Testimony of Joseph P. CarsonMarch 25, 2000
Senator Fred Thompson Chairman
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee
340 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510Attention: Libby Wood
Subject: Comments for the record of the Committee's March 22, 2000 Hearing on DOE health issues
Dear Senator Thompson,
I had the privilege of attending the hearing on Wednesday and applaud the leadership you and Senator Voinovich are bringing to this tragic issue.
You and your staff have given my situation as a "whistleblowing" DOE safety engineer much time and attention over the years. I truly wish I were wrong in my allegations, that DOE had an objective basis for it ad hominem attacks on me as "unbalanced," "a threat of workplace violence," "disgruntled," etc, if it meant that the DOE workers I'm paid to help protect weren't sick or deceased due to unsafe and unhealthy conditions in DOE.
My ten years as a DOE safety engineer and "six-time prevailing" DOE whistleblower have given me some hard-won perspectives. In my opinion, Congress, GAO, citizen groups, the media and senior DOE management have yet to put their finger on an essential part of DOE deficient ES&H programs - DOE (and its contractors) safety professionals in the past and continuing into the present largely suborn their professional duty when they perceive duty might entail economic risk to them (i.e. the possibility of workplace retribution).
There is no acceptable resolution to the very sobering ES&H issues in DOE that does not presuppose DOE's being characterized by a safety conscious work environment and trustworthy - ethical, competent and accountable - safety professionals. Neither a safety conscious work environment nor trustworthy safety professionals have ever been adequately present in DOE. I realize that Congress cannot legislate morality. Clearly there is a moral component when a safety professional puts his/her professional duty - to hold paramount the health, safety and welfare of the workers and public in the performance of their professional duty - ahead of job and career in DOE by voicing concerns (even if done precisely as DOE requests) about deficient safety programs and conditions.
But Congress can, even if it can't fix the problem by legislation, recognize the problem exists - DOE safety professionals have not been and still are not adequately trustworthy by the objective standards of the codes of ethics/rules of professional conduct of the safety professions.
I think the most relevant requirements of these codes are:
I think you'll agree that if DOE safety professionals had exhibited more trustworthy professional performance over the years, Wednesday's hearing and all the tragic human cost that necessitated it, would not have occurred. If you agree that DOE's safety professionals were not adequately trustworthy in the past, I think you'll also have to agree that there is little objective basis to claim that they are adequately trustworthy now.
- hold paramount the health, safety and welfare of the workers and public in the performance of professional duty.
- inform responsible people and organizations as well as impacted or potentially impacted parties when one's professional judgement is overruled in a matter involving worker and/or public safety.
- report knowledge of violations of the code of ethics by other safety professionals to the appropriate professional body.
Everyone who has the privilege of being a safety professional (in DOE and elsewhere) is responsible - not because of employment law, but as a condition of membership in a safety profession - to adhere to the above rules. Unfortunately, DOE and its contractors are so jealous of their prerogatives as employers that they don't acknowledge, let alone support, any safety professional who is foolhardy enough to appeal to his/her profession's code of ethics when their supervision doesn't want to hear it. That's as true in DOE in March 2000 as it was 10, 20, 30 and more years ago. Conversely, no safety professional in DOE has any real reason to fear professional repercussion for unethical/incompetent professional performance - DOE stakeholders (including Congress) are largely ignorant of the explicit duty of safety professionals how it distinguishes them for all other DOE/DOE contractor employees - others may be "free" to voice safety concerns, but only the safety professionals are "obligated" to - and how to report knowledge of a professionally blameworthy behavior by a safety professional to the appropriate professional body.
I think this situation can be fairly readily improved with some intentional effort, but I don't think this will happen without greater recognition of the unique role, responsibility and accountability of DOE safety professionals - both by the safety professionals themselves and other DOE stakeholders. This may be controversial and contrary to the present mood of Congress, but I think the emphasis on bringing external oversight of DOE is somewhat misguided. External oversight, in and of itself, will not result in DOE being characterized by a safety-conscious work environment and trustworthy safety professionals - which is essential to real improvement of DOE's ES&H programs.
I make no pretense of my reasons for risking and paying so much to adhere to my profession's code of ethics in my job as a DOE safety engineer. I'm a Christian, I believe one's work matters to God and I know that I, as most other professionals, will spend the greatest portion of my conscious hours in life preparing for or pursuing my career in my chosen profession. Wanting to be ethical and competent in my profession logically follows. Being an ethical and competent engineer may be a modest career goal, but I want it very much.
It doesn't require an act of Congress for DOE to establish policy that encourages, if not requires, DOE (and its contractors) safety professionals (and safety technicians) to be independently licensed or certified. I don't think it would require a law for OPM to phase-in a requirement that all federally employed engineers in entry level positions will be registered as an "engineer-in-training (EIT)" while those in mid-career positions or above will have attained the status of licensed professional engineers (P.E.s). Lawyers and medical doctors who work for the federal government are required to be licensed, federally employed engineers should be also.
The financial and human cost of incompetence and negligence on the part of DOE safety professionals, past and present, is what Wednesday's hearing was all about, in my opinion. I hope Congress, in its efforts to compensate the victims of DOE's unethical, negligent and incompetent safety professionals, also takes steps to facilitate positive change in DOE to where it is characterized by a safety conscious work environment and trustworthy safety professionals.
Sincerely,
Joseph P. Carson, P.E.
10953 Twin Harbour Drive
Knoxville, TN 37922
(865) 675-0236
http://www.carsonversusdoe.comJoseph P. Carson, P.E.
865-675-0236 Home; 865-966-1675 home fax
"A Call for Accountability, Competency, and Ethics in DOE"