Another opponent of the House Armed Services Committee’s National Nuclear Security Administration reform language has emerged, with the Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups (ANWAG) calling the proposed change in protection standards “not acceptable” in a letter yesterday to senior lawmakers. In the letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), ANWAG took specific aim at language in the House version of the Fiscal Year 2013 Defense Authorization Act that would alter standards for protecting workers from radiation to “as low as reasonably practicable” from “as low as reasonably achievable” and authorize the NNSA to use Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards, eliminating DOE’s Office of Health, Safety and Security from oversight of the agency. The group, which monitors the implementation of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, suggested the changes would set safety and security in the weapons complex back decades. “Substantial costs now being incurred are an undeniable consequence of the negligence in the past. Does Congress want to repeat the mistakes made 60, 40, even 20 years ago?”
The GOP-led House Armed Services Committee made some minor changes to its legislation at a markup next week, giving the NNSA the flexibility to increase safety standards where appropriate, but rebuffed amendments that would have stripped the reform language from the bill. Another effort to remove the provisions is expected when the bill is considered on the House floor this week, but most officials involved with the issue consider that a longshot. Significant opposition is expected from the Democrat-led Senate Armed Services Committee, which marks up its version of the bill next week. ANWAG has appealed to both chambers to remove the provisions. “ANWAG fears that if this language remains in the NDAA the workplace environment at the nuclear weapons facilities will revert back to the ‘profit over protection’ philosophy,” ANWAG said in its May 14 letter. “This would result in, once again, workers needlessly placed in harm’s way. … It is unconscionable that the current dedicated and patriotic workforce would be unnecessarily exposed and subjected to increased hazards because of this proposed change in protection standards. Knowledge of the serious pain and suffering incurred by the workers through lax policies of the past should lead any ethical politician to vote to protect the life and health of these nuclear weapons workers.”
Jobs