Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Gregory Jaczko sought to assure lawmakers yesterday that, despite recent public disagreements between Commissioners, the work environment of his agency has improved since his professional behavior was called into question before Congress in December. “The only thing the NRC has going for it is credibility. Under your leadership that credibility has been diminished,” Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said at the March 7 House Appropriations subcommittee hearing. “What are you going to do to address that? Because once you’ve lost that credibility, you’re done.” Jaczko said he has held meetings with his fellow NRC Commissioners and with staff to address complaints about his workplace demeanor. “I certainly have been very candid about my views on many issues, and never shied away and I think that’s an important part of credibility,” Jaczko said. “To be honest, the fact that there was disagreement over [Plant Vogtle] is a good sign for the agency. It demonstrates to people in the public that we do talk about these issues, we think about them, and we do sometimes disagree, then in the end we move forward.”
In December, Jaczko faced allegations of harassment, intimidation and manipulation from his four fellow Commissioners in a pair of hearings in the House and Senate. In testimony, the four other Commissioners and NRC Executive Director of Operations Bill Borchardt all said that Jaczko has withheld information from the Commission and has intimidated NRC staff and other commissioners. Over the last several weeks, Jaczko and other Commissioners have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere as being at odds over both the progress of implementing post-Fukushima safety recommendations, and the issuance of a license to Plant Vogtle for construction of a new two-unit nuclear power plants in Georgia. “When I get mixed messages like that, how am I as a policymaker supposed to address the very important issue of the safety of nuclear power plants in the U.S.?” Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-Miss.) asked at the hearing. Jaczko responded that he “can’t guarantee you unanimity on the Commission,” and said assuming the Commissioners vote unanimously is “a false expectation.” Jaczko said, “if anything, I worry about statements or questions like this that could be interpreted to mean that it’s not OK for the commissioners to disagree. I think it’s an important tenet of our Commission that we’re able to express publicly disagreements, different views. That’s the nature and the reason why we have a commission.”
