NRC Commissioners Have ‘Grave Concerns' With Chairman Jaczko

[FBaggins]

Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko is causing “serious damage” to the agency and is “creating a chilled work environment,” his four commission colleagues said.

Jaczko has bullied career staff and attempted to intimidate an independent panel of technical advisers, the other NRC commissioners said in an Oct. 13 letter to White House Chief of Staff William Daley, released yesterday by Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

“In a long series of very troubling actions taken by Chairman Jaczko, he has undermined the ability of the commission to function,” Commissioners George Apostolakis, William Magwood IV, William Ostendorff and Kristine Svinicki said in the letter that described their “grave concerns.”

http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LVYSLW6JTSEA01-00VN8RAL3M1RPCI5KJFUJAPVIJ

Worth noting that four of the five Commissioners are Democratic appointees and that the NRC-IG (a Clinton appointee) appears to agree with the concerns.

[enough]

1. Hard to know what's going on here.

snip from the article>

Jaczko responded that the commission's majority has “loosened the agency's safety standards” over his opposition. The exchanges bring into the open tensions and conflict within the agency that is responsible for regulating the 104 commercial reactors in the U.S. and is considering applications for a new generation of power plants.

snip>

A report released yesterday by Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts blamed the four commissioners for trying to impede Jaczko's response to Japan's nuclear crisis in March.

They “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. It is based on documents submitted by the commissioners in response to an October request from Markey, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee.

more>


I've had the impression that Markey has been out front on nuclear safety and regulation. Need to get some clarity here.

[bananas]

2. Anti-science Republicans hate Jaczko:"We’ve tried to screw this guy three different times and failed

That's what a nuclear industry lobbyist said back in January 2008, long before Obama was elected:

http://www.powermag.com/nuclear/Regulatory-risks-paraly...

January 15, 2008
Regulatory risks paralyzing power industry while demand grows
Kennedy Maize and Dr. Robert Peltier, PE

<snip>

The U.S. nuclear industry decided—even before the 2006 elections, which produced a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress—to bet the radioactive ranch on the GOP. The nuclear industry lobby was, to use a waterskiing and snowboarding term, “goofy-footed” by the Democratic tsunami—caught with its right foot in the forward binding.

Eight years of Republican control of the White House, and 12 of Congress, haven’t delivered for nuclear power. As one nuclear lobbyist, speaking anonymously for fear of losing his job, told POWER, “We’ve had the most pro-nuclear administration in 20 years. During its reign, not a spade of dirt has turned on a new plant. The schedule for the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain has slipped another 12 years. The Department of Energy has been unable to turn the promises of the 2005 Energy Policy Act into realities. It’s a failure of monumental proportions.” Put Yucca Mountain in that same category (see sidebar, “Clinton, Obama agree: Death to Yucca Mountain”).

<snip>

A PhD physicist, Jaczko came to Congress as a science fellow working for Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of the most anti-nuclear members of Congress over the past 30 years. Jaczko decided he liked Washington and became Reid’s chief advisor on nuclear waste issues. Reid has vowed to kill Yucca Mountain, and he may be able to keep his promise come January 2009. Jaczko professes, no doubt honestly, that he is not anti-nuclear power.

But Jaczko has every reason to be anti–nuclear industry. The Nuclear Energy Institute tried, and failed, to block his initial appointment to the NRC when he won a recess appointment—as did Republican Peter Lyons, a former advisor to former Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-N.M.). That was a deal the White House and Reid negotiated, over the objections of the nuclear lobby.

Then the nuke reps tried to derail Jaczko’s nomination to fill a full term last year. They failed. Recently, the nuclear lobby tried to abort a second term for Jaczko. They were unsuccessful. Said our lobbyist, “We’ve tried to screw this guy three different times and failed. How understanding and helpful is he going to be when he runs the NRC?” There’s little doubt that if the Democrats reclaim the White House, Jaczko, the only Democrat on the commission, will become its chairman.

<snip>

[enough]

3. Thanks bananas, interesting link. (nt)

[Bob Wallace]

4. Have we had a pro-nuke administration?

Seems to me that President Obama has simply supplied the nuclear industry more rope with which to hang themselves.

During his administration the nuclear industry has been offered more loan guarantees, but I seem to recall that if they use those guarantees they end up accepting more liability for failure to pay.

And the industry has lost the ability to dump hazardous waste in Nevada.

I think PBO has been playing a very smart game of not being a public enemy of the nuclear industry while quietly kneecapping them.

Have you seen PBO ask for federal funding for nuclear? Have you seen him out trying to round up support for building new reactors? Has he been visiting reactor sites and talking about how wonderful they are? Remember, he's been out on the road visiting wind and solar sites/factories a lot.

I'm thinking that he understands that nuclear basically fails because of cost and financial risk and he's willing to let them fail on their own.

[PamW]

11. Remains to be seen...

And the industry has lost the ability to dump hazardous waste in Nevada.
================================================

It remains to be seen how the Courts will rule on this. Using Yucca Mountain
as the USA's waste repository is a provision of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1987. It is a provision of a US law. I don't think the Courts will
say the President has the power to cancel or not abide by a provision of a
US law that was passed by Congress and signed by a President.

I think the Courts will hold that it takes another Act of Congress, i.e.
another law to counteract an already standing law. President Obama's cancellation
of Yucca Mountain is analogous to a "line item veto". However, the US Supreme
Court told the Gerald Ford Administration back in the '70s that the President
does NOT have the power to line item veto. It ruled a law giving the President
that power as unconstitutional.

Additionally, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1987 mandated that the DOE enter
into contractual relationships with the nuclear industry for disposal of waste
for fees tendered. The nuclear industry has paid into the "Nuclear Waste Fund"
to the tune of $35 Billion at last count.

Now if you enter into a contract with a general contractor to build a house for
you, and you pay the builder the amount of money that the contractor demands; but
before the house is built, the contractor says that he isn't building houses anymore.

You take the builder to Court. What do you think the Court will do?
The Court could rule that the contract is a valid contract, and the remedy could
be "specific performance". That is the Court could order the builder to
build your house as agreed in a valid contract.

The cases have already been filed, and will probably end up in the US Supreme Court.
I wonder what the Supreme Court will order.

PamW

[Bob Wallace]

12. Somehow...

I don't think the President is responsible for any crap the Supreme Court might pull.

[PamW]

17. I don't think it's crap...

I don't think the President is responsible for any crap the Supreme Court might pull.
---------------------------------------

I don't think it's crap if the US Supreme Court tells the President to follow the law.

They will tell him that his oath of office is a promise to follow the law.

If he doesn't like the law, he can propose that Congress repeal it.

But until that happens, the Court will tell the President that he has to uphold the law as it stands.

That is not crap. It means we are a nation of law.

PamW

[bananas]

13. Yeah, it's called "The Screw Nevada Bill"

http://www.newsreview.com/reno/screw-nevada/content?oid=2839145

Screw Nevada
How Congress started a holy war by elevating politics over science

By Dennis Myers
This article was published on 07.21.11.

<snip>

Then, in 1987, Bryan was informed that a Louisiana senator was scheming to kill the scientific competition and target Nevada as the only site. The idea was a betrayal of everything the states had been promised.

<snip>

In the years since, some newcomers to Nevada have been surprised by the intensity of Nevada’s opposition to the proposed Yucca Mountain site for a dump. This is the story of how that fierceness came to be. With the U.S. House back in Republican hands and the possibility of a GOP president looming, it is relevant history for today’s voters.

<snip>

Almost no entity in national journalism reported to the public the sense of grievance Screw Nevada created in the state and its consequences for the nation’s waste policy, instead portraying Nevada officials as obstructionist. Perhaps the only exception was a 2009 New York Times piece—“The ‘screw Nevada bill’ and how it stymied U.S. nuclear waste policy”—and it was a synergy report actually done with the website ClimateWire.

In 1992, columnist Hodding Carter III wrote that the result of shoddy U.S. nuclear policy “is free-lance policy-making, as in Nevada’s utterly understandable guerrilla war against the arbitrary designation of Yucca Mountain as the only possible site for a permanent repository.”

A few weeks ago, on March 31, CBS carried an Armen Keteyian report, “Did politics trump science?” It never mentioned Screw Nevada.

<snip>

[bananas]

14. The contract was not made in good faith

an honest and unbiased judge would void the contract and throw the perps in jail for fraud.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=21

bad faith

1) n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others. Most states recognize what is called "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" which is breached by acts of bad faith, for which a lawsuit may be brought (filed) for the breach (just as one might sue for breach of contract). The question of bad faith may be raised as a defense to a suit on a contract. 2) adj. when there is bad faith then a transaction is called a "bad faith" contract or "bad faith" offer.

See also: clean hands doctrine fraud good faith

[PamW]

15. You may not like it...

The contract was not made in good faith
========================================

You may not like it; but that doesn't mean the contract was in bad faith.

Was either side lying or misrepresenting their position? Just because
you don't like it, that doesn't mean "bad faith". So what provisions
were in bad faith?

The Government was called upon to provide a repository. That's the easy part.
The repository can be anything the Government says it has to be; after all, the
regulation and licensing is done by the Government. So there's no doubt that the
Government can provide a licensed repository, because the Government provides the license.

What is the nuclear industry called upon to do? It is called upon to PAY for the services;
by an amount the Government specifies. Well - that is also done. The Government levied a tax
on nuclear generated electricity paid by the reactor operators that goes into the a bank account
called the "Nuclear Waste Fund", which has had about $35 Billion paid into it.

I don't see anything that is legally "bad faith". The Government didn't lie or misrepresent.
The nuclear reactor operators didn't lie or misrepresent, and have upheld their side of the contract
which was to PAY for the repository. They paid for Yucca Mountain, and then some as the Waste Fund
still has the bulk of the money still in the account.

I don't see any legal problems.

PamW

[bananas]

18. "The idea was a betrayal of everything the states had been promised." - see post #13. nt

[FBaggins]

19. So unsourced hearsay is now evidence that a court will accept?

That's news to me.

You've got a former governor who claims that he heard it somewhere... but for the life of him doesn't remember where he heard it.

[Dover]

6. Thanks! For some reason your link didn't work, so I'm posting this one

http://www.powermag.com/gas/Regulatory-risks-paralyzing-power-industry-while-demand-grows_99.html


Thanks for posting it!

[bananas]

8. Thanks! That's the one! nt

[Dover]

5. Here's an AP story. It sure seems to me that the ones that want him out are

likely being paid off by the nuclear industry to further DEregulate nukes. I'd be "brusque" with them too if everyday I
went to work a war party was trying to scalp me! I'm sure he's outnumbered.



WASHINGTON (AP) — Four Nuclear Regulatory commissioners from both parties say they have "grave concerns" about the panel's chairman, charging that the actions of Gregory Jaczko are "causing serious damage" to the commission and creating a "chilled work environment at the NRC."

In a letter to the White House, the commissioners say Jaczko's bullying style could adversely affect the agency's mission to protect health and safety at the nation's 104 commercial nuclear reactors.

..//..

Commission members and staffers have long complained about Jaczko's brusque style, particularly when it comes to a decision he made last year to shut down the technical review of a proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. GOP lawmakers also complained that Jaczko may have acted illegally when he declared in March that Japan's nuclear crisis constituted an emergency in the United States.

cont'd

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-nrc-panel-nuke-chief-damages-agency-000243009.html

[Dover]

7. It's not like Jaczko hasn't approved new nukes...

Toshiba’s AP1000 Reactor Gains Backing From NRC Chief Jaczko
December 09, 2011, 4:16 PM EST
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-09/toshiba-s-ap1000-reactor-gains-backing-from-nrc-chief-jaczko.html


In fact he seems to have been the only NRC chairman to have allowed ANY new building in this industry for a very
long time. Apparently that is not good enough for the GOP and nuke industry lobbyists and politicians. I hope
the residents who live in those locations get a headsup about these projects so they can oppose them.

[FBaggins]

9. The chairman doesn't have the power to "approve" or "allow" anything

He gets only his one vote.

He's done what he could to drag his feet, but even his abuse of power can only go so far.

[Dover]

10. I see. And are you a pro-nuke advocate? I'm guessing the answer to that is more than clear.

I don't buy your feigned concern for only the legal component of his actions.
And apparently the legality of his actions has not been determined.
But I'm pretty certain that unlike the DEregulation opponents trying to take him down,
he really does have the safety of the people and the planet uppermost in his mind...
which is his primary job.
I don't think the same could be said for the others on that commission, ALL political appointees.

[PamW]

16. Such vague notions are not codified in law

But I'm pretty certain that unlike the DEregulation opponents trying to take him down,
he really does have the safety of the people and the planet uppermost in his mind...
which is his primary job.
I don't think the same could be said for the others on that commission, ALL political appointees.
-------------------------------------------------

The law that defines the powers of the commissioners and the chairman doesn't codify
vague notions such as "the safety of the people and the planet".

A commissioner can't say "I'm doing this for the planet", and have that stand up, legally.

No - FBaggins is correct; the chairman is just one vote on the NRC. The Chairman has a few
duties that a regular commissioner doesn't, but being dictator is not one of them.

It's a Government commission - so yes the members were appointed by politicians like Obama.

But that doesn't mean the member, themselves; are politicians.

For example, one of the Commissioners mentioned is George E. Apostolakis. He's not a politician;
he's a scientist. He is a Professor at MIT in Course XXII, Nuclear Science and Engineering.
He's an eminent and highly qualified scientist.

PamW