Posted on 12/09/2011 8:10:53 PM PST by Danae
A war among the five commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission broke into the open Friday night when Republican Rep. Darrell Issa released a letter in which four of the commissioners said they have “grave concerns” about NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko.
In the letter — which was sent to the White House in October but not made public until Friday night — the four NRC members say Jaczko, a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is a bully who is “causing serious damage” to the commission with “increasingly problematic and erratic" behavior.
The letter from Democratic Commissioners William Magwood and George Apostolakis and Republicans Kristine Svinicki and William Ostendorff says Jaczko "intimidated and bullied" staff, told staff to withhold information and ignored the views of the other members of the five-person commission.
In turn, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) released a report late Friday — originally set for a rollout Monday — charging that those four commissioners had “conspired to delay and weaken nuclear reactor safety” after Japan's Fukushima disaster in March, including by resisting Jaczko's efforts to implement new safeguards.
“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,” Markey said 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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no jurisdiction over nuclear weapons.
No, it does’t. The Department of Defense gets nuclear weapons from the Department of Energy. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no role in nuclear weapons.
It gets worse.
The EPA will have to over rule the NRC. And then the Dept. of Ed. will have to approve it.
As long as it’s OK with Dept. of AG that controls climate and hands out welfare.
But are all the jobs union the NRLB wants to know and the FCC must know if you have the permission to ask.
And Dept. of Energy needs to know if the TSA screening machines don’t use too much energy, whilst the Dept. of Homeland Security is fondling little boys and girls.
Meanwhile Dept. of State is promoting transgendered freakiness.
Dept. of Defense is promoting gay animal husbandry while the Dept. of Obamacare and the Dept. of the MSM...
Oops sorry for the truncated link! Here it is: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrc.gov%2Freading-rm%2Fdoc-collections%2Fcommission%2Fcvr%2F2011%2F2011-0023vtr.pdf&ei=pOLiTtv_JozJiQKBha3RBg&usg=AFQjCNHqbGsnQuBalnp4nEhh01oFNyGwbA
Also see commentary from R. W. Borchardt Executive Director for Operations: pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1035/ML103570349.pdf
/johnny
The NRC can and does have a direct effect on our military.
Effect yes, control, no, and it is why I said, I know what you mean.
Those men and women actually in control and operating reactors and working on weapons know what they are doing, and is why in the sixty plus years of reactors, we have not had anything close to a Chernobyl, or worse a nuclear accident involving weapons. May it ever be so.
You are right, it just regulates the PARTS in nuclear weapons, which by the way, also covers such things as depleted Nuclear Rounds and things like that. The NRC works closely with the DOD. Just do a Google Search on this search string: “ ‘Nuclear’ ‘Regulatory’ ‘Commission’ ‘Military’ “ and get back over 10 million hits. More PDF’s and reports than you could possibly ever read.
That’s a vote on radium-226.
From the Wikipedia article on the US Department of Energy
he United States Department of Energy (DOE) is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government concerned with the United States’ policies regarding energy and safety in handling nuclear material. Its responsibilities include the nation’s nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, energy conservation, energy-related research, radioactive waste disposal, and domestic energy production. DOE also sponsors more basic and applied scientific research than any other US federal agency; most of this is funded through its system of United States Department of Energy National Laboratories.
In the United States, all nuclear weapons deployed by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) are actually on loan to DoD from the DOE/NNSA,[3] which has federal responsibility for the design, testing and production of all nuclear weapons. NNSA in turn uses contractors to carry out its responsibilities at the following government owned sites.
Can't issue new licenses due to "budget cuts".
Increase "safety" so that it is too expensive to run. Like coal plants and 100 watt light bulbs. They aren't banned per se just made to difficult to do.
Oh yeah and the ass clown shut down Yucca mountain against the objections of the rest of the board.
They should not be voted out of office, they need to be removed and brought to justice. With extreme prejudice.
Who do you think writes the regulations the Military Implements? hint, its NOT the Smurfs.
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/search.cfm?q=military+weapons
Thats searching the NRC site for Military and Weapons.
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/search.cfm?q=military+surface+fleet+Nuclear+Reactors
Here is another one searching: Military surface flees nuclear reactors.
The NRC has a very large footprint in the military and only an IDIOT would argue otherwise.
Heres another one: http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/search.cfm?q=military+submarine+Nuclear+Reactors
This searches Military Submarine nuclear reactors.
My Husband was an E6 on board the USS Grant SSBN 631 They spent months, 24/7 training to get that boat certified. Who ran the cert process ultimately? The NRC. yeah, look at this PDF: pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0826/ML082610050.pdf What else did that boat hold? Yeah, Ballistic Missiles.
Look, Don’t EVER cite Wikipedia to me. Ever. If I do that on a college paper, I get an automatic “F”. Why? Because it is completely unreliable. Cite ORIGINAL sources ONLY.
Your post is useless with out an original citation.
I have no idea what dotted line you are talking about. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for instance, has reviewed the proposed spent fuel repository at Yucca Mountain, NV, which is a Department of Energy project.
The NRC has oversight of environmental conditions at DOD sites, but things like naval reactor design (Department of Energy) and operation (Department of Defense) are not under the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I have spent some time this evening going through the websites for the Savannah River Plant (SC) which produced materials for the nuclear weapons program and the Pantex Plant(TX) which is responsible for components of nuclear weapons. There’s not much mention of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on those sites.
Just because you get hits when you do a search doesn’t mean that there’s meaningful documents. I tried your searches and they don’t validate your assertion. Sorry.
The NRC does not certify naval reactor operators or submarines. That pdf you cite has to do with the packaging of a discharged reactor compartment so that it can be transported on public highways.
The subject of the pdf you cite is not exactly what I would call a major regulation of naval reactors by the NRC. If you can cite the organization within in the Nuclear Regulatory staff that regulates naval reactors (and I mean design, operation, manufacture, training, etc), then I will readily grant your assertion.
The fact that you refer to submarine reactors doesn’t exactly indicate that you have much knowledge of the subject. I think that you would find that the term used by those with experience in the field is “naval reactors.”
And, you know, I did a search on the NRC website for naval reactors, and, good golly, I got lots of hits! And, guess what, they are mostly dealing with the transportation of components discharged from naval vessels. I don’t see any relating to reactor design, operation, manufacture, etc.
Guess what, this is not a college paper. I don’t trust the Wikipedia for political information, but articles on items such as the Department of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as long as they are dealing with organizational issue and mission statements are usually pretty good.
Try this out for size.
http://nnsa.energy.gov/ourmission
MISSION
The mission of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is to license and 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.
From the Energy.gov website, aka the DOE
Our National Security Priorities
•Insuring the integrity and safety of the country's nuclear weapons
•Promoting international nuclear safety
•Advancing nuclear non-proliferation
•Continuing to provide safe, efficient and effective nuclear power plants for the United States Navy.
First we have to defang the corrupt, biased, anti-American media.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.