NRC Chairman Resigns

After years of accusations of creating a 'chilled work environment,' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko resigned this morning (PDF). His largest achievement was perhaps killing the Yucca Mountain waste repository, and he oversaw the certification of the AP1000 reactor. It is unknown whether a new chairman will be appointed from within the NRC. Quoting the Washington Post: "The reason for his resignation is unclear. He is stepping down before the release of a second inspector general report rumored to be into allegations of Mr. Jaczko's misconduct. NRC spokesman Eliot Brenner told The Washington Times that the report had no impact on the timing of Mr. Jaczko's resignation announcement. Mr. Jaczko's statement was vague, saying that it 'is the appropriate time to continue my efforts to ensure public safety in a different forum. This is the right time to pass along the public safety torch to a new chairman...' While his statement did not specifically touch on the embarrassing revelations of his tyrannical approach to the job or its impact on NRC staff, he did sound a defiant note by claiming the NRC was 'one of the best places to work in the federal government throughout my tenure.'" Today also marks the start of the annual nuclear industry conference.

Comments

NRC = Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[darkwing_bmf]

In case anyone was wondering.

Re:NRC = Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[redneckmother]

Well, I'm tempted to skip reading the title, too. I think I can get away with posting my ususal inane, off topic ramblings as a reply to any random post.

Re:NRC = Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[Surt]

But why reply when you can post at the top level and wander off into a land of complete imagination?

no brainer

[Eponymous Hero]

it's always "the appropriate time to continue ... efforts ... in a different forum" when you're about to be slammed with "allegations of ... misconduct."

Re:What's wrong with Yucca Mountain?

[jbeaupre]

Senator Reid
http://www.reid.senate.gov/issues/yucca.cfm

Re:What's wrong with Yucca Mountain?

[cpu6502]

QUOTE: "That is why I proposed the creation of a Blue Ribbon Commission of experts to make credible, scientifically sound recommendations for a new approach to nuclear waste. I am pleased that President Obama and Secretary Chu agree with this approach, and on March 3, 2010, announced the creation of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Americaâ(TM)s Nuclear Future. The commission includes distinguished nuclear energy experts, geologists, policymakers, and environmental policy experts. The panel has published draft recommendations and is scheduled to present their final report on the best alternatives to Yucca in January 2012."

They didn't come up with crap.

Re:What's wrong with Yucca Mountain?

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely, WA State has had serious issues with the way the Federal government has been managing the waste they left at Hanford, the process of cleaning up the dump has cost huge amounts of money and much of it has been stored in leaky barrels. IIRC they're restoring it in a sort of radioactive glass so that it doesn't leak into the ground water, but still.

Yucca Mountain might not have been the only option, but at this point it pretty much is and I haven't yet heard where all that material is going to be stored.

Re:What's wrong with Yucca Mountain?

[cpu6502]

>>>First, is that people believe that our nuclear waste is safer than it really is where it currently is

Well that's dumb. I'd rather have it buried underground in a safe manner, than sitting literally ~30 miles from my house in a pool of water, just waiting for an accident.

>>>Second, people believe that our nuclear waste is extremely dangerous when transported and will radiated all over the place

Also dumb. I've seen tests where nuclear cannisters were blown-up, and nothing happened. The cannister didn't even crack. (Again: Safer than leaving it in a pool of water 30 miles from my house.)

>>>finally people would rather not think about it at all

Well they must be doing SOME thinking, or they wouldn't be protesting Yucca Mountain disposal.

Hopefully, we speed up development.

[WindBourne]

We need a number of new reactors. In particular, we need the micro to medium size reactors that can be built in a factory. In addition, we need GE's IFR (to burn up nuke 'waste'), as well as thorium reactors.

Re:Had to do with his management style, not policy

[Kreigaffe]

If we'd actually build some modern reactors, we'd not really need Yucca, honestly. Most that waste can be burnt up for more energy. Eventually, sure, Yucca.. but a much lesser quantity would be stored there. Enough that it'd really not be an issue for decades whether or not we shove it in there or not.

Re:What's wrong with Yucca Mountain?

[Belial6]

I'm not sure if a Pavlovian response to the word 'Nuclear' can really be counted as thinking....

Next

[TopSpin]

A house committee watched while Jaczko's four fellow NRC board members, two of which were appointed by Obama, publicly condemned him while sitting to his immediate left and right. In recent congressional history, that scene is only trumped by Vollmer claiming executive privilege.

Understand that their world, political appointees near the very top of regulatory bureaucracy, is one of connections. You don't do dramatic things in public unless you really, really mean it, because whatever you do will be with you forever. Jaczko has to be some kind of way over-the-top SOB to wind up in that situation before Congress.

He's never offered one genuine, unqualified note of concession about any of it. Everyone else is wrong. "I believe strongly in safety" is as close as he's ever gotten to an explanation. Turning the NRC board of commissioners into a snake pit is somehow supposed to promote safety.

You-know-who will just foist another anti-energy extremist on the NRC after the election, so don't bet on any improvement.

Re:Had to do with his management style, not policy

[Surt]

I'm afraid you're in for disappointment if you do more reading. Yucca was for permanent storage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository#Original_standard

Was this a hachet job?

[Required Snark]

There is another way of reading this: Jaczko was rocking the boat, and interfering with the cozy relationship between the regulators and the nuclear industry. Therefore he was forced out, because he was challenging the status quo.

Note that none of the criticism was about technical issues, it was all about "style". Jaczko was publicly critical about failings in the safety culture at the NRC and the industry, and his position became more pronounced after Fukushima. He was saying that we were at risk for a similar accident because the NRC was not holding the reactor operators to a high enough standard. So if his concern about poor risk management is correct, and they want to get rid of him, the best option is a personal attack, which is exactly how this is playing out.

In that vein, there were just a reports on KCBS in Southern California about serious safety lapses at the now closed San Onofre nuclear plant:

The NRC allows San Onofre to compensate for its failure to keep enough separation between the main and back up cables by hiring workers to conduct hourly fire inspections in the areas where the cable are too close together. But some of those fire watches were never done.

We’ve obtained a previously classified report which shows one worker “deliberately failed to conduct required fire protection surveillances and falsified fire watch logs.”

And the report says it went on for five years between the dates of April 2001 and December 2006.

Then in 2009, another fire watch employee was “observed smoking what appeared to be marijuana in the licensee’s protected area.”

In both cases, the fire watch employees were fired – but the NRC did not fine or discipline Southern California Edison for its part in failing to recognize five years of non-existent inspections.

If that isn't bad enough, the NRC is now cutting back on evacuation planning requirements.

Without fanfare, the nation's nuclear power regulators have overhauled community emergency planning for the first time in more than three decades, requiring fewer exercises for major accidents and recommending that fewer people be evacuated right away.

Nuclear watchdogs voiced surprise and dismay over the quietly adopted revamp — the first since the program began after Three Mile Island in 1979. Several said they were unaware of the changes until now, though they took effect in December.

At least four years in the works, the changes appear to clash with more recent lessons of last year's reactor crisis in Japan. A mandate that local responders always run practice exercises for a radiation release has been eliminated — a move viewed as downright bizarre by some emergency planners.

...

The Web archives of FEMA and the NRC show no news releases on the changes during December 2011 and January 2012. The revisions took effect Dec. 23, at the peak of the holiday season when Americans tend to focus on last-minute gift shopping and social gatherings.

Given this context, there is a good case to be made that Jaczko being forced out is an example of how meaningful criticism is punished by inbred bureaucrats. This is exactly the same mechanism that lead the Japanese regulators to ignore tsunami warnings at Fukushima and make equally bad decisions about on site back up power.

Don't be surprised when we have a serious nuclear accident here in the US. With this kind of broken regulation, it is inevitable.