research and advocacy, five cash-strapped states across the country have foisted more than $15 billion in subsidies on failing nuclear power plants since 2016, the latest sign that nuclear is unable to stand in a competitive energy market against lower-cost renewables.IN OHIO, the state House battle was fought in at least 18 competitive Republican primaries, all proxy battles between Reps. Ryan Smith, the incumbent House speaker, and Larry Householder. Householder was a co-sponsor of the nuclear bailout bill that stalled in the legislature in 2018, making him a key ally to the nuclear industry. Several dark-money vehicles backed the pro-Householder candidates, and<a href="https://www.cleveland.com/open/2018/05/here_the_9_most_interesting_st.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;"> won 15 of the 18</a> races. Four pro-Householder candidates lost in the general election, but the primary wins put Householder in contention for the speakership.The industry even targeted one Republican state representative who had rebuffed FirstEnergy’s advances before making a bid for Congress. “I didn’t budge when they came into my office to lobby me,” former state Rep. Christina Hagan<a href="https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/an-ohio-legislator-defied-firstenergy-lobbyists-then-a-dark-money-group-helped-sink-her-bid-for-congress/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;"> said </a>of FirstEnergy. “I became the target of the company and the members of our leadership team who wanted to get it done but couldn’t because I wasn’t going to be supportive. I’m sure they just wanted to make an example of me in my race for higher office that if you don’t play well, this is what will happen to you.”On top of the dark money, FirstEnergy’s political action committees directly contributed <a href="https://www.cleveland.com/open/2018/04/firstenergy_pac_writes_big_che.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">more than $150,000 </a>to the campaigns of Householder and candidates aligned with him, while giving none to Smith last cycle. Of the pro-Householder candidates who won their races, all but one supported the bailout.Dark money also contributed to ads on Ohio television. Generation Now spent almost $2 million on ads in favor of the bailout, and perhaps much more. The Growth & Opportunity PAC, which got more than<a href="http://www.commoncause.org/ohio/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2019/05/OHIO-Connect-the-Dots.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;"> $1 million i</a>n donations from <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/donor_detail.php?cycle=2018&id=Generation+Now&type=O&super=S" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Generation Now</a>, also blanketed the state House districts with television ads in favor of Republican candidates. Generation Now’s office <a href="https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2019/07/02/who-paid-all-money-buy-all-those-nuclear-bailout-ads-ohio-house-bill-6/1443145001/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">is listed</a> as the Columbus address of a longtime Householder adviser, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.The new lawmakers entered office in January, and Householder, who, along with his son, <a href="https://www.cleveland.com/open/2018/04/firstenergy_pac_writes_big_che.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">flew to Donald Trump’s inauguration</a> on a FirstEnergy-chartered plane, won with the backing of 26 Republican and 26 Democratic representatives, while Smith got the votes of 34 and 11, respectively. Householder was able to win the support of those Democrats with his opposition to right-to-work legislation, as unions pushed Democrats to back him in the speaker fight with Smith.  On July 23, Smith and 14 other House Republicans voted against the bailout, but Householder was able to push it through 51-38, backed by nine Democrats. It was quickly signed by the state’s new governor, Republican Mike DeWine. (FirstEnergy also contributed to the campaign of DeWine, who then <a href="https://governor.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/governor/media/news-and-media/010319cabinetappointments" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; letter-spacing: 0.01em; box-sizing: border-box;">tapped a FirstEnergy lobbyist </a>to be his liaison to the legislature.)That month, the legislature also began work on reviving the nuclear bill known as HB 6. At least seven witnesses who spoke to the legislature in support of the bill <a href="https://www.energyandpolicy.org/firstenergy-lobbyists-behind-testimony-supporting-bailout-bill/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">drew on testimony</a> written by a FirstEnergy lobbying firm, according to a review of metadata by the Energy and Policy Institute, which has closely tracked the fight.The Ohio legislation reads as if it was designed specifically to undermine the planet’s continued capacity to support a steady human population. Along with propping up the state’s two nuclear plants, it also provides subsidies for failing coal plants in the state, as well as one in Indiana. It cuts and eventually ends any subsidies for new wind or solar, while approving just $20 million annually for large-scale solar projects that have already been approved. It even ends programs aimed at encouraging Ohio residents to reduce power consumption, through upgrades to appliances or heating and cooling systems.In April, Householder denied that the corporate PAC money had anything to do with the nuclear bill, and said that FirstEnergy should be applauded for its civic engagement. “For them to care about those people who are trying to serve the state of Ohio and make sure they’ve got good quality candidates moving forward I think is important for anybody,” <a href="https://radio.wosu.org/post/householder-denies-firstenergy-contributions-influenced-bill#stream/0" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">he said</a>.When asked specifically about ads from the dark money–funded Growth & Opportunity PAC, Householder <a href="https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2019/07/02/who-paid-all-money-buy-all-those-nuclear-bailout-ads-ohio-house-bill-6/1443145001/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">said</a>, “I’ll tell you who’s paying for these ads: it’s working men and women from Ohio, who want to save their jobs and it’s Ohio corporations, headquartered in Ohio, that want to stay here. That’s who’s paying for it.” He did not respond to a request for comment from The Intercept.THE ROLE OF the nuclear industry in the shuffling of speakers was not prominent in the news coverage of the politics, but it wasn’t entirely unknown. Gregory Jaczko, who served as chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2009 to 2012, said that the industry’s role in the affair was visible to those paying close attention. “FirstEnergy has been trying, really, for years to get this subsidy, and the legislature kept denying it, and nobody really, even the previous governor [John Kasich] was not really supportive of it,” he said. “FirstEnergy put a lot of money into local races and essentially turned the legislature around. So they ran this thing through.”On a policy level, the legislation is appalling, said Jaczko, who has become an outspoken critic of the industry, and recently published a book, “Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator.” Building new wind and solar capacity would not only be a better climate solution and produce more jobs, he said, it would be far cheaper for the state, and it’s the direction Ohio will have to go eventually anyway. Wind and solar “creates a brand new economy, which is going to be a future-looking economy rather than a dying economy,” said the former NRC chair. “Nuclear is dying. It’s dying in Ohio.”Winning the speakership is quite the comeback for Householder, whose career appeared to be cut short in the mid-2000s by a federal investigation into<a href="https://www.toledoblade.com/news/state/2006/06/17/U-S-inquiry-hurt-Householder-says/stories/200606170049" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; letter-spacing: 0.01em; box-sizing: border-box;"> kickbacks and a pay-to-play scandal</a>. Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a Republican, had referred the case to the FBI; it was resolved without charges. Householder won election back to the House in 2016, and during his first cycle, the incumbent speaker resigned amid his own FBI investigation. Smith took over on a temporary basis, leading to the battle between the two.The irony, he noted, is that Ohio had planned to be a testing ground for next-generation smaller nuclear power plants, which purported to solve some of the problems associated with nuclear energy, and won federal subsidies to try to build them. “As soon as they <a href="https://www.energy.gov/articles/energy-department-announces-new-investment-us-small-modular-reactor-design-and" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">got that money</a> from the Department of Energy, they decided they weren’t going to pursue these reactors anymore,” Jaczko said. No new nuclear plants are planned for Ohio or anywhere else in the United States, and the closure of the two currently operating facilities is not a matter of if, but when. The billion-dollar subsidy only delays the transition to wind and solar, he said.Ohio’s two senators, both of whose campaigns have taken money from FirstEnergy throughout their careers, were on different pages when asked about the billion-dollar bailout. Republican Sen. Rob Portman, whose campaigns have taken at least $615,000 from FirstEnergy PACs since his first run for Senate in 2009, said he didn’t know enough of the details of the decision and was swamped with other things this week.Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, though, was indignant. “You don’t bail out utility companies and raise prices for customers,” Brown said. The utility has contributed around $380,000 to Brown’s campaigns since 1997, when he was in the House of Representatives. “And you don’t undermine the efforts our state has made on alternative energy and other energy sources. So it’s just wrong.” Asked about reports of the involvement of dark-money groups in pushing the bailout, Brown said: “Of course there is.”“I mean, these things happen because these monied interests control the state legislature. There’s no question about it.”</div><div data-reactid="226" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;">In a statement Brown’s office sent later in the day, the senator added that expending enormous resources to prop up outdated sources of power would only hurt Ohio going forward. “Of course we need to make sure our state has access to reliable power, but we shouldn’t do that by raising the utility bills of hardworking Ohioans,” Brown said. “We need solutions designed for Ohio workers and families, not Wall Street and fat-cat lobbyists. By eliminating the renewable standard, Ohio is going backward when almost every other state is looking to the good-paying jobs of the future. It’s short-sighted and it is going to result in significant lost opportunities in our state—our businesses will be less competitive, energy developers will avoid investing in Ohio, and there will be fewer jobs in this growing sector.”The cost of the nuclear bailout for Ohio ratepayers is a bargain compared to the bill being given to <a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">residents in South Carolina</a>. The cost of a failed program to build a nuclear power plant there topped $9 billion. Two of the companies involved — Dominion Energy and SCANA Corporation — entered into a buyout and settled a large portion of the bill, leaving ratepayers responsible for footing the remaining $2.3 billion, more than twice the Ohio figure. Not a single kilowatt of energy was produced in South Carolina by the project, which consisted largely of a hole in the ground.The Ohio subsidies for coal and nuclear, which follow bailouts doled out by Illinois, New York, and New Jersey, underscore the futility of pursuing nuclear power.Nuclear power once offered the tantalizing promise of endless cheap and clean energy, and to this day remains a hope in the minds of some climate activists. But in reality, nuclear hasn’t met the promise. It is far more expensive to produce nuclear power than wind or solar, and the world has not solved the intractable problem of nuclear waste, to say nothing of safety. To truly meet the scale of the climate crisis with nuclear power, Jaczko said, the world would need to start construction on roughly 1,000 plants this year. But because of the safety concerns, waste problem, and astronomical cost, there are just a handful being built. Ohio lawmakers, though, are hanging on to the bitter end — courtesy of Ohio’s residents.... Ohio homeowners and businesses are now stuck paying more to keep old, uneconomical power plants running, and money-saving energy efficiency programs will likely disappear.</div> =interview jackzo sp gregory, new bk?<a href="https://kpfa.org/episode/the-ralph-nader-radio-hour-february-18-2019/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://kpfa.org/episode/the-ralph-nader-radio-hour-february-18-2019/</a> =booted in a coup?<span class="title" style="font-weight: bold; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?456771-1/gregory-jaczko-confessions-rogue-nuclear-regulator" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; outline: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; transition: color 0.35s ease 0s;">Gregory Jaczko, Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator</a><span class="abstract" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: block;">Gregory Jaczko recounted his time with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,…<span class="abstract" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: block;">booktv 1/19<span class="abstract" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: block;">
<span class="abstract" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: block;"><a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?456771-1/confessions-rogue-nuclear-regulator" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.c-span.org/video/?456771-1/confessions-rogue-nuclear-regulator</a>WASHINGTON -- Four pro-industry members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, along with Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), launched a public assault on the panel's chairman Friday, accusing him of mismanagement and heavy-handedness. Although the fight is framed by the commission members as personal, it is at root political and ideological, a dueling <a href="http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/MarkeyReport.pdf" target="hplink" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">report put out Friday night by Rep. Ed Markey</a> (D-Mass.) shows. Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko is a longtime proponent of reforming safety standards at nuclear power plants and was the first chair to win the seat without the support of the industry. The other four members were all strongly backed by the nuclear industry when they were nominated and confirmed.In early December, the four other commission members wrote a letter to White House Chief of Staff William Daley <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70228.html" target="hplink" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">accusing Jaczko</a> of "increasingly problematic and erratic" behavior. The letter was made public by Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. All five commission members are scheduled to appear Wednesday before his panel. Issa has requested that a White House representative attend as well.Jaczko is a former staffer to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who successfully fought off the industry's effort to use Yucca Mountain in his state as a dumping ground for nuclear waste. Jaczko also worked for Markey, an outspoken proponent of legislation to address climate change and a critic of the industry's safety record. The push for nuclear safety reforms was galvanized by the nightmare scenario in Japan, where radioactivity still haunts large swaths of the area around the <a href="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/236811.php" target="hplink" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Fukushima nuclear plant</a> that failed in March 2011."The actions of these four Commissioners since the Fukushima nuclear disaster has caused a regulatory meltdown that has left America's nuclear fleet and the general public at risk," said Markey in a statement. "Instead of doing what they have been sworn to do, these four Commissioners have attempted a coup on the Chairman and have abdicated their responsibility to the American public to assure the safety of America's nuclear industry. I call on these four Commissioners to stop the obstruction, do their jobs and quickly move to fully implement the lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster."In his own letter to Daley, Jaczko responded to the allegations, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/10/us-usa-energy-nuclear-idUSTRE7B903N20111210" target="hplink" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Reuters reported</a>. "Unfortunately, all too often, a majority of this current commission has taken an approach that is not as protective of public health and safety as I believe is necessary," he wrote. Update: 5:29 p.m. -- Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, came to Jaczko's defense on Saturday. In a statement, she said, "Instead of applauding the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for his swift and effective response to Fukushima, his fellow commissioners are attacking him. We must move away from the 'do nothing' culture of the NRC and support Chairman Jaczko as he translates the lessons of Fukushima into an action plan that will make America's nuclear plants the safest in the world." Next Thursday, all five commissioners are set to testify before Boxer's committee on the NRC recommendations in the aftermath of Japan's nuclear disaster.Update: 8:49 p.m. -- Early on Saturday morning, lobbyists for major utilities began reaching out to Democrats on key committees, asking them not to jump quickly to Jaczko's defense, according to people privy to the lobbying push. One senior congressional aide said the speed and timing of the effort suggested a coordinated action against the chairman."It's obvious these guys are all in on this coup. They've been whining about Jaczko, particularly after Japan and what he's been doing since then, consistently," said the aide. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/gregory-jaczko-nuclear-regulatory-commission_n_1140404.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/gregory-jaczko-nuclear-regulatory-commission_n_1140404.html</a> =  WASHINGTON - Under a withering assault from the industry, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko is stepping down, effective upon the confirmation of his successor, according to a statement from Jaczko.The resignation follows months of bureaucratic knife-wielding by the four industry-backed members of the five-person panel. Like something out of Dumas, the passionate infighting stretched back decades. The industry effort was spearheaded by Democratic Commissioner Bill Magwood. Magwood, it turned out, had led a strikingly similar coup against his boss at the Department of Energy before taking his spot, a saga first reported by HuffPost late last year as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29/nuclear-power-gregory-jaczko-nuclear-regulatory-commission_n_1160711.html" target="hplink" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">the coup was unfolding.</a>Magwood's ally at the time was Alex Flint, then a GOP Senate staffer who took the lead on nuclear policy. He's now the top lobbyist for the nuclear industry -- whose criticism of Jaczko coincided with <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/gregory-jaczko-nuclear-regulatory-commission_n_1140404.html" target="hplink" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Magwood's dramatic assault.</a> Jaczko and the pro-industry commissioners clashed over his opposition to using Nevada's Yucca Mountain as a depository for nuclear waste. The commissioners further accused him of heavy-handed leadership when he put the NRC on emergency footing following the Fukishima disaster in 2011. They argued that he was pushing forward too fast with costly new safety regulations. HuffPost reported that Magwood, who spent his career moving in and out of the private sector, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/gregory-jaczko-nuclear-regulatory-commission_n_1140404.html" target="hplink" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">had done nuclear safety consulting for the company</a> that owns the Fukishima nuclear power plant. Magwood confirmed the consulting work during Senate testimony, but said that his connections have not influenced his decision-making. Jaczko, with the help of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), his Senate patron; Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), his former boss in the House; and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chair of the environment and public works committee; staved off the threat to his position in the face of multiple demands from the GOP that he resign. The White House, meanwhile, stood by Jaczko, with then-Chief of Staff Bill Daley suggesting the equivalent of couples counseling.But on Monday, Jaczko called it quits. "After nearly eight years on the Commission, I am announcing my resignation as Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, effective upon the confirmation of my successor. My responsibility and commitment to safety will continue to be my paramount priority after I leave the Commission and until my successor is confirmed," he said."I thank Chairman Jaczko for always fighting for the health and safety of the American people," Boxer said in a statement. "I look forward to the President’s nomination of a successor that will carry the same level of concern in this post-Fukushima era."Reid, meanwhile, said Jaczko "dedicated his tenure to improving the safety of nuclear energy, and his leadership during the Fukushima nuclear crisis protected millions of Americans. His work toward a safe and effective nuclear energy policy has left Nevada and the nation more secure."In an interview with HuffPost, Jaczko declined to endorse either of the two Democrats on the panel for re-nomination, saying that the decision would be made by others.The battle against Jaczko reveals the flip-side of corporate influence on politics. While the traditional understanding of money in politics has to do with favors and rewards, it works in reverse, too: Act against corporate interests, and become a target for personal destruction.Magwood publicly accused Jaczko of abusive behavior toward women, charges that were never backed up, and were mocked by Boxer as "McCarthyist" in their lack of specificity."This is the ugly underbelly of large corporate lobbying," said a former Democratic staffer, who has worked with the men at the center of both controversies and is now a corporate lobbyist himself, in December. "It really is by any means necessary."Jaczko, by announcing his resignation several months after the attempted coup, has likely put an end to the attack. His term was set to expire in June 2013, and given the controversy, it wouldn't have been difficult for the GOP to bottle up his re-appointment.The move gives the White House time to appoint its own nominee. That decision will likely be left to Reid, however, who is a strident opponent of turning Yucca Mountain into a waste depository."I am confident whomever replaces Chairman Jaczko will share his commitment to protecting the safety of the American people over the interests of a single industry. This is an opportunity for the nuclear industry to demonstrate its commitment to public safety by supporting a Chairperson who puts the safety of American citizens first," Reid said."Greg was my trusted aide for many years and his talent in applying science to public policy was an asset to my staff and the state of Nevada," Reid added. "I wish him well in his future endeavors." The Nuclear Energy Institute, the lobbying arm of the nuclear industry, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Jaczko's resignation.A separate former senior Democratic aide who has worked with Jaczko, Magwood and Flint said that Yucca was the impetus for the industry's opposition to the outgoing chairman. Magwood "and the industry hate Greg because they think he was put on the commission by Reid, who's anti-Yucca, and he's gonna be a Reid stooge. And you know what? They're f*cking right," the former aide said. "That's exactly why he was put on there. But that commission and that agency were complete and total captives of the nuclear industry. One and the same." UPDATE: 11:55 a.m. -- Other members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works weighed in on Jaczko's resignation shortly after it was announced.Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the committee's ranking member, said, "Throughout his time at the NRC, it was abundantly clear that Chairman Jaczko used his office to undermine the NRC to the point that all four of his fellow commissioners wrote to the President to ask for assistance as a last resort. With his resignation today, the NRC can focus on its mission of safety without the distractions of Jaczko's inappropriate behavior."Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who also sits on the committee, praised Jaczko's efforts. "Chairman Jaczko has served the interests of the public extremely well on the commission," Sanders said in a statement. "He has a consistent voting record supporting the swift implementation of strong safety reforms."Sanders added, "For his efforts to hold the nuclear industry accountable, Chairman Jaczko was subjected to repeated personal attacks made by some of his colleagues and pro-industry advocates in Congress. I am extremely disappointed he is leaving the Commission."  FLINT <h2 class="subtitle" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Congress and the Politics of Energy Policy</h2><div class="field field-name-field-event-date field-type-datetime field-label-hidden" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">May 16, 2005 // 3:00pm — 5:00pm</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-event-toolbox field-type-list-boolean field-label-hidden" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="field-items" style=""><div class="field-item even" /></div><div class="field field-name-field-event-webcast field-type-list-boolean field-label-hidden" style=""><div class="field-items" style=""><div class="field-item even"><div class="display-none" /></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-event-anchors field-type-list-boolean field-label-hidden" style=""><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a id="page-menu" name="page-menu" style="font-weight: bold; outline: none;" /><div class="event-anchor-links clearfix"><ul class="event-internal-links"><li class="0 first last active"><a href="http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/congress-and-the-politics-energy-policy#field_files" class="active" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Event Documents</a></li></ul></div></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-main-image field-type-image field-label-hidden" style=""><div class="field-items" style=""><div class="field-item even" /></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style=""><div class="field-items" style=""><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded" style="">For the third consecutive Congress the House and Senate are trying to cobble together a national energy policy. However, despite public anger over high gasoline prices, it is not certain the 109th Congress will be able to succeed where its two predecessor congresses have failed.

That was the conclusion of a panel of Capitol Hill policymakers and observers at the Wilson Center's Congress Project Seminar on "Congress and the Politics of Energy Policy." The closest any panelist would come to predicting the outcome in this Congress was Senate Energy Committee Republican Staff Director Alex Flint, who said he was "an optimist in all aspects of my life, including this."

Getting all the pieces of a very complex energy jigsaw puzzle to fit together is a very challenging political feat, the panelists agreed, but not all agreed that the current Congress and president were working with the right pieces of the puzzle to begin with. Representative Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a member of both the House Energy Committee and the House Resources Committee--which share jurisdiction over the bill--said the bill that passed the House in April, by a vote of 249 to 183, would actually increase the price of gasoline by 3 to 8 cents a gallon because of the ethanol mandate in the bill. Moreover, the bill only further subsidizes traditional energy sources such as coal, oil, and natural gas, while doing little to encourage renewable energy or increased conservation and efficiency measures.

Political scientist Bruce Oppenheimer compared the energy crisis and congressional efforts of the 1970s to today's situation and found that there is much less media, and thus public, attention to the problem, and Congress is much more partisan today, meaning that there is no longer an incentive to work for compromise in the middle. "In the 70s, you built coalitions in the middle, and it was the liberal and conservative extremes that tried to defeat the middle." Today, by contrast, said Oppenheimer, the policy is built from the middle of the majority party out.

On the media and public attention factors, Oppenheimer speculated that the decreasing interest since the 1970s may be due to the fact that there are no gasoline lines today and people have become more accustomed to gas price fluctuations. On the partisan makeup of Congress today, Oppenheimer said it is due in part to the fact that there are fewer Democrats in the energy producing states and fewer Republicans in the energy consuming states. It is still mainly a regional debate between the producing and consuming states, and the changing party demographics of the country only reinforce and highlight this split in party terms. Finally, the more partisan Congress today delegates more powers to party leaders to get things done, and this further exacerbates partisan confrontation and lessens the need or the incentive for bipartisan cooperation and compromise.

Washington Post reporter Dan Morgan observed that this year's energy debate is looking the same as that which occurred in the last two Congresses. "It's like watching the same movie over again in slow motion, like ‘Groundhog Day.'" The same issues are the main sticking points that could drag down a final bill to defeat or stalemate. Those issues include whether to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and whether to extend liability protection to the manufactures of MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether), a gasoline additive designed to produce cleaner emissions, yet also responsible for groundwater contamination. The House-passed bill protects MTBE makers from liability suits without providing funds for local communities to pay for the clean-up.

<img src="/c4d15e6b-1db4-56d2-a984-40c50ab18d1d.jpg"/>Alex Flint, who joined the Senate Energy Committee as staff director in 2003 when Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) became its chairman, said that unlike the House, which tends to proceed in a more partisan manner with little consultation with or input from the minority party, "in the Senate this year there has been a process of inclusiveness," with Domenici and his Democratic counterpart on the committee, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), working together to fashion a bipartisan compromise on as many issues as they can. The Energy Committee markup of the bill is set to begin May 17 and could take two weeks before the measure is ready for floor action. Moreover, the energy tax provisions must be worked out in the Senate Finance Committee chaired by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Ia.). Senate floor action on the bill could take weeks. Two Congresses ago, the energy bill died in House-Senate conference committee in October 2002 where it had been stalled for four months. In the last Congress, the conference report on the bill died of a Senate filibuster in November 2003, mainly over the MTBE issue. Flint says he is worried about the future energy outlook for a number of reasons, including the growing Asian demand for energy, especially from China, and the difficulty in meeting U.S. emission standards. "If we cannot convert coal into a clean alternative, we are in deep trouble," Flint noted, since so much of our electricity is generated by coal- fired plants.

When asked whether nuclear energy was a more attractive alternative today since it does not contribute to global warming as burning fossil fuels do, Markey said "it was Wall Street that killed nuclear power, not some bead-wearing, guitar strumming hippies." Most of France's electricity is produced by nuclear power plants because they have a socialist government that builds and funds the plants, Markey noted. In the U.S. you still have the problem of nobody wanting a nuclear plant built in their back yard. When asked whether the U.S. will need another energy bill in a few years, even if the current legislation is enacted, Markey said it will be necessary when people realize this one hasn't done a thing to solve our problem.=<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission</a> Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government" title="Independent agencies of the United States government" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">independent agency of the United States government</a> tasked with protecting public health and safety related to nuclear energy. Established by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Reorganization_Act_of_1974" title="Energy Reorganization Act of 1974" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Energy Reorganization Act of 1974</a>, the NRC began operations on January 19, 1975 as one of two successor agencies to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Atomic_Energy_Commission" title="United States Atomic Energy Commission" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">United States Atomic Energy Commission</a>. Its functions include overseeing <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_safety_system" title="Nuclear reactor safety system" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">reactor safety</a> and security, administering reactor licensing and renewal, licensing <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_materials" class="mw-redirect" title="Radioactive materials" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">radioactive materials</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radionuclide" title="Radionuclide" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">radionuclide</a> safety, and managing the storage, security, recycling, and disposal of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_fuel" class="mw-redirect" title="Spent fuel" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">spent fuel</a>.<div id="toc" class="toc" style="border: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); background-color: rgb(248, 249, 250); padding: 7px; display: table; zoom: 1;"><div class="toctitle" lang="en" dir="ltr" style="direction: ltr; text-align: center;">
</div><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0.3em 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#History" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">1History</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#Mission_and_commissioners" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">2Mission and commissioners</a><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#List_of_Chairs" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">2.1List of Chairs</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#Organization" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">3Organization</a><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#Regions" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">3.1Regions</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-6" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#Recordkeeping_system" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">4Recordkeeping system</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-7" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#Training_and_accreditation" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">5Training and accreditation</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-8" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#Terrorism_concerns_and_threats" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">6Terrorism concerns and threats</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-9" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#Prospective_nuclear_units" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">7Prospective nuclear units</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-10" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#Controversy,concerns,and_criticisms_before_2011" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">8Controversy, concerns, and criticisms before 2011</a><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-11" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#Nuclear_Reactor_License_Renewal_Program" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">8.1Nuclear Reactor License Renewal Program</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-12" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#Controversy,concerns,and_criticisms_since_2011" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">9Controversy, concerns, and criticisms since 2011</a><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-13" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#Intentionally_concealing_reports_concerning_the_risks_of_flooding" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">9.1Intentionally concealing reports concerning the risks of flooding</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-14" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#See_also" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">10See also</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-15" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#References" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">11References</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-16" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#External_links" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">12External links</a></li></ul></div><h2 style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); line-height: 1.3;">History[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission&action=edit&section=1" title="Edit section: History" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h2>Prior to 1975 the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Atomic_Energy_Commission" title="United States Atomic Energy Commission" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Atomic Energy Commission</a> was in charge of matters regarding radionuclides. The AEC was dissolved, because it was perceived as unduly favoring the industry it was charged with regulating.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#cite_note-atom19-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[2]</a> The NRC was formed as an independent commission to oversee <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States" title="Nuclear power in the United States" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">nuclear energy</a> matters, oversight of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_medicine" title="Nuclear medicine" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">nuclear medicine</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety_and_security" title="Nuclear safety and security" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">nuclear safety and security</a>.The U.S. AEC became the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Research_and_Development_Administration" title="Energy Research and Development Administration" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Energy Research and Development Administration</a> (ERDA) in 1975, responsible for development and oversight of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon" title="Nuclear weapon" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">nuclear weapons</a>. Research and promotion of civil uses of radioactive materials, such as for nuclear <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-destructive_testing" class="mw-redirect" title="Non-destructive testing" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">non-destructive testing</a>, nuclear medicine, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power" title="Nuclear power" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">nuclear power</a>, was split into the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science & Technology within ERDA by the same act. In 1977, ERDA became the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy" title="United States Department of Energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">United States Department of Energy</a> (DOE). In 2000, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Nuclear_Security_Administration" title="National Nuclear Security Administration" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">National Nuclear Security Administration</a> was created as a subcomponent of DOE, responsible for nuclear weapons.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#cite_note-wellc-3" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[3]</a>Twelve years into NRC operations, a 1987 Congressional report entitled "NRC Coziness with Industry"<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#cite_note-congress-4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[4]</a> concluded, that the NRC "has not maintained an arms length regulatory posture with the commercial nuclear power industry ... [and] has, in some critical areas, abdicated its role as a regulator altogether".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#cite_note-atom19-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[2]</a> To cite three examples:<blockquote style="overflow: hidden; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px 40px;">A 1986 Congressional report found that NRC staff had provided valuable technical assistance to the utility seeking an operating license for the controversial <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabrook_Station_Nuclear_Power_Plant" title="Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Seabrook plant</a>. In the late 1980s, the NRC 'created a policy' of non-enforcement by asserting its discretion not to enforce license conditions; between September 1989 and 1994, the 'NRC has either waived or chosen not to enforce regulations at nuclear power reactors over 340 times'. Finally, critics charge that the NRC has ceded important aspects of regulatory authority to the industry's own Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), an organization formed by utilities in response to the Three Mile Island Accident.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#cite_note-atom19-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[2]</a></blockquote>The origins and development of NRC regulatory processes and policies are explained in five volumes of history published by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California_Press" title="University of California Press" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">University of California Press</a>. These are:<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#cite_note-wellc-3" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[3]</a><ul data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" csvg="Csvg" width="%225%22" height="%2213%22%3E" ccircle="Ccircle" cx="%222.5%22" cy="%229.5%22" r="%222.5%22" fill="%22%2300528c%22/%3E" c="C" e="E" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url("");" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Controlling the Atom: The Beginnings of Nuclear Regulation 1946–1962 (1984).</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Containing the Atom: Nuclear Regulation in a Changing Environment, 1963–1971 (1992).</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Permissible Dose: A History of Radiation Protection in the Twentieth Century (2000)</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island:A_Nuclear_Crisis_in_Historical_Perspective" title="Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective</a> (2004)</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">The Road to Yucca Mountain: The Development of Radioactive Waste Policy in the United States (2009).</li></ul>The NRC has produced a booklet, A Short History of Nuclear Regulation 1946–2009, which outlines key issues in NRC history.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#cite_note-5" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[5]</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Wellock" title="Thomas Wellock" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Thomas Wellock</a>, a former academic, is the NRC historian. Before joining the NRC, Wellock wrote <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Masses:Opposition_to_Nuclear_Power_in_California,1958%E2%80%931978" title="Critical Masses: Opposition to Nuclear Power in California, 1958–1978" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Critical Masses: Opposition to Nuclear Power in California, 1958–1978</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#cite_note-wellc-3" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[3]</a><h2 style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); line-height: 1.3;">Mission and commissioners</h2>The NRC's mission is to regulate the nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment. The NRC's regulatory mission covers three main areas[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">citation needed</a>]:<ul data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" csvg="Csvg" width="%225%22" height="%2213%22%3E" ccircle="Ccircle" cx="%222.5%22" cy="%229.5%22" r="%222.5%22" fill="%22%2300528c%22/%3E" c="C" e="E" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url("");" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Reactors – Commercial reactors for generating electric power and research and test reactors used for research, testing, and training</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Materials – Uses of nuclear materials in medical, industrial, and academic settings and facilities that produce nuclear fuel</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Waste – Transportation, storage, and disposal of nuclear materials and waste, and decommissioning of nuclear facilities from service.</li></ul>The NRC is headed by five Commissioners appointed by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States" title="President of the United States" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">President of the United States</a> and confirmed by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate" title="United States Senate" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">United States Senate</a> for five-year terms. One of them is designated by the President to be the Chairman and official spokesperson of the Commission.The current chairman is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristine_Svinicki" title="Kristine Svinicki" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Kristine Svinicki</a>. President <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump" title="Donald Trump" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Donald Trump</a> designated Svinicki as Chairman of the NRC effective January 23, 2017.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission#cite_note-svnicki-6" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">[6]</a>

=</div></div></div></div></div></div></div>