NRC Commissioners Sought to Thwart Japan Response, Markey Says

[kristopher]

NRC Commissioners Sought to Thwart Japan Response, Markey Says
December 09, 2011, 7:23 PM EST

By Brian Wingfield

Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission members tried to impede Chairman Gregory Jaczko’s response to Japan’s reactor crisis in March, according to a report from Representative Edward Markey.

Commissioners George Apostolakis, William Magwood IV, William Ostendorff and Kristine Svinicki “conspired, with each other and with senior NRC staff, to delay the release of and alter” an agency task-force study on the crisis, according to the 22-page report released by Markey’s office yesterday.

The report is based on documents submitted by the commissioners in response to an October request from Markey of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee.

...

Markey’s report found e-mails and other documents with “high levels of suspicion and hostility directed” at Jaczko. At other times, e-mails showed Jaczko’s colleagues “assumed ill intent on the part of the chairman” and tried to “undermine his efforts or refuse his requests.”...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-09/nrc-commissioners-sought-to-thwart-japan-response-markey-says.html

[FBaggins]

1. Jaczko continues to attempt to arrogate power that he does not possess.

Should it be a surprise that his patron wants to help him do so?

The real dispute is that the Chairman attempted to exercise emergency powers that (absent an actual emergency) rest in the entire commission and not the chairman. Jaczko is clearly in the minority on these issues but wants to control anyway.

Fukushima cannot be spun as "an emergency concerning a particular facility or materials licensed or regulated by the Commission" nor did the President ever declare an emergency that would have allowed him to excercise such powers.

The commission is made up of five voting members that act as a unit... If the majority disagrees with the chairman... then it isn't accurate to accuse them of "seeking to thwart" the chairman... it's the chairman attempting to exercise authority that he doesn't have.

[kristopher]

2. The commission has been a tool of the nuclear industry since Bradford retired in '77.

It is every bit as corrupt as the system in Japan.

[FBaggins]

3. Regardless of whether or not that's true...

...it doesn't give the chairman powers that the law denies him.

No matter what his mama says.

[kristopher]

4. You share the position the Congressional Republicans have been pushing.

...In August, Republican senators asked the inspector general to investigate whether Jaczko had authority to declare the Japan emergency — which grants him additional powers — since the crisis occurred on foreign soil. The senators also said they were not certain that Jaczko has rescinded the order, despite his public claims to the contrary."

For his part Jaczko claims that the rest of the Commission is not sufficiently interested in "public health and safety as I believe is necessary". Which is another way of saying they are placing the profits of the nuclear industry ahead of public safety.

You want to make the issue about legalisms in spite mountains of evidence that the nuclear industry has had this regulatory oversight body in their hip pocket for 30 years. There is finally someone in place that at least gives a small amount of thought to the responsibilities that go with the profits and the industry - fronted by their bought and paid for Republican shills in Congress - are apoplectic about it.

[Dover]

5. And didn't Bush appoint him?

I think he did. Funny that!

[FBaggins]

6. You conveniently turn a blind eye to the democrats upset with him too.

The commission is majority-democrat and a high percentage of the staff is as well. The IG who slammed him months ago is also a Clinton appointee.

You can try to spin this as a RW hit job, but as usual the facts don't support your spin.

[kristopher]

7. The nuclear iindustry bought the right wing in Congress.

As to the commission and its staff the party affiliation is irrelevant - the industry has blocked the appointment of ANYONE critical of nuclear power since Bradford retired. Every person on the Commission since has been a diehard protector of the nuclear industry's bottom line with public safety and national energy policy coming in a distant second and third.

[FBaggins]

8. The commissioners are presedential appointees and senate confirmed.

The Senate had as many as 60 Democrats when a couple of these were confirmed.

Amazing how that right-wing controlled everything anyway.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that paranoia goes hand in hand with conspiracy theories.

And once again... not a bit of this changes the fact that the chairman doesn't have the legal authority to do what he's been doing. One anti-nuke congressman's whining doesn't change that.

[kristopher]

11. That has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Unless you believe the money doesn't buy political influence and corrupt the oversite function of federal regulators.

And if you believe that, you are wrong.

[PamW]

9. CORRECT!!

Quite correct!

The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 that created the NRC only gives the Chairman special emergency powers in
the case of an emergency at a facility licensed or regulated by the NRC.

Fukushima is in Japan, and regulated by Japan's laws. Fukushima is not subject to the regulations of the NRC.

Therefore, the Chairman has no special emergency powers; and so he's just one out of 5 votes on the NRC.

If the majority of NRC commissions vote contrary to the Chairman, then he must accept the will of the majority,
and has no special powers to overrule them.

PamW

[kristopher]

10. The Fukushima reactor that failed is a model in wide use here.

Until the exact cause of the failure is known with a high level of certainty there is a very good case to be made that the facilities in the US pose a substantial risk to public safety. It sounds like the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency has admitted that the earthquake - which only marginally exceeded the design parameters of the plant - was the event that damaged the reactor.

Fukushima I Nuke Plant: NISA Admits to 7 Tonnes/Hr Water Leaked from RPV?

A tweet by a Lower House Councilman Hiroshi Kawauchi (DPJ) says the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency now admits in its report that the Reactor Pressure Vessel may have been broken by the EARTHQUAKE, not tsunami. No info about which reactor.

Independent journalist Ryuichi Kino says whatever this document is, it is not yet uploaded to the NISA's site. I've checked the METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) press release page, and there is none so far.

Councilman Kawauchi's tweet from December 9, 2011:
Document from the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. It reads "a minute damage inside the reactor from the earthquake cannot be denied". It is just surprising to me that they can call a damage that caused the loss of coolant at 7 tonnes per hour "minute", but anyway they have admitted to the possibility of a damage inside the reactor.

Now, what would this mean? A curious article comes to mind. France's Le Monde reported on December 7 that the government's committee investigating the accident is about to release its interim report, and the report is going to say it is the earthquake, not tsunami as TEPCO and the government has so far insisted, that caused the damage that led to the accident. (I read Le Monde's article in the Japanese translation summary on this blog, but the original seems to be this - you have to be a subscriber of Le Monde to read it, apparently.)

http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/12/fukushima-i-nuke-plant-nisa-admits-to-7.html