UC-managed lab cited as contract under suspicion

By Benjamin Parke
Daily Bruin Reporter

The Department of Energy announced Wednesday that it has cited
the UC-managed Los Alamos National Laboratory for safety
violations. Meanwhile, the legality of UC’s new contract to
manage it and other national labs has been questioned by the chair
of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Several safety violations at the lab were cited by the Energy
Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration. In one
such incident, in March of last year eight workers at Los Alamos
were exposed to plutonium ““ one of them at five times the
annual regulatory limit.

None of the workers have so far experienced health problems
related to the incident, and the ones with the most exposure were
given immediate treatment.

The university has until Feb. 19 to respond to the Energy
Department’s action before it becomes final. In a statement,
Los Alamos Laboratory Director John Browne said safety deficiencies
would be corrected.

“We must continue to learn from our experiences and
improve our operations,” Browne said. “We have a moral
imperative to protect the health and safety of our employees and
our neighbors.”

The Energy Department announcement came just two days after the
chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce sent letters to
the department and to UC President Richard Atkinson requesting all
records relating to the contract signed by the two parties last
week.

Minutes after it was given approval Jan. 18 by the UC Board of
Regents, the contract was signed just outside the room where the
board was meeting. UC President Atkinson said afterwards that
although it was signed just before the Bush administration was
coming in, the contract had bipartisan support.

In his letter to National Nuclear Security Administrator John
Gordon, Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., expressed his “severe
disappointment” that a request he had made for a delay in the
signing was not heeded.

“Instead, in the last remaining days of the Clinton
administration, you seemed intent on binding the new administration
““ and this country ““ to a flawed contract that may
jeopardize our national security,” Tauzin wrote.

He added that the action may not have even been legal, given a
requirement to report to Congress at least 60 days prior to a
contract that is not submitted to competitive bidding.

Floyd Thomas, communications director for the National Nuclear
Security Administration, said nothing irregular happened.

“The department contends that they did give Congress that
information,” Thomas said.

A spokesman for Tauzin’s committee, Ken Johnson, said its
members want an opportunity to review the contract.

“We expect both DOE and UC officials to cooperate
fully,” Johnson said. “Otherwise, they can expect to be
sitting at a table with their right hands in the air.”

UC spokesman Jeff Garberson said the university is complying
with Tauzin’s request for records. He said Atkinson’s
assertion last week that the contract enjoyed bipartisan support
remains true.

“I’ve been with either the university or the labs
for 30 years, and I can’t remember a time that there
haven’t been both supporters and critics,” Garberson
said.