Office of Worker and Community Transition

United States Department of Energy

Seventh

National

Stakeholder

Workshop

Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois

May 27 - 28, 1999
SEVENTH 

NATIONAL STAKEHOLDER 

WORKSHOP

SUMMARY REPORT

Chicago, Illinois

May 27 - 28, 1999

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

November 1999
To May 1999 Workshop Participants:

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Worker and Community Transition (the Office)

held its Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop on May 27-28, 1999, at the Chicago Marriott

Downtown in Chicago, Illinois. Approximately 225 participants attended representing the

Department of Energy, DOE contractors, labor and community representatives, and local elected

officials.

These Workshops are an opportunity for the Department to highlight elements of Departmental

policies and to identify areas needing more formal policy. Most importantly, these Workshops

bring together local elected officials, union representatives, community representatives, contract

managers and Department of Energy staff in one location to discuss the intersecting issues

accompanying the dramatic change in the Department’s activities. 

The May 1999 Workshop addressed the progress made on the issues and challenges identified at

the last stakeholder’s meeting in Alexandria, Virginia, on June 17-18, 1998. We also covered the

full range of the Department’s work force issues and sought answers to the challenges of

implementing the Department’s post Cold-War mission, work force planning and restructuring,

early site closure, reuse and conversion, worker safety during cleanup, and the labor policy on

privatization. The format of the meeting focused on discussions of best practices and lessons

learned in the process of obtaining an effective and efficient work force. A Workshop Summary

Report is enclosed in this mailing for your information. For more information on the Office’s

activities, access our web site at www.wct.doe.gov.

If you have any questions concerning the enclosed document, please contact Sheila Dillard at

(202) 586-1311. Again, thank you for your time and support of our activities in the mutual

interest of resolving complex work force and community transition issues. 

Sincerely,

Gary K. King, Ph.D, J.D.

Acting Director, Office of Worker

 and Community Transition

Enclosure
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ......................................................... ii

Plenary Sessions ...................................................... ii

Small Group Discussion Sessions ......................................... iii

THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1999

Welcome and Introduction ............................................... 1

Reuse and Conversion .................................................. 2

Group Discussions – Concurrent Session 1 

1A. Leasing Process ........................................... 6

1B. Understanding Business Location Decisions ..................... 15

Program Status/Questions and Answers .................................... 18

Maintaining United States Nuclear Weapons Expertise ......................... 20

Group Discussions - Current Session 2

2A. Labor Policy for Privatization ................................ 26

2B. Training and Re-skilling the Work Force ........................ 30

FRIDAY, MAY 28, 1999

Early Site Closures .................................................... 36

Group Discussions - Concurrent Session 3

3A. Long Range Manpower Planning Challenges ..................... 43

3B. Pension and Benefits Portability .............................. 48

WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1999

Labor Issues at Department of Energy Sites ................................. 51

APPENDIX A - FINAL PARTICIPANTS LIST ................................. 57

APPENDIX B - WORKSHOP AGENDA ...................................... 82
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

ii

SEVENTH NATIONAL STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP

SUMMARY REPORT

May 27 - 28, 1999

Chicago, Illinois

INTRODUCTION

On May 27-28, 1999, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Worker and Community

Transition convened its Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop at the Chicago Marriott

Downtown in Chicago, Illinois. Approximately 225 stakeholders attended representing DOE

headquarters and field offices, contractors, labor organizations, state and local government,

education and community interest groups. 

The Workshop addressed the progress made on the issues and challenges identified at the last

stakeholder’s meeting in Alexandria, Virginia, on June 17-18, 1998. The full range of the

Department’s work force issues were discussed and sought answers to the challenges of

implementing the Department’s post Cold-War mission: work force planning and restructuring,

early site closure, reuse and conversion, worker safety during cleanup, and the labor policy on

privatization. The format of the meeting focused on discussions of best practices and lessons

learned in the process of obtaining an effective and efficient work force.

The format of the Workshop included several plenary sessions and a number of small group

discussion sessions. The small group sessions focused on topics related to labor issues, work

force restructuring, work force planning, community transition, and employee concerns. The

sessions provided a wide range of views on worker and community transition issues.

PLENARY SESSIONS

The plenary sessions of the Workshop included presentations on the following topics:

C Welcome and Introductions; 

C Reuse and Conversion;

C Program Status/Questions and Answers;

C Maintaining United States Nuclear Weapons Expertise; and

C Early Site Closures.

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION SESSIONS
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

iii

The small group discussions provided an opportunity for direct, informal dialogue among

Workshop participants on a wide range of issues. The Thursday, May 27, discussion groups

included the following topics:

C Leasing Process;

C Understanding Business Location Decisions;

C Labor Policy for Privatization; and

C Training and Re-skilling the Work Force.

The Friday, May 28, discussion groups focused on the following topics:

C Long-range Manpower Planning Challenges; and

C Pension and Benefits Portability.

On Thursday, May 27, a meeting was arranged between Bob Alvarez, Bob DeGrasse and all labor

representatives who attended the Workshop. The labor representatives identified ten issues for

further discussion. The approach was to look at each issue and allow the Department an

opportunity to respond to each concern. The ten issues that were identified were: National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, section 3161; security personnel; effect of

downsizing at the Kansas City Plant; preferential contracting to disadvantaged and minority firms;

consolidated contract for weapons across sites; environmental cleanup standards; training efforts;

problems with integrated contracts; and University contract management. 

If you would like more information on the Workshop format, or if you would like to obtain copies

of handouts from the Workshop, please call, fax or e-mail your request to:

Sheila Dillard

Office of Worker and Community Transition, WT

U.S. Department of Energy

Forrestal Building, Room 6E-034

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20585-0110

Phone: 202-586-1311

Fax: 202-586-1540

E-Mail: sheila.dillard@hq.doe.gov
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

1

THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1999

PLENARY SESSION

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

Speaker: Robert San Martin, Manager

Chicago Operations Office

Mr. Robert San Martin welcomed everyone to the Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop and

noted that Chicago was an appropriate city to host the meeting. He provided a brief history of

both the work force restructuring and community transition activities of the city. He felt that

Chicago was a model of transformation from an industrial and manufacturing economy to a

dynamic economy of finance, service, and technology. The transformation of Chicago’s

neighborhoods paralleled the city’s overall economic changes and modeled many of the challenges

faced by DOE in a time of change.

Mr. San Martin said that future work force reductions will be influenced by external factors such

as federal budget decisions. Beyond funding shifts, the Department faces a number of challenges

in managing its contractor work force, reducing the dependence of communities on DOE over the

coming years, and productively reutilizing assets that are no longer needed for the Department’s

missions. These challenges include:

$ Assuring that early closure sites retain the skills they need to meet ambitious completion

targets while providing for career transition to employees who will be displaced;

$ Responding to issues raised by the Chiles Commission on maintaining our nuclear weapons

expertise;

$ Implementing new, more efficient contracting mechanisms;

$ Promoting reindustrialization of facilities, when possible, to provide for economically

productive use of assets in ways that can save the taxpayers up to $1 billion;

$ Developing strategies that can provide opportunities to relocate trained workers who have

security clearances from sites where their skills are needed.
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

2

Mr. San Martin said successfully meeting these objectives will demand a cooperative, integrated

approach among the Department, its contractors, workers and their representatives, and

community leaders.

He said the Workshop provides an opportunity to have dialogue among those affected by DOE

programs. The Workshop can be a catalyst, but is clearly only one step in an ongoing

communication and implementation process.

REUSE AND CONVERSION

Facilitator: Barry Lawson, Lawson and Associates

 Speakers: Howard Weitzman, National RE/sources

Jim Hall, Oak Ridge Operations Office

Ken Tindall, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Richard Kiy, Office of Environment, Safety, and Health

Dr. Barry Lawson, founder of Lawson and Associates, introduced the session topic and speakers. 

He also gave a brief overview of what would be discussed. This plenary session focused on

various approaches to reuse and conversion and identified emerging issues associated with the

DOE’s reindustrialization activities at Mound, Hanford, and Oak Ridge. Reuse and conversion

challenges faced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the private sector would also

be discussed.

Mr. Howard Weitzman with National RE/sources, an independent operating company founded in

1996, began by saying that his company acquires and remediates environmentally-challenged

properties. Even though properties usually exhibit some problematic level of environmental

concern, one must look at each of these within their own merits, realizing that problems create

opportunities. Each troubled property needs to be carefully examined and a determination made

as to how value can and should be added.

National RE/sources’ primary focus is locating opportunities for developing real estate in cities

and suburban areas that are historically passed over by developers. One possible reason is that it

is good public policy. Second, there are numerous opportunities in these communities. Third,

National RE/sources can utilize its existing remediation expertise. Finally, by investing in real

estate at its lowest value, the projects are counter-cyclical to the normal economy. 

Brownfield sites are present in virtually every city in the United States. A smart place to begin

development activities of these sites is usually where the most good can be achieved more quickly
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

3

and is the most visible, and that usually means the inner city areas. Mr. Weitzman also expressed

his dislike for the term “brownfield” because it suggested a waste land. 

Remediation efforts are directed toward economically targeted investments in real estate. There

needs to be a viable redevelopment plan, a cleanup plan that will work, reduced environmental

liability, and a willingness to take risks. But, risk-taking must be appropriately targeted.

Mr. Weitzman described the projects as models for public/private partnerships. National

RE/sources is focusing on economically viable projects. A streamlined process has been

developed for the acquisition phase. The first step is to locate real estate that has income

potential. The project must have the potential of generating at least $5 million in income. 

Second, the project must fall within the "acceptable" range of the environmental risk matrix. This

can be large or small, but the projects are most likely medium-sized parcels. Residential

properties are more complicated because of the higher level of cleanup required. One must also

weigh environmental versus political contaminants, that is, how people have actually perceived the

condition. Customized insurance plans need to be packaged to protect the seller. The seller must

feel comfortable that he/she can walk away and not be held liable down the road.

National RE/sources has three major programs: corporate, development, and retail. The

corporate program involves the redeployment of contaminated real estate owned by medium/large

companies. These companies tend to keep the property to avoid liability from selling. The

development and retail programs are new concepts that involve the extension of new lands. Mr.

Weitzman provided several examples of successful transformation projects.

Examples of recent remediated efforts included an outdated contaminated facility in Grand

Rapids, Michigan, that was converted into a business park with new tenants, as well as a

residential community in Tarrytown, New York (about 30 miles from New York City).

The next speaker was Jim Hall, Manager of the Oak Ridge Operations Office. He stated that Oak

Ridge began its reindustrialization program in 1996 when the site began planning its strategy for

the future. Budgets were decreasing along with the work force; Oak Ridge needed a new way of

doing business. Initial efforts included the transfer of the K-25 site to the private sector through

the creation of an industrial park. The park was a way of celebrating cleanup, cutting costs,

providing an opportunity for long-term employment, and developing a partnership with the

private sector. The industrial park sent the message that the site wasn’t just simply going away. 

The site primarily uses three methods in its reindustrialization program: bartering, leasing, and

contracting. To date, the site has 48 leases in place, 19 companies on site, and 811 new jobs have
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

4

been created through the program. The British Nuclear Fuel Ltd. (BNFL) cleanup contract has

saved $550 million in remediation costs of the 1401 building. The maintenance of the facility

infrastructure of many facilities have been leased to private companies, such as Operations

Management International, through the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee

(CROET). Services are offered to DOE and commercial tenants at a reduced rate. 

Oak Ridge is also working with other sites such as Hanford to establish a reindustrialization

program. The 300 Area at Hanford is being considered for transfer to the private sector as a pilot

project of the partnership. Several other small partnerships involving metal recycling are in place

between Oak Ridge and other sites.

Mr. Hall concluded his presentation by identifying several keys to success. He noted that

reindustrialization was not unique – tools and assets are being applied them in a different way. 

This requires creativity to overcome barriers when they arise. The private sector will quickly lose

interest when bureaucratic processes result in schedule delays or missed commitments. 

Mr. Ken Tindall, Chief, Federal Facilities Response Section, Superfund Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, provided a summary of the reindustrialization activities at the

Mound Site. He noted that the site is transitioning from cleanup to reuse activities and is

undergoing site closure as well. He described it as a “fun and challenging” effort. He provided a

geographical representation of the site and the parcels of land that had been converted to

industrial use. 

He briefly highlighted four issues of discussion: development of the Reuse Plan, environmental

characterization, institutional controls, and changing the Reuse Plan. The Plan acts as a guide and

focuses overall efforts, which will save money by the end of the project. The report also helps to

establish cleanup standards. Mr. Tindall noted that the local Community Reuse Organization, the

Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation, was instrumental in the development

of the Reuse Plan. 

Mr. Tindall noted that one of the challenges is integrating waste characterization with reuse. He

stressed communication and balance when dealing with competing goals. Mound also chooses

removal over remedial processes for the majority of the site’s remedial actions. The removal

process is usually acute and time-sensitive, while the remedial process is usually long-term

chronic. This is achieved through flexibility as well as a good relationship between the

reindustrialization and cleanup teams. 
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

5

An identification and understanding of the institutional controls is necessary. There needs to be a

balance between reuse and environmental protection and a knowledge of the various

responsibilities. For example, at Mound, the DOE will be responsible for monitoring.

Finally, unexpected funding opportunities may result in changes to the Reuse Plan. Changes to

these plans can be required for a number of reasons including unexpected funding opportunities

that might arise, or boundary changes that are needed to accommodate road construction. 

Buildings that were set for demolition may be changed by the Reuse Team as a result of new

characterization data. In summary, he re-emphasized the need for communication and funding. 

The final speaker was Richard Kiy, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of

Environment, Safety, and Health, DOE. Mr. Kiy discussed the role of leasing in the

reindustrialzation process and stressed the need for DOE to have a formal leasing policy. He

indicated that the policy is in draft stage and that a baseline environmental assessment would be a

component of the document. A graded approach will be adopted in order to classify workers at

low and high-risk facilities. He conceded that the issues are complex but, as examples in the

previous presentations have shown, a balance can be struck between workers and reuse concerns. 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: Mr. Weitzman was asked the price of the rental units in a refurbished residential

development in Tarrytown, New York. 

A: He estimated monthly rental payments of $1,500 - $2,000 per month, depending upon

square footage. 

Q: Mr. Hall was asked how employees at East Tennessee Technology Park were

classified. 

A: He noted that a formal policy is being developed but they are currently listed as colocated, non-rad employees. 
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

6

GROUP DISCUSSIONS – CONCURRENT SESSION 1

1A. LEASING PROCESS

Moderator: Deborah Swichkow, Office of Worker and Community Transition

Speakers: Tim Fischer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Brian Nickel, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Art Kleinrath, Miamisburg Environmental Management Project

Oba Vincent, Miamisburg Environmental Management Project

Terry Tracy, Office of Environmental Management

Mike Church, Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy

Workers

This session was designed to provide a forum to discuss the critical steps for successful DOE 

leasing, including the roles and responsibilities of the field office, the relationships between the

Field and Headquarters, the State, OSHA, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and

involvement by members of the public.

Deborah Swichkow, Deputy Director of the Office of Worker and Community Transition,

introduced the session topic. Ms. Swichkow noted that the leasing of Departmental property is a

complicated issue, as it requires coordination with federal and state levels as well as with labor

unions and members of the public. The Department is currently in the process of developing

policy to protect the safety and health of workers at DOE-leased facilities. Ms. Swichkow then

introduced the session speakers. Speakers included Brian Nickel of the Ohio EPA, Office of

Federal Facilities Oversight Division; Art Kleinrath, the Department of Energy’s Remedial Project

Manager for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act at the

Mound Plant; Tim Fischer, EPA Remedial Project Manager at the DOE Mound Site; Terry Tracy,

a Nuclear Engineer from the Office of Site Closure within the Office of Environmental

Management; Oba Vincent, Deputy Director of the Miamisburg Environmental Management

Project; and Mike Church, President of Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical & Energy Workers in

Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

The first speaker, Tim Fischer, noted that his work is conducted in collaboration with Brian

Nickel, of the Ohio EPA, and Art Kleinrath, of DOE. Mr. Fischer provided a brief overview of

the Mound site and the integrated management of the Mound Environmental Management

Project. In the past, Mound served as a metallurgical research and fabrication facility, but

presently, the site mission is to remediate and close the site by 2005. In the future, it is

anticipated that ownership of Mound will be transferred to the City of Miamisburg, Ohio, for use

as an industrial park. 
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

7

Mr. Fischer noted that through his presentation, he would clarify the responsibilities of the core

team members of the Miamisburg Environmental Management Project, as well as describe the

DOE Mound Building Disposition Process. Further, the presentation would help clarify

information to be included in a Building Data Package for determining protectiveness, as well as

the decision criteria to be used for determining protectiveness at Mound. The players whom are

essential to achieving the site’s exit mission include DOE site personnel, the U.S. EPA, the Ohio

EPA, Babcock & Wilcox of Ohio, Inc. (BWO), Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement

Corporation (MMCIC), and the public. DOE site personnel are responsible for cost, scheduling,

and resource and program management and integration. Members of the U.S. EPA are

responsible for ensuring regulatory compliance and representing public interest. Members of the

Ohio EPA are responsible for ensuring regulatory compliance and representing state and local

interests. BWO is responsible for providing technical expertise, managing the project, and

executing agreed-upon activities. MMCIC is responsible for providing input on desired future use

for buildings. Finally, the public is responsible for providing comments and reviewing Core Team

recommendations. In order to operate effectively, a balance must be struck between all of these

participating groups. 

The primary members of the Core Team developed the “Concept Mound 2000,” which is a

management concept in which the key players break down barriers by working as an integrated

team and reach consensus on critical decisions in order to move the project forward. Mound has

applied this concept by identifying and assessing problems preventing integration, developing a

fundamental integration approach prior to designing specific integrated management tools, and

implementing the approach and determining appropriate tools as required during implementation. 

Mr. Fischer then proceeded to describe the DOE Mound Building Disposition Process. The

process includes the following: (1) the DOE mission in a building ends, MMCIC requests a

building, or privatization starts in a building; (2) shutdown activities are performed in a building;

and (3) existing information is gathered for use in a Building Data Package or Structure Specific

Supplement. Following these steps, the team determines whether or not the building is to be

reused. If not, the building demolition process begins. If a building is considered for reuse, any

Core Team decision will then go to the public for review and comment. The public is given thirty

days in which to respond. When any building is considered for disposition, it must go through a

series of determinations, such as whether it is protective of safety and health of potential workers. 

The benefits of this type of process include the identification of all concerns before initiation of an

action plan and public involvement from the onset of the process through the end. 

Mr. Fischer noted that information that must be investigated and gathered for inclusion in a

Building Data Package includes the following: (1) site description and history (e.g., location and
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

8

description, building characteristics, process history); (2) a review of records (e.g., past sampling

data, data on lead paint and asbestos, data on radon, listing of chemicals removed from the

building, history of past spills and releases); and (3) information from site investigations and

interviews (e.g., contractor walk-through, radiation survey). The gathered information is then

placed in a “Building Evaluation Matrix,” that includes environmental concerns associated with

the building, proposed resolutions for those environmental concerns, and a schedule for

resolution. 

Building Decision Criteria include both chemical and radiological criteria. After a cleanup action

has been completed or a building has been binned as No Further Assessment, a recommendation

for No Further Assessment is completed by the Core Team for lease and/or transfer. Leases are

conducted pursuant to section 3154 of the National Defense Authorization Act (Hall

Amendment), which requires that a letter be sent to the U.S. EPA requesting concurrence to

lease. Transfers are conducted pursuant to Mound FFA and CERCLA 120(h), which require that

a letter be sent to the U.S. EPA requesting concurrence to transfer a site that is included on the

National Priorities List. Concurrence must be received from EPA before any property from the

Mound site is released for lease or transfer. 

Mr. Fischer stated that, to date, 72 buildings have completed the building disposition process, 21

buildings have been approved for reuse (i.e., lease or transfer), 15 buildings have been leased, 31

buildings have been demolished, 20 buildings have been removed via auctions, and a 14-acre

parcel of property was transferred in March 1999. 

The next speaker, Terry Tracy of the DOE’s Office of Environmental Management (EM),

discussed EM’s role and objectives in the Department’s overall leasing process. EM is a large

program within the Department, which aids in the disposition of excess facilities. EM serves as

the Program Secretarial Office assigned to the Ohio Field Office, among others. EM is

responsible for many sites requiring disposition and provides funding for cleanup programs that

ultimately lead to disposition of the sites. 

Mr. Tracy noted that EM’s program objectives include the disposition of excess DOE facilities

and sites by: transitioning the facility or site to the General Service Administration (GSA), selling

the facility or site (e.g., Pinellas), cleaning the facility or site for reuse, and flattening the facility or

removing the contaminated soil and burying it in a waste repository. The Office of Worker and

Community Transition (the Office) also has a number of objectives that are relevant to the

Department’s leasing efforts. The Office’s leasing objectives or goals include: assisting

communities facing DOE downsizing, assisting in the diversification of the economy in areas

dependent on DOE employment, and assisting in the creation of new employment opportunities
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

9

for workers facing the loss of DOE employment. In contrast, EM’s leasing objectives include the

facilitation of the ultimate disposition of the facility or site, the reduction of operating costs and

overhead, and the reduction of cleanup costs. It should be noted that unlike the Office, EM does

not spend funds on or sponsor the Department’s economic development program; EM is legally

prohibited from spending funds on this program. EM is able to accommodate leasing if these

efforts lead to disposition, reduce cleanup costs, reduce operating costs and overhead or do not

interfere with cleanup. 

Due to this difference in leasing process objectives between EM and the Office, Mr. Tracy

explained that it is necessary for the Department to resolve these differences efficiently. Policy

issues should be resolved at Headquarters, while accommodations and interpretations should be

implemented in the Field. 

Mr. Tracy stated that DOE also engages in Leasing Implementation Reviews. The Field conducts

reviews at both Area Offices and Field Offices. Headquarters Program and Oversight also

conduct reviews in order to make sure that all objectives are successfully met. 

EM has identified several issues inherent to the leasing process. These issues include: financial

accounting for site services; environmental compliance, including both oversight and permit

holding liabilities; safety of operations, which includes impact of tenant operations, impact of

DOE operations on tenants, regulatory oversight, and training of employees; and, security,

including access control and protection of equipment and classified information; facility baseline

assessments; and emergency planning. 

Mr. Tracy explained that in past successful leasing efforts conducted at the Pinellas and Mound

sites, decisions were made at the Principal Secretarial Officer level. Success was attained in large

part to extensive staff discussion and issue resolution. At larger EM sites, site-specific issue

identification and resolution occurs by Headquarters and Field staffs. 

EM released its interim leasing policy on January 7, 1999. Mr. Tracy noted that the emphasis of

this policy is on requiring formal identification and resolution of issues. EM believes that the

Department requires a leasing policy that entails a non-political and non-prescriptive process. The

policy should include a formal process of issue identification and resolution. The process should

recognize the varying degrees of risk posed as well as the program benefits of reduced cleanup

costs. 

The expectations that EM has for the Department’s leasing policy include the following: (1) that

hazards and risks are formally identified and evaluated, (2) that risks are assessed realistically and
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

10

tenant employees are adequately informed, (3) that the work carried out in the facilities by tenants

and around the facilities by the DOE is within the bounds of the safety analysis, (4) that the

responsible regulatory authority is identified and actively overseeing operations, (5) that

environmental releases are monitored and in compliance with applicable permits, regulations, and

laws, and (6) that tenant employees are protected to at least the same degree that DOE protects

its own workers. 

Oba Vincent, Deputy Director of the Miamisburg Environmental Management Project, then

presented a discussion on the remediation efforts underway at the Mound site, as well as the

Mound leasing process. Mr. Vincent noted that Mound has based its leasing process on mutual

trust, cooperation, and results in order to attain success. Mr. Vincent first provided a background

of the Mound site. Mound is a National Priority List (NPL) site situated on 307 acres, 10 miles

south of Dayton, Ohio, completely housed within the City of Miamisburg, Ohio. Mound partners

with the Reuse Organization, City officials, regulators, and stakeholders concerned with the safe

and efficient reutilization of the Mound site. In September 1994, DOE entered into a general

purpose lease with MMCIC. Thus far, 18 buildings have been leased in accordance with the Hall

Amendment. In January 1998, DOE and the MMCIC entered into a sales contract for the Mound

site. 

On March 18, 1999, the first parcel of property (approximately 14 acres) was transferred by deed

to the MMCIC. Mound is currently working with its partners to transfer the next parcel

(approximately 14 more acres) in late July 1999. At present, 30 businesses are under lease with

the MMCIC with about 310 employees. 

Mr. Vincent then addressed the ways in which he believes Mound has reached its success. First, a

Reuse Partnership Council was formed by the Office and EM to effect the sale of the site. This

Council meets bi-weekly to facilitate discussion among decisionmakers. Next, there is a core

team comprised of remedial project managers from the Ohio EPA, U.S. EPA and DOE. The

Core Team meets at least two days each month and is concerned with environmental, safety and

health issues. If the core team cannot reach an agreement on an issue, then dispute resolution

management occurs. Success has also been achieved through a transition planning team and

through help from site transition managers from DOE and BWO. 

Two more parcel transfers are being planned in the next 13 months resulting in 50 percent of the

site being transferred. By the end of 2004, DOE will have transitioned all of the available Mound

property. The MMCIC goal is to establish 80 businesses with 2,023 employees by 2010. 
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

11

Mr. Vincent noted that the main lessons learned through this process include: (1) that the

formation of partnerships is effective, (2) that there is a great need to maintain open

communication, (3) that the work force must be integrated into the process, (4) that there is a

need to leverage resources to support transition, (5) and that there must be effective integration of

all site personnel. Mr. Vincent stressed that success does not come easily. 

The final speaker, Mike Church, of Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers

(PACE), described the impact of leasing activities on workers. PACE, Local 5-288, has

represented workers at the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) at Oak Ridge for 52 years. 

PACE, Local 5-288, at one time, represented as many as 3,000 workers but this total has since

decreased to 430 workers. Mr. Church stated that contrary to what many may believe, the

workers are not opposed to reindustrialization; however, certain aspects of reindustrialization do

cause concern. The CROET was established and funded through section 3161 money to help

mitigate impacts to displaced workers. When CROET was developed, its goal was to create

quality jobs in the region by making available to private sector companies abandoned or

underutilized facilities, equipment, land, technologies, and personnel. Currently, there are 22

sublease tenants on site with a reported 174 employees. Each sublease the CROET signs contains

a provision in which the lessee must commit to give a hiring preference to displaced DOE site

workers. Mr. Church stated that, unfortunately, it is difficult to identify which and how many of

these employees are actually displaced workers. Many of the employers view this process as an

intrusion of privacy and the confidentiality of the company’s personnel records. 

A main concern of workers at ETTP is that many of the leased buildings are occupied and are

being utilized for activities in opposition to their own work. Further, consideration must be given

to the number of jobs lost versus the number of jobs created before signing a lease. Finally, Mr.

Church emphasized that it must be recognized that the most important aspect at any site is the

human element--the worker. The worker should not be forgotten when considering the possible

impacts of reindustrialization or leasing of Departmental property. 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Q: There are certain protections which are applied when the Federal Government

transfers facilities. Which ones do you apply in your process? 

A: We follow CERCLA 120(h), which requires DOE to disclose any contamination that

exists on the site and send a letter to the EPA to request transfer of a facility. The letter

must inform the EPA that all contamination has been remediated and promise that if any
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

12

further actions are necessary in the future that DOE will take responsibility for those

actions.

Q: Other than DOE, are there other agencies, like the EPA, that offer protections or

“no liability” conditions when property is transferred?

A: Our current policy is that we do not apply EPA protections, but we do write comfort

letters that spell out the protections included in CERCLA 120(h). Writing comfort letters

is part of our policy at present.

Q: Do you go beyond the community in your outreach techniques? Do you have a

business component to attract area businesses? Who determines whether a building

can or should be used in the future for business purposes if the business community

is not included in the outreach process?

A: We have hired firms to conduct commercial assessments in order to determine market and

financial realities, but we have some unique facilities that lack a market even though their

testing capabilities may be the best. Even if land or a facility is environmentally clean,

there may be a lack of market for that land or facility. We do what we can and invest in it

to bring it to commercial standards. 

Q: How many jobs were there at Mound originally?

A: In the late 1980s to early 1990s, there were 2,300 to 2,500 jobs (employees) at Mound.

Q: Of the number of jobs that are at Mound now, how many were transferred from

pre-existing jobs?

A: About 60 percent of the jobs at Mound were transferred from pre-existing jobs. Many of

the businesses which were later formed at Mound were by former employees (who also

hired former workers). Some new business types were established, and some business

types remained unchanged; only the worker compensation changed. One of the issues in

terms of offering future opportunities to site employees is the question of whether or not

employees wish to work with the firm. There is no way the CROs can guarantee that

workers can come back to work for the firm if their capabilities do not match those

needed. A skilled labor force is extremely valuable. Few facilities have the same function

for carryover of workers.
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

13

Q: My question is in regards to the use of the Hall Amendment. We have authority

under 161(g) as well as other authorities to lease DOE facilities. Why was the Hall

Amendment chosen for use at Mound and what are the advantages and

disadvantages of leasing using the Hall Amendment versus other authorities?

A: We have used 161(g) authority under the Atomic Energy Act as well as the Hall

Amendment. The Hall Amendment was enacted to ensure that regulators would have a

role in the leasing process. It is conceivable that we could have fallen into a different

model, but we want to work with all regulators, members of the public, and stakeholders. 

Further, it is good to have a signed paper in which DOE and EPA have both agreed that a

building is suitable for lease.

Q: What is the relation of 161(g) to the General Services Administration (GSA) 

process?

A: General Counsel has stated that we have authority under 161(g) to lease DOE property. 

We also have authority to do so under the Hall Amendment and the GSA process. We

have not used the GSA process, but it is an option. Our interest is to not have our

property go through the GSA process. At Grand Junction, an agreement was worked out

among various properties in order to accommodate Federal Agencies without disrupting

their economic conversion opportunities. The decision of when to use the Hall

Amendment versus other leasing authorities is still being debated by the principals in

Headquarters. There is a document that was previously distributed in Headquarters which

delegates the decision of which authority to use to each Field Organization.

Q: I’ve noticed that the Oak Ridge Office’s relationship with EPA has been strained. 

EPA has apparently been dragging its feet in regards to leasing issues at Oak Ridge. 

Is this a problem in Ohio too?

A: Without knowing the specifics, I cannot comment on the process at Oak Ridge. But, no,

this does not seem to be occurring at Ohio. We had an agreement from the start that the

Hall Amendment would be used. Brian Nickel and I (Tim Fischer) identified the

information that we needed to evaluate protectiveness from the beginning.

Q: I see better cooperation between EPA and DOE in some places versus others. Is

Headquarters coordinating this?
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

14

A: This is a concern. One person’s “dragging their feet” could be perceived as another

person’s need for more information or time prior to making a protectiveness decision. 

This is the paradigm shift that has taken place in Ohio. If you had asked eight years ago

whether the EPA was dragging their feet in regards to leasing issues in Ohio, I may have

said yes, but today, I would say no.

While the leasing process at Mound is cited as a success story, success did not happen

overnight. We have experienced some long, hard battles, but we are now all on the same

side.

Q: (Statement) Oak Ridge has used both available legal authorities for leasing. Section

161(g) has not been used exclusively. There is no difference between these legal

authorities as far as the safety and health of workers is concerned. One should not

believe that the Hall Amendment is superior in protecting the safety and health of

workers. 

Could the size and location of the facility be the secret to Mound’s success as

opposed to a larger site situated farther away from the public?

A: We don’t believe that the size and/or location is a large factor in the success of the leasing

process. Some sites have a higher level of contamination and may take longer to clean up;

but, it is still necessary to have a good working relationship among players. The process

we have used at Mound can work anywhere. 

The City of Miamisburg had no interest in having DOE go away. There was a lot of

political pressure which helped this process.

One of the reasons for Mound’s success was the sharing of a vision that was articulated by

the community. The desire to make the process work was critical to the success of the

project. The same vision could be shared at any site. However, it should be noted that it

took a combination of different elements – community involvement, political pressure, and

private sector investment – to make the process successful.

1B. UNDERSTANDING BUSINESS LOCATION DECISIONS

Moderator: Robert Baney, Office of Worker and Community Transition

Speakers: Steve Stoner, Arthur Andersen, LLP

Roy Korkalo, Livingston Rebuild Center

Ed Burgess, South Carolina Department of Commerce
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

15

Jim Watts, Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers

Mr. Robert Baney, the session moderator, opened the session by introducing each panel member

and explaining that the various speakers would give their perspective on the elements of business

relocation decisions. 

Mr. Steve Stoner, Arthur Andersen, LLP, began his presentation by noting that his organization

spends a considerable amount of time analyzing the business location decisions of corporations.

The research indicates that companies are not relocating but are really expanding existing or

beginning new operations in selected communities. He recommended that community economic

development organizations customize their marketing packages because each client is unique,

even in the same industry. 

The first of a five-step process to a successful “Economic Development Delivery Blueprint” is

understanding your client and their market. This requires investment of the required time to

understand the client’s business and constraints. The product from the initial phase will be a highlevel list of criteria that is important to the company. In phase two, the criteria will be applied

against various lists of communities. Mr. Stoner stressed the importance to community leaders to

make sure their communities were in the various national databases. In phase three, the top ten

communities are selected by this initial screening and asked to submit a proposal that addresses

some of the specific needs of the client. After the responses are collected and analyzed,

approximately four communities are selected for site visits. Phase four involves the validation of

the data received and the collection of additional information for the final presentation to the

client. The final negotiations of incentives and the site selection occur in phase five. 

Mr. Stoner noted that economic incentives are not as important today as in the past. Incentives

are one component but companies today are more concerned with the skills and costs of the work

force. He provided a list of five characteristics that are common among all Andersen clients. 

Companies want to work with communities that take time to understand their business, are

regionally focused, are flexible, provide customized service, and committed to the process. 

Mr. Stoner reminded the group to include corporate real estate managers in all marketing

programs. 

Mr. Stoner noted that “closing the deal” is one of most difficult parts of the process. He felt

communities should stay focused on customer’s goals, keep commitments, be honest and

consistent, present a united front, and offer assistance during transition. After the deal is

complete, the ongoing client service is also important. Economic development organizations need

to establish mechanisms for measuring customer satisfaction.
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

16

Mr. Stoner was asked “What was the most dynamic variable in the process?” and he stated that

interpretation of incentive packages and their value tend to be the main source of negotiation. 

Roy Korkalo, President, LRC Northwest (LRC), spoke on their expansion from Montana to the

Tri-Cities area in Washington state. LRC Northwest is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Livingston

Rebuild Center, which is a locomotive repair firm that did not have any service facilities in the

Northwest. The company negotiated a lease with DOE for 16 miles of rail track that will be used

in conjunction with repairing locomotives. Mr. Korkalo presented pictures of several different

locomotives and facilities that will comprise LRC’s operations. The company has teamed with

local colleges to provide individual classes or degree programs to train the local work force. LRC

is also partnering with an international firm to increase the barge and rail traffic in the Northwest. 

Preliminary information from a feasibility study is promising. In addition, Mr. Korkalo said LRC

is working on a research project with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory that will provide

real-time analysis of locomotive oil resulting in lower repair and maintenance costs.

Mr. Ed Burgess, South Carolina Department of Commerce, began his presentation by pointing

out that the Savannah River Site (SRS) was the third government facility in the State of South

Carolina that had been affected by downsizing. The closure of the Air Force Base in Myrtle

Beach and the Navy Shipyard in Charleston were two facilities that had undergone restructuring

before the SRS. The state has had to utilize its resources and assets. The State established a

Regional Office of Commerce in Aiken, South Carolina, that could focus on the impact of the

restructuring of nearby SRS. Mr. Burgess said the State of South Carolina established incentive

programs to attract industry to the area. His experience has been that tax incentives are still

critical factors for companies in the final decision process. 

Efforts have resulted in the creation of a 1,200-acre industrial park where SKF, a leading

manufacturer of ball bearings, and others have located at the park. Bridgestone/Firestone located

an approximately one million square foot tire manufacturing plant adjacent to the park. In

addition, a 1,600-acre industrial park is scheduled to open in June 1999 on the opposite side of

the SRS. Since June 1996, 1,375 new direct and 2,475 indirect jobs have been created in the

region. All these efforts were supported by DOE’s Office of Worker and Community Transition. 

Mr. Burgess credited the “can do” attitudes of local, state, and national officials.

Mr. Burgess explained the interface between the State of South Carolina and Georgia. He

conceded that competition exists but pointed out that the Community Reuse Organization is a

two-state organization with board members split 50/50 between the two neighboring states. He

also cited several examples of successful joint projects. 
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

17

Mr. Jim Watts, Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers Union, discussed

cooperative ways for interest groups to work together to bring new business to their area. He

spoke briefly about his experiences working with labor and business to attract new businesses to

the Tri-Cities area near the Hanford site. He stressed effective communication as a requirement

for getting labor, business, and DOE to work together. Each party must also understand the basic

interests of the others. Labor wants job security for their members and a working life after DOE’s

mission is completed. Business wants profits for their shareholders and continued growth while

maintaining a safe environment for their workers. DOE wants to complete tasks in the best and

safest manner while maximizing the use of the taxpayer’s dollar. He also added that communities

want a viable tax base and an economic life after DOE with a decent standard of living for their

citizens. 

Mr. Watts followed with several examples of how labor, business, and the government have

worked together to attract new businesses or expand existing ones to improve local economies

around government sites. He knew that the attendees were trying to attract businesses to their

sites as well as trying to maintain budgets to complete existing tasks. He conceded that DOE was

prohibited from lobbying Congress for additional funds but economic development and labor

organizations can act effectively as advocates for communities. He cited the section 3161

program as an example of how this can be successful. 

He also suggested that DOE find and market the companies that need the highly-skilled and

readily-available work force around the DOE sites. Mr. Watts added that the high-tech abilities of

the DOE laboratories could also be an effective incentive for businesses. The work force,

however, must be willing to adapt and learn new skills. Privatization is usually not acceptable to

labor groups, explained Mr. Watts, but additional examples of success stories are needed to

further acceptance among unions. 

Mr. Watts was asked to define labor's relationship with the Tri Cities Industrial Development

Economic Council (TRIDEC). The Community Reuse Organization for Hanford, TRIDEC,

requested labor representation in their organization in order to fill a gap in their marketing

program. 

PLENARY SESSION

PROGRAM STATUS/QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Speaker: Bob DeGrasse, Director

Office of Worker and Community Transition
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

18

This session provided an opportunity for discussion on the status of the Worker and Community

Transition Program, as well as a chance for workshop participants to ask questions regarding the

program and its status.

Robert DeGrasse, Director of the Office of Worker and Community Transition (the Office), first

provided a brief update on the Office’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2000. Mr. DeGrasse stated

that the request for $30 million had been approved by the Senate, but that the Appropriations

Committee in the House of Representatives had not made a final decision. While the requested

amount of $30 million is a significant reduction from last year, Mr. DeGrasse expressed his

appreciation of the Senate’s approval of the budget request and indicated that the Office would

not be certain of the exact figure until late June or July. The Office will then better understand its

financial status and future outlook. 

Mr. DeGrasse highlighted the Office’s four main program strategies or goals, including: (1)

management of employee retention and career transition; (2) promotion of the flexible use of the

skilled work force; (3) support of local economic diversification and development; and (4) transfer

and reuse of excess Departmental property and facilities. Mr. DeGrasse stressed that people are

the key to accomplishing the program tasks. For instance, early closure strategies depend upon

having the right employees working until the very end. The Office is currently developing

mechanisms for encouraging retention and separation at the appropriate moment. 

Mr. DeGrasse noted that the Office’s program strategies are important for a number of reasons. 

First, contract changes, outsourcing and privatization can result in costly and disruptive

employment transitions. The Office has established means for retaining skilled employees and

avoiding severance costs while implementing changes. The strategy of economic development

assistance is important in that it helps local communities reduce their reliance on government

activities and promotes partnerships between local officials and the Federal Government. Finally,

the transfer and reuse of excess Departmental property brings local communities together with the

Department to accomplish common objectives; namely, closure and reuse of excess assets. Mr.

DeGrasse stressed that the agency is aware of the ongoing limited liability of all tangible assets

leaving the Department.

The Office of Worker and Community Transition seeks to facilitate change by ensuring the fair

treatment of workers and communities. The Office has specifically provided funding for enhanced

separation payments in FY 1999 and FY 2000. Further, it has provided funding to communities

that should help create roughly 1,700 jobs in FY 1999 and about 1,700 jobs in FY 2000. The

Office has also provided funding to support work force planning, facilitate asset conversion and

reuse, oversee labor relations and perform other program direction activities. Due in part to the
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

19

Office’s efforts, the Department is achieving its missions with 46,000 fewer contractor employees

than in 1993, with only 28 percent involuntary separations, and is saving at least $3.3 billion

annually for a one-time investment of $837 million. 

Mr. DeGrasse explained that work force planning has been effective in supporting site closure. 

The Office is developing programs that will encourage workers to remain at DOE sites for as long

as their skills are required and then separate voluntarily. The goal is to “leave something behind”

and allow workers to move directly to new employment from completion of their DOE tasks. For

small initial investments, the payoff will be smaller severance payments and the ability to fully

utilize the skilled work force to achieve rapid site closure. The ability to make this transition

smoothly is difficult. Reskilling the work force in preparation for transition has proven to be a

difficult challenge to address. The Office believes that fairness of opportunities for the existing

work force and efficiency in site closure can go hand-in-hand. Examples of success in this area

are Oak Ridge, Portsmouth, and Paducah. 

The Office believes that fair treatment of workers is conducive to good business. Since 1992,

DOE contractors have reduced their work force by nearly one-third, with annual savings over

$3.3 billion. Over 70 percent of the separations have been voluntary and have not resulted in

significant legal challenges or labor unrest. Significant savings and productivity gains are being

realized through the use of new contracting mechanisms, while retraining current workers with

their unique experience and skills. At Oak Ridge, for example, a new cost-saving contract

provides pension and service continuity, coordinated work force planning, and assured

employment offers. This employment continuity will make possible the transition of nearly 6,000

workers to task-oriented subcontractors and avoid immediate potential severance liabilities of up

to $45 million. 

Mr. DeGrasse noted that the biggest and most controversial challenge for the Office as it seeks to

accomplish its goals has been public perception and community involvement. It has proven

difficult to prompt individuals to understand and recognize the benefits of economic

diversification. If the agency is to have a good relationship with communities, then it needs to

work with them to decide together how best to diversify the economy. The leadership of the

agency is committed to continuing onward with these strategies in order to accomplish its goals.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Q: At Rocky Flats, there has been a problem with providing ongoing health care

premiums for retired workers. There will be tens of thousands of people without

health care coverage as a result of closure. Has the Department given consideration
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

20

to this problem? 

A: I do not want to speak on behalf of Rocky Flats' management, but we are aware of this

problem and we recognize that it is the responsibility of DOE to provide coverage to its

employees. Annual appropriations must be utilized to fulfill this responsibility. We are

concerned with the liabilities associated with the agency’s actions. We do recognize this

existing problem and our responsibility to alleviate it.

MAINTAINING UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WEAPONS EXPERTISE

Moderator: Barry Lawson, Lawson and Associates

Speaker: Robert A. Hoover, President, University of Idaho

Dr. Hoover was a member of the Congressionally-established Commission on Maintaining United

States Nuclear Weapons Expertise, chaired by Admiral Hank Chiles (United States Navy,

Retired), which recently completely its mission and presented its final report to Congress. Dr.

Hoover presented an overview of the report, including the reasons for establishing the

Commission, its specific task, membership, methodology, findings, conclusions and

recommendations. The final report to Congress can be found in its entirety on the DOE's Home

Page at (http://www.dp.doe.gov/public/chilesrpt.htm).

Commission Task. The task of the Commission, described in the 1997 National Defense

Authorization Act (as modified by the 1998 National Defense Authorization Act) was to “develop

a plan for recruiting and retaining within the DOE nuclear weapons complex such scientific

engineering and technical personnel as the Commission determines appropriate in order to permit

the Department to maintain over the long term a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile

without engaging in underground nuclear testing.” To complete its task, the Commission sought

to identify actions that the Secretary may undertake to attract qualified scientific, engineering ,

and technical personnel into the nuclear weapons complex.

Commission Membership. In addition to Admiral Chiles and Dr. Hoover, other members

included Dr. Bob Barker (Assistant to the Director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory),

Charles Curtis (Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.), Dr. Sid Drell (Deputy Director, Stanford Linear

Accelerator), Dr. Roland Herbst (former Associate Director of Nuclear Design at Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory), Dr. Henry Kendall (deceased--Professor of Physics, MIT), and

General Larry Welch (United States Air Force--Retired, CEO of Institute for Defense Analysis).

Research Methodology. The Commission utilized a number of research methods and sources of

data in order to gather the relevant information necessary to carry out its mandate. The members
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

21

solicited overviews from DOE and weapons complex site principals, conducted site visits

(including management overview meetings, tours and talks with the work force, focus group

discussions, and individual meetings with employees), and utilized personnel surveys. They also

compared industry and laboratory situations regarding recruiting and retention of qualified

personnel, consulted academia (both faculty and students) concerning recruitment for the types of

skills needed to operate the nuclear weapons complex, and held discussion with the Office of the

Secretary of Defense, Navy, Air Force and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

General Findings. The findings of the Commission were presented under three broad categories;

(1) DOE has management/program planning problems, (2) its work force is aging and insecure,

and (3) the weapons complex is operating in a highly competitive marketplace (providing the

greatest challenge for the future supply of technical personnel in the history of the U.S.). Dr.

Hoover focused his remarks on the findings “specific to the personnel issue,” the aging work

force, and concurrent competition for the necessary talent to replace that work force as it moves

to retirement age. He compared the work force of the nuclear weapons complex to similar

categories of workers in the national work force. In all cases, the nuclear weapons work force

was characterized as having a preponderance of personnel nearing retirement age in the next

decade and an insufficient influx of personnel entering the work force to counter that trend. Dr.

Hoover underscored the “war of talent” for those entering the work force with the requisite skills

to operate the nuclear weapons complex. With the lowest unemployment in decades, particularly

in those technical fields needed by the nuclear weapons complex, and average salaries increasing

significantly, the marker for individuals entering the work force with these skills is highly

competitive. A look ahead at current hiring trends and projected hiring needs at selected

laboratories clearly illustrates a widening gap between the need for technical workers and the 

ability to satisfy that need.

Summarizing the findings regarding personnel issues, Dr. Hoover noted that the Commission’s

research suggests that there is a declining number of graduates in the skill areas needed, with a

large segment of international students in those skill areas (further limiting the talent pool to

choose from), and a growing number of women in those areas (with some evidence that they have

a greater reluctance than men to choose employment in nuclear weapons programs). Further,

there is a large segment of the population (Generation Y) entering college now that needs to be

addressed, but may also have a similar reluctance to entering nuclear programs. Finally, in

addition to the intense competition for the skill areas, there is a relative unawareness of the

college community regarding the labs and production facilities and a perception that design and

development opportunities are limited. No nuclear weapons complex plan appears to exist to

address these trends, which will lead to significant management program planning problems.
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

22

Commission Recommendations. Dr. Hoover presented the Commission’s recommendations

under four categories: national commitment, program management, personnel policies, and

oversight (a more detailed description of the recommendations can be found in the Report at the

web site noted above).

National Commitment

C Reinforce the national commitment to and fortify the sense of mission of the nuclear

weapons complex.

Program Management

C Complete an integrated, long-term Stockpile Life Extension Program.

C Strengthen the DOD-DOE relationship.

C Take immediate steps to achieve greater laboratory coordination.

C Expedite improvements and efficient use of the nuclear weapons production complex.

C Establish clear lines of authority within DOE.

Personnel Policies

C Establish and implement plans on a priority basis for replenishing essential technical work

force needs in critical areas (hire now at a rate necessary to replace skilled work force in

years ahead, reestablish presence on university campuses, expand internships and postdoctorate research opportunities, adopt best practices of competing industry, enhance

recruiting flexibility).

C Provide contractors with greater expanded latitude and flexibility in personnel matters.

C Expand training and career planning programs which are adapted to the dramatically

changed work force environment.

C Expand the use of former nuclear weapons program employees.

Oversight

C Create a permanent defense programs advisory committee.

C Enhance Congressional oversight.

In conclusion, Dr. Hoover stressed four points; (1) work force insecurity is a real problem, (2)

DOE organizational change is necessary, (3) there must be an emphasis on hiring, training and
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

23

retaining personnel (in the near-term), and (4) action and support is required from Congress and

the Department of Defense.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Q. Rocky Flats has many lower skilled workers who are responsible for the actual

“hands-on” aspect to making products. Many of these workers will be lost. What

will DOE do to retain this particular skill area and those people responsible for

actually creating DOE’s products (as opposed to just the highly-skilled engineers

and scientists)?

A. Scientists and technologists are both needed to do the job. Skilled training in the area of

technology can only be learned through five to eight years of apprenticeship. This study

included technicians as well. The retirement bulge will make the loss of technicians worse

if we do not work to replace both elements--the designer and the maker--the

Commission’s study focuses on both.

Q: The Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board also made many similar

recommendations as far as training and education of personnel (DNFSB 93-3). The

General Accounting Office has also emphasized the need for training. What is your

perception of the support and funding that may be offered in support of these

current recommendations?

A: These recommendations definitely concern me. If the transfer of knowledge is not made,

we will face significant difficulties. The potential impacts are unknown at this point and

may not manifest themselves until years from now, but if we do not bring in new people

now we will undoubtedly face a serious crisis in five to ten years. This point is being

addressed in Congress right now. Action must certainly be taken immediately.

Q: You spoke about a lack of integration between Los Alamos and Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory. Has any thought been given to closing one and

sending the sum of funding to the other?

A: No. It is a good dimension to have competition. It facilitates the avoidance of needing

outside peer review.
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

24

Q: One of DOE’s concerns is the need to review compensation, among other factors. 

Some are concerned that the removal of DOE from personnel practices will lead to a

bidding war for talent. Did the commission review this?

A: Yes. There already is a bidding war going on. If a contractor is hired, it should be given

the opportunity to manage successfully--allowing more flexibility, including in areas of

compensation. It is necessary to have that latitude in order to be successful. We are not

likely to be in an expanding labor pool for seven to eight years, so it is crucial to review

such factors.

Q: After this study was addressed on the Hill, the Senate Armed Services Committee

noted that they were ready to take action. To what level are the DOE Secretary and

the Hill going to go to deal with these issues?

A: A 120-day study on the issue was introduced. There has been a reassignment of

responsibility in DOE, as well as extensive discussion among lab directors regarding the

best way to handle this problem. The labs are placing importance on establishing a

growing presence on college campuses--these steps are unfolding, but the process is slow.

Q: You mentioned that there is an increasing number of women attaining advanced

degrees, but that there is a perception of limited upward mobility for women in the

discussed fields. I noticed that the commission conducting the study consisted of all

males and that the directors were male. What is being done to address this

problem?

A: The numbers indicate that there are many women versed in the necessary skill areas. 

However, in our discussion groups on campuses, we noted an absence of knowledge

among females on nuclear labs and plants. The perception is that the Field is not as

amenable to women. We noted a different response at Georgia Tech--there is a large

group of women in the complex and there are many female alumni suggesting to younger

women that the scientific field can provide a satisfying career. We definitely need a more

focused recruitment effort. We don’t recruit women and minorities for scientific fields in

the same way that we recruit men. We have to have different tactics to entice them to

enter the Field. We must work hard to explain the advantages and ask more focused,

specific questions. If we must recruit that element of the population, and it is essential

that we do, we will have to be more imaginative and creative than we are now.

Q: What was DoD’s response to this report?
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

25

A: The response at DoD is one of increasing awareness of these issues and problems.

GROUP DISCUSSIONS - CURRENT SESSION 2

2A. LABOR POLICY FOR PRIVATIZATION

Moderator: Barry Lawson, Lawson and Associates

Speakers: Walter Howes, Contract Reform and Privatization Project Office

Bob Alvarez, Office of the Secretary, Department of Energy

John Meese, Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO

Richard Miller, Allied Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers

Mary Ellen Boyd, Building and Construction Trades Department,

AFL-CIO

Dr. Barry Lawson introduced the session topic and speakers. He also gave a brief overview of

what was to be discussed. This session focused on the policy options for work force and labor

relations issues related to changes in contracting mechanisms, including privatization and

outsourcing. The Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking to establish policies to create a

cooperative rather than a confrontational labor-management environment for dealing with

potential changes in contracting mechanisms.

Mr. Walter Howes, Director of Contract Reform and Privatization Project Office, DOE, noted

that he had held his position for only 15 months and it seemed like yesterday that he joined the

Department then, at times, it felt like 15 years. In order for the Department to improve overall

operations, there needs to be a stable mission, stable management and stable money. 

Unfortunately, DOE has had none of these. Employee incentives and reward programs need to be

more aligned with performance. The people “moving the ball forward” should be rewarded. His

office is working toward the overall concept of “higher performance/higher profitability.” 

The mission of his office is privatization and contract reform. He said contract management needs

“tuning up” and project management needs to be improved. This involves defining risk and

refining business practices across DOE. He explained these goals are difficult and come with

tension. However, all areas of the work force need time to deal with the changes. The

Department has learned that economic development needs to be performed by the organizations

with the appropriate skills, such as the Office of Worker and Community Transition. 

He closed by introducing a pilot project that DOE is beginning with the Office of Management
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

26

and Budget (OMB) that looks into all the issues confronting workers during work force

restructuring and contracting strategies at Rocky Flats. He noted the tough challenge of creating

incentives for workers to remain at a closure site. He also noted the scope of the project is not

completely finalized. One attendee suggested additional sources of employee perspectives than

OMB. 

Mr. Howes was asked, “What about the closure contract at Rocky Flats? The area in Denver is

thriving. There is a need to create an environment which says that it’s better to stay until the

bitter end. The work force needs to be involved.” He said there still remains many changes that

are needed for contracting reforms.

The next speaker, Mr. Bob Alvarez, Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary of Energy, began by

saying that in this capacity, he is responsible for environmental, safety, health, and labor policy

issues. He also emphasized the corporate complexity and enormous size of the DOE.

The Department owns one of the largest industrial complexes in the Nation, and is responsible for

the largest government-owned industrial research and development enterprise in the United

States. It’s a very diverse industrial complex consisting of a wide variety of very specialized and

technical assets. When compared to the private sector, its assets would place it high (would rank

25-30) among the largest of the Fortune 500 corporations.

He reminded the audience that the Department has agreements with 37 unions, one of the most

extensive relationships among all Federal Agencies. The DOE, while not a private corporation,

still has social responsibilities. Impacts of any facility shutdowns need to go beyond the

environmental concerns and worker safety issues. The economic ramifications upon a

community, which can be devastating, must also be examined very judiciously. Even though DOE

is redefining its mission, it still dominates the wage structure of some major geographical areas. 

He stated that a Department-wide labor policy existed during production but the end of the Cold

War has resulted in additional issues not covered in the original policy. He explained section

3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act was created to provide the basics but it does not

include the needed wage, benefit and pension policies. Mr. Alvarez stated that even though there

is presently no labor policy in place, a good policy can be forged only after there has been clearly

defined roles regarding health and safety, i.e., let the workers know what they’re getting into; an

open dialogue with labor leaders, i.e., earnest discussion of what is happening at sites (for better

or worse); the realization that sites must be accountable to those offices supplying the money; and

recognizing that those offices supplying the funding are accountable for policymaking.
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

27

Mr. Alvarez noted that DOE has the unique responsibility of self-regulating. In some cases,

working conditions have suffered. Therefore, the Department has a responsibility for developing

a policy. He said the Secretary is going to announce a new initiative that will provide a more

equitable treatment of workers stricken by excessive exposure to beryllium, asbestos, radiation,

and that the universe could eventually reach 600,000. He said the Department is committed to

strengthening the health and safety for workers and fostering a better dialogue with labor. He

called it a “major initiative” and asked for community and labor support. He encouraged

everyone to seek out and introduce themselves to some of the new managers across the complex. 

Mr. Alvarez was asked about future changes to the successful voluntary protection program

(VPP) at the Kansas City Plant. He said the Department will leave them alone if they’re working

well.

Mr. Alvarez responded to questions regarding work force restructuring at Portsmouth and the

Treasury Department agreement to limit layoffs to 500 employees. He said the Department is

working to honor this agreement. However, he conceded that it was a complex issue involving

DOE, the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), Bechtel Jacobs, and the labor unions. 

The issue has the attention of the Secretary so he expressed his hope to reach a suitable

compromise. The basic game plan is to transfer workers to Bechtel Jacobs to work in the

environmental management program or look for alternative sources of funding to keep people

employed. 

Mr. John Meese, President of the Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO, told the audience he has

had extensive experience dealing with the issue of privatization. He is convinced it is outsourcing,

not privatization. He cited three of the most often quoted reasons for outsourcing: work exceeds

the ability of the worker, work exceeds existing technology, and work can be done cheaper. 

Cost is listed as the most often reason for outsourcing. Mr. Meese defined the three cost

elements of any product as: materials, manpower and profit. He said the goal of outsourcing

activities is usually to get something at a lower cost. Many times, the cheaper product is derived

by keeping the same levels of material and profit, and adversely affecting manpower. Companies

use more people at low wages or few people at higher wages in order to complete the job. This is

wrong, he stated. 

Mr. Meese said new contractors should recognize existing labor agreements provided the same

skill mix is available. In addition, outsourcing decisionmakers must consider the impact on the

existing contractor. There is loss of control that sometimes results in long-term human misery. 

He briefly highlighted the partnership between the contractor and protective force at the Kansas
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

28

City Plant. He closed his remarks by encouraging all unions to continue to do tasks cheaper and

make the employer more profitable. 

Mr. Richard Miller, Policy Analyst for the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers

Union, opened by stating that the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers Union merged with the

Paper Workers Union to form Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers Union,

which is now 330,000 members strong. He stated that because of the Congressional efforts

attempting to sunset this program, the Office of Worker and Community Transition (the Office)

came very, very close to getting zeroed out (this was included within a draft of the House Defense

Authorization Act). However, he noted that the most current bill language has the Office shutting

down in 2003.

Mr. Miller restated language from a March 12, 1997, letter from Tom Grumbly, Under Secretary

of Energy, to Bob Wages, Executive Vice President of the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and

Energy Workers Union, that committed to develop a privatization policy with respect to labor at

the last DOE Stakeholder Workshop. Two years later, that commitment has not been honored.

Mr. Miller questioned the commitment of the Administration to follow through, in kind, given the

opposition expressed by the Department’s Field Offices. 

The Office's “Privatization Report” was released without a labor policy and labor officials were

not asked to participate in the development of the document. The next attempt at a policy came

in the form of a “checklist” from the Office. It also was met with resistance. Mr. Miller reiterated

his frustration with the Department and the entire Administration for a continued lack of policy. 

Failure to promulgate a policy will result in a policy vacuum providing for continual litigation for

the Department.

Ms. Mary Ellen Boyd, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, began by stating

that she was pleased to hear that the Secretary of Energy is committed to improving labor

relations. She was also eager to help DOE shape it’s labor policy as invited by Bob Alvarez. She

feels we all have a responsibility of continued commitment to the communities around the DOE

sites. She provided several examples of how the work of the building trades have impacted

DOE’s mission. She felt just as we honor veterans of the Cold War, the workers contributions

deserve the same praise. 

Ms. Boyd asked DOE to include wages, benefits, and appropriate work classifications in their

proposals. Also, the Department should build community standards into privatization projects. 

She added that many people think Davis-Bacon wages are inflationary but in fact, they represent

the going rate. Ms. Boyd said the Federal Government should do everything in its power to
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

29

maintain them and Ms. Boyd asked that labor be allowed to participate openly and fully in

decisions about the future. 

Ms. Boyd conceded that change can lead to opportunity as long as all parties are involved. She

was disappointed with a recent meeting between the building trades management and the USEC in

regard to a privatization construction project. Ms. Boyd offered that labor only has three seats on

a 44-member board of the Community Reuse Organization at the Oak Ridge site. She doubted

the ability of the unions to influence decisions with less than 10 percent representation. 

Ms. Boyd concluded her comments by conceding that Bob DeGrasse has a difficult task but said

the building trades were willing to partner in the labor relations process. 

2B. TRAINING AND RE-SKILLING THE WORK FORCE

Moderator: Marilyn Balcombe, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education

(ORISE)

Speakers: Virginia Geer, United Auto Workers/General Motors Center for

Human Resources

John Clabaugh, AlliedSignal, Inc., Kansas City

Vickie Stephens, International Association of Machinists and

Aerospace Workers (IAMAW)

Dr. Balcombe introduced the session topic and speakers, highlighting the challenges in managing

federal and contractor training programs to assure a cost-effective means of meeting the skill

requirements necessary to support the Department’s mission. She noted that the session would

focus on the role training can play in addressing fluctuating skill requirements. The speakers

reflected a variety of perspectives, both from within the Department and from one labor

organization working in private industry.

Virginia Geer, with the United Auto Workers/General Motors (UAW-GM) Center for Human

Resources, began the session by describing some of the experiences of General Motors and the

United Auto Workers as they relate to training and re-skilling their work force. Ms. Geer’s

presentation provided a unique private industry/labor perspective on the session topic. Her

presentation addressed the questions: who are we, what skills are critical, what are we doing to

upgrade skills of the existing work force, and what are we doing to acquire skilled workers for the

future?

The UAW-GM Center for Human Resources was established as a non-profit corporation in 1984

by GM and the UAW, with a combined financial commitment of almost $3 billion towards joint
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

30

education, and training and retraining activities to increase operation competitiveness and enhance

job security. More than 260,000 UAW-represented GM workers have received over $57 million

total hours of joint training in areas such as job-related training, basic education enhancement and

interpersonal and communication skills.

Ms. Geer noted that as we move towards the 21st Century, new skills and work orientations are

necessary to compete. We need a more capable, committed and self-directed work force. 

Downsizing and aging of the work force since 1985 highlights the need for this new type of work

force. Between 1985 and 1998, within GM, the UAW downsized its workforce from 405,000 to

197,000; the average age is now 45 - 47 years old. As plants were closed and employees

transferred to other GM sites (some moving from assembly plants to component plants, with

limited machining experience and no exposure to the team concept; with others moving from

component plants to assembly plants, with no assembly experience but understanding the team

concept), workers experienced cultural shifts, driving the need to train and re-skill in order to

meet plant goals related to operation readiness. 

Needs analyses were conducted at the plants, looking at source data on cultural shifts, employee

enthusiasm assessments, and team activity statistics. The results indicated a need for some type of

intervention on all fronts, with most plants deciding to focus on employee development concerns

due mainly to: employee participation in business decisions were down, interpersonal conflict was

increasing, and, job satisfaction and security were areas of concern. Training was the intervention

of choice and Employee Development Workshops were developed to address presentation skills,

facilitator skills, communications skills, interpersonal skills, conflict resolution capabilities,

learning styles and problem solving.

In addition to re-skilling the existing work force, Ms. Geer noted the need to focus on acquiring

future skilled workers. She highlighted a school-to-work program designed to aid in the

transition from high school to the workplace and to identify and develop new employees for GM. 

One example of this program is the Manufacturing Technology Partnership, a two year school-towork transition program at the GM Flint Metal Center Plant. The program is a cooperative

venture between GM, the UAW, the Genesee Area Skill Center Technology Center, the Mott

Foundation, all Genesee County High Schools, Mott Community College and Baker College. As

of 1998, 84 students have completed the program; 79 have passed the GM/UAW Apprenticeship

Test; 22 graduates are working production jobs with GM; 7 are working engineering jobs; and 5

are in skilled trades apprenticeships.

John Clabaugh, AlliedSignal Corporation, Kansas City Plant, then addressed the role of training at

that particular DOE location (which was celebrating 50 years of operations in 1999), providing
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

31

another perspective on this important issue. He highlighted a history of training activity at the

Plant, looking at the periods 1949 - 1993 (prior to the current consolidation and downsizing

occurring within the Department) and then 1993 - 1997, addressed what was effective during the

downsizing period, and what AlliedSignal is doing currently to invest in the skills needed for the

future.

From 1949 to 1993, the training focus was on apprenticeship programs (e.g., tool & die, model

maker, electrician, pipe fitter), traditional classroom instruction, educational assistance and

Department short courses. While the downsizing was in full swing (1993 - 1997), the

apprenticeship programs were discontinued due to lack of funding and the training staff were let

go. Educational assistance and Department short courses continued, and computer training began

to grow.

An assessment of the downsizing activities and an appraisal of successful transition program

suggested the following: developing a joint union/management team to review and oversee that

downsizing facilitated a perception of fairness in the process; an emphasis on communication; 

expansion of educational assistance; and encouraging employees to attend non-traditional classes. 

Whereas in the past, AlliedSignal’s education focus was on those skills needed to keep the Kansas

City Plant operational, now the emphasis was on an increased emphasis on self-reliance, and

increased use of the Job Announcement System for job rotations, and short courses on how to

find a job and what the market wants today.

In addition to being concerned about the present, Mr. Clabaugh noted that AlliedSignal is also

investing in developing the skills needed for the future. The business goal of “improving

competitiveness through constant learning” drives the investment necessary in human capital for

FM&T (the AlliedSignal team at Kansas City Plant) to become a “learning organization.” Mr.

Clabaugh noted that they have shifted from a focus on training to one on continuous learning. He

then highlighted several systems utilized by AlliedSignal to support the concept of a learning

organization approach at Kansas City Plant, with the operating premise being to provide an

opportunity for all employees to have access to information regarding all aspects of operations at

the Plant. For example, the Command Media System is a web-based system that allows all

associates to view documents such as the Quality Manual, Process Descriptions, and Work

Instructions online.

In conjunction with this approach to learning, training has become a distributed function - with

very little attempt at centralization. Each manager and associate at the Plant is responsible for

training--in other words, learning is considered a part of the job. Associates develop "learning

plans" that can be directly linked with Departmental goal, functional business plans, DOE
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

32

customer requirements, FM&T mission and ultimately AlliedSignal’s overall mission and goals. 

This "line of sight" planning allows associates the opportunity to see how their plans tie into

higher order goals and objectives. In addition to the online learning opportunities, associates also

make use of formal training, on-the-job training, cross training, job rotation, special assignments

and other initiatives. A Learning Tracking System was developed for each associate, that tracks

all courses and activities for that individual.

Mr. Clabaugh then identified the costs associated with this shift from training to continuous

learning, showing a significant decrease in total training costs from $8.5 million (1996) to $2.4

million (1999). This reflects an "on average" expenditure per associate, for those who make use

of the opportunities of approximately $1,000 per year suggesting a more cost-effective approach

to maintaining and developing the skills needed for the future.

The final speaker in the session was Vicki Stephens, with the International Association of

Machinists and Aerospace Workers at the Kansas City Plant. Ms. Stephens gave a personal

account of the machinist training and (former) tool & die apprenticeship program for Allied Signal

at Kansas City. She first defined a skill, trade and apprentice, and then identified a number of

common trades; e.g., auto mechanic, baker, bricklayer, electrician, embalmer, etc., pointing out

that trades affect our daily lives in many ways. She highlighted the value of trade apprenticeship

programs as a proven method of insuring that the essential skills needed to maintain the economy

continue for generations. Apprenticeship programs also prepare people for skilled employment by

conducting training in bona fide and documented employment settings, and strengthen the union

by having set standards on wages, hours, working conditions and product quality. Further, they

create a commitment from the apprentice/employee, who gains time towards seniority while

continuing to make a product for the company (i.e., it's not just a classroom exercise). It also

keeps the journeymen sharp in their responsibilities to oversee the apprentices.

Ms. Stephens did, however, emphasize the classroom instructional aspect of apprenticeship

programs, using the tool & die program as an example. School instruction for the Tool & Die

Apprenticeship Program is required in the following areas:

Bench work (hand tools, measuring tools)

Basic blueprint (fundamentals, interpretation)

Basic Machining (drill press, lathe, milling)

Basic arithmetic (fractions, decimals)

Tool design (jigs, fixtures)

CAD/CAM

NC programming
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

33

Basic hydraulics (pumps, valves, circuitry)

Safety meetings

Dies and molds

Algebra (quadratics, proportions, equations)

Drafting (fundamentals, drawing practice)

Introduction to computers (architecture)

Compound angles 

Communication theory and practice

Use of the handbook

Basic and analytic geometry

This represents approximately 900 hours of classroom instruction, or about 10 percent of the

apprenticeship program (total of 8,800 hours). Clearly, there is a significant level of classroom

effort, in addition to the other hands-on requirements, for completing the apprenticeship program.

Unfortunately, the apprenticeship program has been in decline over the past several decades for a

number of reasons: downsizing, trends in “de-skilling” the work force, concerns that

apprenticeships were union dominated programs, and the general tradeoff of long-term investment

in work force skills for short-term financial gains. Ms. Stephens noted that since 1990, there have

been 6 layoffs at AlliedSignal in Kansas City, laying off younger craftsmen and allowing older

skilled craftsmen to retire early. At the present, there is no ongoing apprenticeship program (as

Mr. Clabaugh indicated), and the average age in the tool room is 48 with the youngest person

being 40 years old. The youngest employee will be eligible for retirement in 15 years. With an

apprenticeship program that lasts an initial 41⁄2 years before the very practical experience training

begins, the work force will be further behind the changing technological environment without

constant updated training.

Ms. Stephens discussed the future of the apprenticeship program given the current environment. 

A stronger economy creates a huge demand for skilled workers. Employers are recognizing skill

shortages in certain areas (the next decade should see demand grow for an additional 13,700

metal workers due to overall economic growth, and another 35,300 positions open up from

retirement and normal attrition). Employers attitudes are changing based on the lessons learned

from not investing in apprenticeship programs during the recent lean years.

Finally, Ms. Stephens noted several strategies for reinvigorating the apprenticeship program at the

local level. Employers should assess the future skill requirements of the company. Next,

determine if language exists in the current contract for apprenticeship. Then contact the Bureau

of Apprenticeship and Training for guidance and become familiar with the resources offered by
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

34

the local community college system. The time is now to train the next generation of skilled

workers, to ensure our economic growth and competitiveness.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Q: (John Clabaugh) Is there a link with personal goals in your “line of sight” goals and

requirements?

A: Yes - for salaried personnel. It’s communicated through the strategic planning process.

Q: (Virginia Geer) Are your critical skills courses conducted during company hours?

A: Yes - for that core group of personnel (Training Coordinator and Human Resources

Representatives) responsible for training the entire work force. We train our team leaders

on company time. For a recent product launch, that comprised about 90 hours per team

leader in a six-month time period.

Q: (John Clabaugh) What accounts for the significant cost reductions you noted in the

training budget?

A: Different delivery methods; for example, much of the training is now conducted online. 

Everyone has access to a personnel computer (some shared).

FRIDAY, MAY 28, 1999

PLENARY SESSION

EARLY SITE CLOSURES

Moderator: G. Leah Dever, Ohio Field Office

Speakers: John Bradburne, Fluor Daniel Fernald

Gene Branham, Fernald Atomic Trades and Labor Council

Ann Bormolini, Kaiser-Hill Company, Rocky Flats

Jerry Harden, United Steelworkers of America

This session was designed to allow representatives from Mound, Fernald, and Rocky Flats to

share their on-going experiences in the accelerated closure of sites. It included discussions of

cross-cutting issues, including work force planning, skills mix, and training for future employment
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

35

opportunities both inside and outside DOE. This challenge affects DOE, contractors, work

force/labor and the community and will require innovative and creative solutions. 

Ms. Leah Dever, Manager of the Ohio Field Office, introduced the session topic and speakers. 

Ms. Dever then addressed the connection between her own work at the Ohio Field Office and the

session topic of early site closure. Ms. Dever is responsible for the closure and environmental

restoration of five separate facility projects at the Ohio Field Office. All projects are in the Site

Closure Fund and are slated for closure by 2006. Current funding for site closure projects is

slightly more than $1 billion per year and is used to fund closures at the Ohio and Rocky Flats

Field Offices. 

Ms. Dever stated that although the staff at the Ohio Field Office are, in essence, working

themselves out of their jobs, they are well-motivated to cleanup the sites and move on. This

situation is difficult to manage, but the Ohio Field Office recognizes that there is a definite need to

understand and address the concerns of its staff. At the federal level, downsizing is occurring

through attrition, and there is a need to fill positions quickly. The majority of the Ohio Field

Office staff is willing to work at the site until closure. 

Ms. Dever stated that the Ohio Field Office had predicted a need of 210 to 220 employees

through 2003, with an incremental decline in the number of necessary employees as the site nears

closure. The Ohio Field Office assured the staff that the workload would remain steady through

2003, but attrition is presently occurring at over 10 percent at the federal level. The Ohio Field

Office hopes to offer its staff members in-house upward mobility, retired annuitants, buyouts,

retention bonuses, and guarantees of other jobs at other DOE sites if they stay through closure at

Ohio. 

The Ohio Field Office conducted an employee survey and plans to continue to do so on an annual

basis. The purpose of the survey was to determine the need of all employees to support long-term

career growth. While the Ohio Field Office has not received definite results at this time, the

survey resulted in a 98 percent response rate. The survey is an example of the Department’s

concern with the human side of business. The Ohio Field Office recognizes that it must take care

of and assist its workers, although workers must also continue to take ultimate responsibility for

themselves. The Department is interested in and willing to provide training to workers in order to

help them move on to other jobs following closure. Frequently, the best and most skilled workers

require developmental training so that they can grow professionally and transition to new

employment. There is a great need to be innovative and creative in the attempt to effectively

close the Department’s sites. 
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

36

The next speaker, Ms. Ann Bormolini, was named Vice President of Human Resources and

Communications for Kaiser-Hill Company, Rocky Flats in August 1997. Ms. Bormolini presented

an overview of the Rocky Flats Site Closure Project. The site currently consists of a staff of

5,000 site employees 3,000 of which are part of the Kaiser-Hill Team. The site consists of 385

acres of industrial area and 6,000 acres of open buffer space. Presently, the site has more than

700 facilities and structures, three landfills, five wastewater treatment plants, and one laboratory. 

The site also has water, power, steam, and nitrogen facilities, security and law enforcement

services, fire protection, medical services, a road system, grounds maintenance and snow removal

services, and food services. The site has large quantities of nuclear materials located 15 miles

upwind of the state capital of Denver. These nuclear materials include 10.8 U.S. tons of

plutonium, 3.4 U.S. tons of plutonium residues, and 7.4 U.S. tons of uranium. The surrounding

community is concerned about contamination from this site reaching the metropolitan area of

Denver. The mission of the Kaiser-Hill Company is to make the site safe and clean and,

ultimately, to close the site. The project is expected to result in primarily open space. Buildings

will be demolished and waste and plutonium will be shipped offsite. 

Ms. Bormolini then presented a brief history of the Rocky Flats site. The site began its nuclear

weapons production mission in 1951 and continued production through the 1980s. The site’s

historic weapons production mission included radioactive and non-radioactive metal working and

fabrication, plutonium recovery, and research and development. In 1989, the FBI raided the site

for alleged environmental crimes, and in 1992, the site’s production mission officially ended. The

next years were wrought with uncertainty and struggle through a morass of regulatory and

stakeholder issues. In 1995, Rocky Flats was deemed a Closure Project, bringing the real focus

and direction to the site mission. It was at that time that Kaiser-Hill was contracted in order to

close the plant. The mission of the project is to eliminate all waste in order to effectively close the

site.

Ms. Bormolini explained that the site closure team consists of DOE leadership and members from

Kaiser-Hill Company, as well as second-tier contractors and hundreds of third-tier subcontractors. 

Kaiser-Hill has identified several work force issues, including: the need for the work force to

remain committed and focused to reach closure; the need for work force assistance with individual

closure planning; the need for the work force to stay as long as their skills are essential to closure;

and the need to ease work force transitions to lower-tier subcontractors. 

Kaiser-Hill has initiated a process for identifying work force initiative which has involved

benchmarking industry and other DOE sites, the development of focus groups in 1996 surveys,

and the development of focus groups again in 1999. Through this process, Kaiser-Hill has learned

that employees want to remain working at the site through closure. Survey results indicated that
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

37

the average age of the Site worker is 48 and the average hourly attrition rate is 2.9 percent. The

average salaried attrition rate is 5.9 percent. Through the work force initiatives process, KaiserHill noted a major retention problem with firefighters and security personnel. The site is trying to

retain firefighters by attempting to outsource the fire department. This would help to insure that

firefighters have continued employment with a community department after closure. 

Ms. Bormolini noted that the results of the work force initiatives process also indicated that: 

employees desire information on how the closure schedule impacts them; a commitment from the

Kaiser-Hill Company in addressing individual employment expectations; and assistance in

preparing for transition. Transition assistance preparation is desired in the form of adjustment of

retirement programs, career planning and counseling, education and training assistance,

outplacement assistance, and retention incentives if the employee stays through their personal

closure date.

To date, Kaiser-Hill and DOE have established a 2006 site closure plan; adjusted the salaried

retirement program; provided a lump sum option; developed a Career Counseling Center to help

with individual closure planning; provided financial planning seminars; established an area

network with major employers to match employee skills with area employer needs; revived

business startup assistance; and coordinated with other DOE sites regarding critical skills in order

to offer future jobs to workers who stay at Rocky Flats through site closure.

The following programs are being explored to determine if changes would help the site with a

safe, successful closure: review of alternative retention incentives, proposal of additional service

credit for age to bridge medical eligibility; consideration of additional retention/productivity

incentives on a selective basis (i.e., firefighters); provision for advance access to fund training for

careers outside of Rocky Flats; advance access to severance for outplacement services;

adjustment of the vacation accrual policy; provision of immediate 401(k) vesting; and any other

new, innovative work force transition ideas and processes. 

The next speaker was Mr. Jerry Harden, President of the United Steelworkers of America. Mr.

Harden has been a plutonium worker at Rocky Flats for the past 32 years and a radiation monitor

for over 30 years. Mr. Harden dedicated his comments to Don Gaebel, Leroy Krumback, John

Shamper and Jim Downing, all of whom were DOE workers who died from radiation exposure at

Rocky Flats. Mr. Harden then read a personal essay entitled, “DOE and Contractor Performance

at Rocky Flats: Half Empty or Half Full?” The following presents a summary of issues addressed

within this essay.

Mr. Harden explained that, in its prime, Rocky Flats reclaimed fissile nuclear materials such as
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

38

uranium and plutonium, in addition to fabricating atomic weapons components from new

materials provided by other DOE facilities. Since the closure of production capabilities at the

Rocky Flats plant, many American taxpayers have been mislead by politicians and bureaucrats that

the DOE would no longer produce or dismantle nuclear weapons, much less at any additional cost

to them. The Federal Government and the DOE are, in fact, attempting to duplicate the

production and disassembly capabilities at Rocky Flats at two new locations at a cost to the

American taxpayers of $2 billion. 

Rocky Flats has experienced the introduction of multiple contractors with an integrating

contractor. Further, living wage jobs have been downgraded to $10 an hour for replacement

workers due to privatization. According to Mr. Harden, this seems disgraceful in a plant that

currently has an annual budget of $657 million. Many of the small contractors are poor

performers involved in work under the pretense of diversification. Many of these privatized

contractors are ignorant of or avoid rules and regulations with which the rest of the workers are

expected to comply. This treatment by the contractors and the DOE is unfair to the veteran work

force; a work force that has dedicated its talent and compromised its health for the defense effort.

The concept of worker involvement is currently popular at Rocky Flats due to pressures exerted

by the DOE. However, this interest in the work force is felt to be insincere. Mr. Harden noted

that worker involvement consists mostly of worker exploitation and manipulation for appearance

and profit. Labor’s voice has been omitted with corporate and DOE dignitaries that routinely visit

the plant. Such persons prefer to listen to corporations, landowners and real estate developers. 

The work force at Rocky Flats has no guarantee of quality employment until site closure, and

there is no guarantee that worker health needs will be met. DOE spends millions of dollars to

defend contractor mistakes that cause worker health effects, but does very little to recognize,

treat, or compensate deserving Cold War Workers. 

Mr. Harden closed by noting a final issue of concern--the recent phenomenon deemed, “DOE

employee on Friday, contractor employee on Monday.” Many talented administrators are being

lured away or silenced by more lucrative positions with DOE’s contractors.

The next speaker, Mr. Gene Branham, is Vice President of the Fernald Atomic Trades and Labor

Council, located at the former Fernald Uranium Processing Site. Mr. Branham stated that

although things at Fernald are presently positive, the site has experienced its share of challenges

and problematic issues. Mr. Branham then stated that while other speakers would present a

picture of how things currently function at Fernald, or a glimpse of the “good,” he would present

a picture of how things functioned historically at Fernald, or a glimpse of the “bad and the ugly.” 
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

39

Mr. Branham explained that, in 1989, Fernald ceased weapons production. DOE extended its

contracts for one year and proceeded with its plans of remediation and shutdown. Despite the

fact that Fernald ceased its weapons production, it took the Department two years to prompt 

Congress to admit that the cessation of weapons production had actually happened. The work

force felt that it should prepare itself for the introduction of FERMCO, the contractor that DOE

had selected to initiate the remediation and shutdown process, so the work force underwent

remediation training. FERMCO had directions from DOE to eliminate the in-house work force;

however, FERMCO did not understand that senior Senators had modified the Request For

Proposal and that the in-house employees were offered continuous employment. Regardless,

FERMCO planned to dispose of all but approximately 50 in-house workers; retaining those 50

workers for low-scale, low-paying jobs. Mr. Branham then vividly expressed his frustration with

the fact that FERMCO did not effectively remediate the site. From the in-house work force

perspective, FERMCO was not successful in their initial remediation efforts. The in-house

workers notified their political supporters and strategized to retain their jobs. 

Mr. Branham noted that John Meese and John Bradburne were hired to redirect FERMCO’s

efforts at Fernald in early 1994. Concurrently, DOE made open declarations of the eminent

closures of other sites. Soon after, the parties at Fernald were able to engage in effective

communication and begin to address problematic issues and frustrations. Mr. Branham explained

that it was then that closure efforts at Fernald began to progress in a positive manner. Mr.

Branham then adamantly reiterated that things at Fernald were defective for quite some time prior

to improving. 

The final speaker, Mr. John Bradburne, President of Fluor Daniel Fernald, highlighted several of

Fernald’s successful site closure efforts. He specifically described three particular site projects,

the first of which was deemed “Safe Shutdown.” The project consisted of the preparation of 10

complexes for demolition by FAT&LC members, removing more than a half million pounds of

hazardous material in the process. Following safe shutdown, the facilities were turned over to a

subcontractor for dismantlement. More than a half million pounds of nuclear material and

thousands of gallons of hazardous liquids were removed from the ten complexes. Fernald was the

first site in the DOE complex to complete safe shutdown--an accomplishment so significant that it

prompted a visit from the Secretary of Energy. The Safe Shutdown Project was completed in

March 1999. The project was completed two years ahead of schedule for $7 billion less than the

amount originally budgeted for the project. 

Mr. Bradburne noted that the second project, the Waste Pits Project, is considered a privatization

project, and involves six waste pits which were used to store waste byproducts from Fernald’s

uranium production process. The pits contain low-level contaminated material, mostly solid and
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

40

liquid waste such as sludge, cakes and residues. A solicitation for a lump sum bid was placed. IT

Corp., the subcontractor for this project, has provided the capital investment for construction of

processing facilities. To recover its up-front investment, IT Corp. will be paid for each railcar

loaded. IT Corp. designed and built the remediation facilities needed to support the Waste Pits

Project. Cincinnati Building Trades will excavate the waste pits and transfer the material to

FAT&LC employees for processing. FAT&LC members will also be responsible for operating

the locomotives, as well as inserting the railcar liners; loading the material; attaching the lids;

inspecting the railcars; operating the scale; and maintaining rail yard equipment and IT Corp’s

remediation facilities. Employees will process approximately 1 million tons of material from the

waste pits. A Record of Decision was signed on March 1, 1995, with work expected to be

completed in May 2005. The total value of the project is $120 million. 

Mr. Bradburne then detailed the third project, described as the Silos Project. This project

involves the remediation of four concrete silos containing residues of uranium extracted from

pitchblende ores from the Belgian Congo. It is a tri-phase privatized program with the objective

of remediating the silos. Silos 1 and 2 (the K-65 Silos) contain low-level radioactive waste, Silo 3

contains cold metal oxide and Silo 4 is unused. While the subcontractor will be responsible for

designing and building the Silos’ treatment plant, FAT&LC members will perform operations and

maintenance. Under the technical direction of the subcontractor, FAT&LC members will also

operate the advanced waste retrieval equipment for Silos 1 and 2. Approximately 14,000 cubic

yards of waste will be removed through this project. Work on Silos 1 and 2 will begin in 2001;

completion will depend on the technology selected. Design for cleanup of Silo 3 has begun and is

scheduled to be complete in 2003. The cleanup plan for Silos 1 and 2 is currently being reevaluated, with a decision on the path forward to be made later this year. Silo 3 waste will be

treated by Rocky Mountain Remediation Services using a patented stabilization process. 

Remediation of the Silos, which contain waste from the Manhattan Project, is the highest priority

project at Fernald. 

Mr. Bradburne closed by stating that these three projects are examples of the progress that has

occurred and continues to take place at Fernald. Each project demonstrates DOE’s commitment

to doing things correctly and effectively under the banner of safety and efficiency. 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Q: (Gene Branham) To what do you credit Fernald’s turnaround? What specifically

happened to change the way you were feeling about things at Fernald?

A: Everything starts with leadership. Leaders need to communicate and motivate. They
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

41

can’t demoralize a work force. Mr. Bradburne came to Fernald voluntarily and

surrounded himself with a capable staff. He didn’t look over their shoulders all the time –

he trusted them. At the same time, DOE came into place. DOE understood the concept

and supported it. DOE understood the game and brought it to a new level. 

 (John Bradburne): Gene used the word “trust.” That's what it is; without it, you can’t

communicate and you can’t figure out how to make things work effectively. It started

with Bob Schwabb. We have an aggressive oversight group at Fernald based on a lot of

trust – we collectively generate it.

Q: I’m glad you feel privatization is working at Fernald, but at Rocky Flats, it is not

working. It is more costly and it gives money to special contractors, which are often

companies with no expertise. Then, other groups have to come in to augment the

contractors' work. One subcontractor at Rocky Flats seems obsessed with

institutionalizing everything along commercial standards. What is the importance

of commercial standards? Even cold parts of our plant have a lot of contamination. 

I am very concerned. There is a lot of exposure to workers and the environment

that continues to occur. Privatization has resulted in no value added at Rocky Flats. 

A: (John Bradburne): On the matter of best commercial practices, my sense is that you should

not check your common sense at the door. Our common sense is the biggest asset we

have. Those in the business understand what nuclear hazards are all about. When you get

down to the work that has to be done, we need to understand all the parameters and

model activities around them. Fernald and Flour Daniel Fernald sit down together and get

everyone at the table, including health and safety individuals, to plan the work. Don’t let

anyone check their common sense at the door.

(Gene Branham): From the outset, we put people at the table who will actually be

conducting the work. We have mandatory walk-throughs at every stage of the work. 

When you have buy-in from everyone involved, when you get to the goal line, everyone

possesses ownership and all problems are eliminated. This may not be as applicable at

larger sites.

(Leah Dever): What John and Gene have mentioned is called the “Integrated Safety

Management System.” Not everything is working perfectly at Ohio; there are pockets

here and there that are not, but success like that which has been described does not happen

overnight. It takes time and good leadership.
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

42

GROUP DISCUSSIONS - CONCURRENT SESSION 3

3A. LONG RANGE MANPOWER PLANNING CHALLENGES

Moderator: Marilyn Balcombe, ORISE

Speakers: Charles Emery, Sandia National Laboratory

Carl “Bubba” Scarbrough, Atomic Trades and Labor Council

Susan Alexander, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems

Dr. Balcombe opened the session by introducing the topic and speakers. The session focused on

the approaches used in assuring the ability to recruit and retain a quality work force with the

requisite skills and experience to meet developing Departmental missions. A particular focus was

on responding to the recommendations of the Chiles Report and on ways to best meet fluctuating

work skill requirements.

Mr. Charles Emery, Vice President for Human Resources, Sandia National Laboratories, managed

by Lockheed Martin Corporation, was the lead contact with the Chiles Commission concerning

employment, recruitment, and retention at Sandia. He began the discussion by reviewing several

of the more pertinent findings and recommendation from the Chiles Report affecting his role as

Vice-President for Human Resources, and described some of the actions undertaken at Sandia to

meet these concerns. He pointed to the Chiles Report recommendations to (1) establish shortand long-term hiring plans; (2) rely on formal, technical education programs as a major supplier to

restore an adequate flow of new talent; (3) ensure that undergraduates and graduates in

engineering and technology fields are knowledgeable of DOE Laboratories and production

facilities; (4) fully utilize intern and co-op programs; and (5) establish knowledge transfer

programs (archiving data and training new recruits).

Next, Mr. Emery provided insight into manpower challenges and various initiatives currently

underway at Sandia. With 2,000 fewer employees now than in 1995, a major goal at Sandia is not

only to attract talented recruits, but to also retain them. Of primary interest is to engage students

early on and create a pipeline of individuals possessing the requisite skills beginning in middle

school through high school and college intern programs.

A part of successful recruiting for the long-term also involves creativity. Student enrichment

programs as well as various Workshops are being used to directly engage the students with

hands-on/mind-on activity. Intern programs, which focus heavily on the technical disciplines,

average about 800 interns and co-ops per year. One must be able to generate an excitement in

potential candidates not only about how the Sandia's mission impacts national interest, but also

about the types of work in which the candidates would be engaged. A mentoring program,
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

43

embracing both social as well as technical aspects, for developing people who can respond to

changing requirements and complex customer needs is another component of Sandia’s effort to

ensure nuclear weapons expertise. Advantages are seen from both perspectives; the mentor

receives new ideas, enhances personal skills, develops networks, etc.; and the mentee learns about

the company culture while receiving career guidance, and developing professional skills, etc.

Mr. Emery noted that Sandia has an integrated university program which incorporates many

elements required for building a successful constituency between the Lab and the universities. 

Components include campus executives (or ambassadors comprised of Sandia Vice-Presidents)

for selected universities; university collaborations/research focusing on such things as research

portfolio management, scientific and technical strategies, minority outreach activities; and

staffing/recruiting which incorporates areas like staffing planning, skills needs determination, and

recruiting coordination. Sandia has 120 engineers and scientists who recruit at some 40

universities nationwide. There are also recruiting team activities which focus on university and

faculty relationships to assist in identifying potential candidates (BS, MS, PhD) with a specific set

of skill requirements. 

There are a number of strategies in place to attract, retain, and inspire talented individuals. 

Strategies for attracting personnel include targeting top talent, and providing competitive rewards

and an enjoyable working environment. Strategies for retaining employees include mechanisms

such as recognition and rewarding; continued learning opportunities; job rotational flexibilities,

including opportunities for career advancement; enhanced employee benefits; an enjoyable

working environment; and a better understanding of employee needs.

Sandia has identified several critical skill-mix categories that will be in great demand during the

next five years. In the technical area, there will be an increased need for people in the following

major areas: computer science and software engineering; electrical and electromechanical

engineering; information systems; and advanced manufacturing. There will also be a heightened

requirement for those skilled in the following trades categories: machinists, mechanical

measurements, electronic fabrication, mechanical systems and operations (e.g., HVAC).

The next speaker, Mr. Carl Scarbrough, President of the Atomic Trades and Labor Council,

presented his perspectives regarding the future of the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The

Y-12 facility was built in 1942 as part of the Manhattan Project. Its original mission was the

separation of highly enriched uranium-235. The mission later evolved into a highly-sophisticated

manufacturing capability for the production of components for every nuclear weapon in our

Nation’s stockpile.
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

44

Though functions have changed as we approach the 21st century, Mr. Scarbrough emphasized

that the Y-12 facility is now critical in supporting the United States’ long-term stockpile

management mission. Work at Y-12 will be instrumental in maintaining our nuclear deterrent

capability without the need for underground testing, and will assure the necessary high level of

confidence in the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. The Department also

needs to maintain the capability to manufacture all current warhead components and their

replacements as well as the capability, if required, to restart warhead production.

Mr. Scarbrough noted that as we near the next century, much work needs to be done at Y-12 to

ensure its continued success. Realizing that many of the facilities and infrastructure systems are

half-a-century in age, one must understand and appreciate the great amount of modernization and

streamlining that will be needed to help assure our continued capability. Infrastructure

modernization will involve additional capital investment; new, modern facilities integrated and

co-located with existing facilities; and a demonstrated capability to manufacture all current

warhead components and their replacements. The more modern and streamlined Y-12 will use

engineered controls and contained processes, will have enhanced safeguards and security

measures in place, and will operate more cleanly thus reducing its waste streams and emissions. It

will be safer, more cost effective, and more efficient.

One must also remember that in addition to the modernization of facilities and infrastructure

systems, the work force must not be forgotten. Mr. Scarbrough emphasized that skilled workers

are critical to U.S. manufacturing, and that training is critical to enable companies to use and

maintain advanced technology. The work force at Y-12 is no different--it will need to be

revitalized. Critical job skills need to be retained. There needs to be a refocusing on the elements

of hiring, training, and retraining to help assure a highly-skilled and flexible work force. Highly

successful elements have included: a manufacturing skills campus which leverages federal

facilities, technology, and expertise; train-the-trainer programs; and the use of apprenticeship

programs.

The final speaker, Ms. Susan Alexander, Director of Resource Management at Lockheed Martin

Energy Systems (LMES) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, spoke about recruiting strategies being

implemented by Lockheed Martin. With work force downsizing activities ongoing in the Oak

Ridge area for the last several years, recruiting was not one of its mainstays and actually, LMES

had last done a college recruitment effort over a decade ago.

But things have changed with LMES. A new mission has been defined for its continued work at

the Y-12 facility. This mission is threefold: to effectively re-manufacture, surveil and assess all

uranium, lithium, and secondary components in the nuclear stockpile while protecting people and
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

45

the environment; to safely store, process and disposition uranium, lithium and secondary

components associated with the nuclear stockpile; and to perform complementary work that

reduces the DOE's burden in maintaining Y-12's capability while contributing to regional

economic development.

A recruiting strategy is now in the works for accomplishing its new mission. A needs assessment

has been completed focusing on critical skills, age demographics, and technical specialities. 

Selected colleges and universities will be targeted, with the initial focus being placed upon the

historically-black colleges and universities as well as those other schools which were regionally

located. 

Tactics used include the testing of an online recruiting, resume, and processing system (which

should be ready by August 1999); the creation of a key internal recruiting team; and the use of

summer intern and co-op programs.

Some obstacles to overcome included: the focus on critical skills while budgets are shrinking;

bringing in new hires to replenish critical skills while overall layoffs continued; reduction in

funding for conducting new security clearances; student confusion over the roles between the 

Department of Defense versus Department of Energy; shortage of nuclear engineering candidates;

and worker health issues in a nuclear environment.

Ms. Alexander highlighted several lessons learned; including the premise that students did not

generally expect a long-term employment commitment; students were more interested in

meaningful, visible, technical work; mentoring and educational assistance were important to

students; high importance of company name recognition; students want to hear about the

company and its missions (that is, the future not the past); while salary and benefit packages were

important, they were not at the top of the list (ranked behind company name and prestige, work

environment, and work enjoyment). 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Q: (Susan Alexander) How do you deal with Congressional funding issues when so

often they become “iffy”?

A: By talking about the opportunities that might and could happen if Congress does indeed

provide the full (or partial) amount of funding.
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

46

3B. PENSIONS AND BENEFITS PORTABILITY

Moderator: Barry Lawson, Lawson and Associates

Speakers: Terry Freese, Office of Worker and Community Transition

Teresa Riggs, Bechtel Jacobs, Oak Ridge

Sharon D. Ruehl, Richland Operations Office

Eugene McConville, United Plant Guard Workers of America

 (UPGWA)

Michael Cleghorn, National Council of Security Inspectors (NCSI)

Dr. Barry Lawson, the session facilitator, opened the session by explaining that pension and

benefits are a critical issue in implementing changes in contracting mechanisms at DOE facilities. 

He introduced each speaker and said that each would be discussing the various approaches to this

issue. 

Mr. Terry Freese, Deputy Director of the Office of Worker and Community Transition, began by

contrasting past DOE environments that included ongoing stable missions, life-long employment

and associated benefits with the current state of new contracting mechanisms, privatization, new

missions and skills requirements, and recruiting and retention challenges. He said the Department

is striving for programs that produce a trained and experienced work force while minimizing

costs, transition issues, and career disruption. The goal is to have the right people, at the right

time, at the right place, and at the right cost. He quickly added that “right cost” does not

necessarily mean the cheapest. 

Mr. Freese said transitioning the remaining workers intra-contractor, between sites, and from

DOE to the private sector should all be accomplished with minimal career disruption. He

conceded some of the barriers of flexible work force utilization are funding and planning

uncertainty, relocation assistance, and service-based benefit portability. He listed possible

alternative portability options as defined-benefit and contribution, multiple employer plans, hybrid

plans, and employee leasing.

Mr. Freese noted that DOE needs to clearly define future work force requirements and determine

to the extent that existing workers can meet these requirements. The Department should also

continue to reduce any remaining barriers to utilizing existing workers. 

Ms. Teresa Riggs of Bechtel Jacobs Company gave a brief history of the benefits issues at the Oak

Ridge site. She pointed out that Bechtel Jacobs was a management and integrating contractor for

the Environmental Management and Enrichment Facility work at Oak Ridge, TN; Paducah, KY;

and Portsmouth, OH. The contractor is using the existing work force from Kentucky, Ohio, and
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

47

Tennessee. Due to time constraints, Bechtel Jacobs established single employer plans during the

first six months of operations. It was sometimes expensive and time-consuming to clone existing

plans with current providers. Multiple/Multi-Employer Plans were established on October 1,

1998, that included pension plans, savings programs, and health and welfare plans (MEWA). The

first subcontractor employees were transferred in October 1999. The special set-up allows

multiple employer participation in the plans, and single data feeds to providers.

Ms. Riggs said Bechtel Jacobs is continuing to work on the challenges of multi-employer pension

plans such as service portability and amendments of plan provisions to move between employers. 

In addition, MESP obtained SEC no enforcement action to operate as a multi-employer plan to

ensure the company is not acting as a broker. Finally, MEWA located a Class “A” insurer to

provide rich benefits in a multi-employer environment coupled with an extensive customized

system data feeds and structure to meet the substantially equivalent obligation of the contract with

the DOE. 

Ms. Riggs summarized the challenges that Bechtel Jacobs faces in its role as a management and

integrating contractor: cloning existing plans versus establishment of new providers; ratification

of collective bargaining agreements; maintaining a productive, focused, work force in the midst of

significant changes; maintaining benefit integrity of grandfathered employees while meeting

socioeconomic goals; and providing portability of benefits. She emphasized the need for

employees to know whom they worked for.

Ms. Sharon D. Ruehl of the Richland Operations Office, began her presentation by highlighting

the contractual changes at the Hanford site. She said the site is looking to bring in new people as

well as benchmark activities against industry standards. The DOE management style of informing

employees of new policies has been replaced by requests for worker input on future activities and

initiatives. She echoed the concerns made by earlier speakers to minimize worker impacts of

benefit changes, increase the overall mobility of the work force, and pension portability. 

Ms. Ruehl said the site’s Hanover Operation and Engineering Pension Plan (O&E benefit plan)

will be providing additional options in the future. Although, the site has an employee cost-share

program that fits all workers, it is anticipated that additional coverage will be provided through

service credits. Other planned activities include looking to the private sector for management

after DOE’s presence at the Hanford site is gone.

Ms. Ruehl concluded her presentation with an organizational chart that listed each of the five

major contractors that report to the Richland Operations Office. She noted that each major

contractor has a tier of subcontractors that add additional complexity to the organization. As an
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

48

example, she presented a view graph that depicted Fluor Daniel, Inc., having six sub-contractors

and five Enterprise Companies. 

Mr. Eugene McConville of United Plant Guard Workers of America, said he had been impressed

with what he had heard from the other speakers in the session. He thought the section 3161

concept was good but, unfortunately, the protective force at the DOE sites had been excluded in

the implementation of the legislation. He stated legislation objectives of section 3161 as

preference-in-hiring and training workers to join the Environmental Management Program. He

noted that seven years ago the protective forces had been passed over at Portsmouth. Workers

were told they did not qualify because they had an ongoing mission. He noted the mission is still

ongoing but the workers deserve an equal opportunity.

Mr. McConville felt the protective force needs to be given the same opportunity as others because

of the added value of the protective force to the DOE community and long-term cost savings. 

But more important, “It's the right thing to do.”

Mr. Michael J. Cleghorn, President of the National Council of Security Inspectors, presented the

issues that are being faced by the security forces across the DOE complex. First, the retirement

programs are not adequate; second, retention of the young, more physically fit worker is difficult;

and third, training costs are high. 

He described an environment where the current work force is getting older but pension plans are

not meeting the needs of the aging work force. The Taft-Hartley Plan is the only 20-year

retirement program. This scenario forces 60-year old workers to perform the same work as a 21-

30-year old in an extremely physically demanding environment. Mr. Cleghorn presented

employment information from Hanford, Savannah River, Paducah, and Nevada. Fifty-six percent

of the workers at these four sites are over 41 years of age. At Hanford, 70.4 percent of the

workers are 41 or older. 

The average length of service also indicates an aging work force. Almost 75 percent of the

Wackenhut employees at Nevada have over 11 years of experience. The figure is 91 percent for

Hanford and almost 73 percent for Savannah River’s protective force. 

He noted in his concluding remarks that he hoped action would be taken on a problem the

security force has been dealing with for six years. 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1999
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

49

LABOR ISSUES AT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SITES

Moderator: Barry Lawson, Lawson and Associates 

The following concerns were raised at a session of members of labor organizations on

Wednesday, May 26,1999, in preparation for the National Stakeholder Workshop. The session

was attended by about 12 people and was facilitated by Barry Lawson. Copies of these notes

were to be made available to labor representatives at the beginning of the Workshop.

Overriding Goal of Labor Session

The goal of the labor session was to arrange a meeting at the May Workshop among Bob

Alvarez, Bob DeGrasse and all labor representatives present at the Workshop. A meeting was

scheduled with the two DOE officials at 3:00 PM on the 27th. This meeting was continued at 5:00

PM that same day.

Listed below are the issues discussed:

Section 3161

• Much of the training opportunities offered to skilled union workers is

inappropriate. The workers should be given an opportunity to increase, expand, or

improve their existing skills rather than be offered training for an unrelated field. A

worker should have a chance to mold his/her skills to meet the needs either at the

site, another DOE site, or for work offsite. One company offsite near Atlanta has

taken the lead in identifying future job needs and is trying to provide skill

enhancement training to fill those jobs. Skill enhancement is better than so-called

retraining. 

• Subcontractors in DOE facilities that have been leased through the community

reuse program are not subject to section 3161 provisions--this sets up an inequity

that is unfair to unions whose workers find it tough to compete with those who are

not required to have as much training; the training offered at the Career

Development Center at Fernald was provided as an example.

• There is too little (and in some cases, no) input from labor in preparing local

section 3161 policies and these policies vary from one site to another.

• The bottom line is that DOE does not appreciate its skilled union workers. As a

result, labor is often the last one to be heard and, if heard, little is done to address

their concerns. 
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

50

• One result of outsourcing is that there is no attempt to recycle existing union

workers (e.g., Rocky Flats). 

• Not only does labor input on section 3161 seem to be decreasing over time, the

impression is that labor is not considered a stakeholder. This is clearly inconsistent

with statements to the contrary by Secretary O'Leary. One result is that labor does

not have an equal voice with other stakeholders. This is wrong.

• One problem is the lack of awareness, particularly among some labor people, on

how section 3161 works and how policy is developed at each site. 

• Labor is underrepresented in Community Reuse Organizations. 

• Displaced workers do not get called for job interviews especially when they have

taken another temporary job--out-of-sight, out-of-mind. Savannah River was

offered as one example. 

• A proposal: How about DOE providing $1 million to each of 20 internationals for

hands-on, skill-specific training? This could replace some of the extravagant

training provided to non-union people in the complex. 

Security Personnel Issues 

• Qualifications for security workers are going up, and some older union labor force

members cannot pass these standards. 

• Opening for security people at site “B” cannot be filled by available security people

at site “A” because there are no transfer clearances. This is inappropriate and can

lead to unnecessary expense (e.g., New Mexico).

• Property control is losing qualified people and making it difficult to fulfill this

function satisfactorily. 

• It seems that nowadays almost anybody can get onsite at DOE facilities.

 • Guards are not being included in labor-management meetings.

Effect of Downsizing at Kansas City Plant
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

51

• What are the mission and plans for implementing them at Kansas City?

Preferential Contracting to Disadvantaged and Minority Firms

• This continues to be an issue, especially when these firms are selected outside a

competitive process (e.g., BNFL and ATI). 

Consolidated Contract for Weapons Across Sites

• DOE does not appear to willing to serve as an integrator. If this is the case, why

are there still so many DOE staff people at the sites?

Environmental Cleanup Standards at DOE Sites

• The cleanup standards at sites are higher than those that were in place during

original construction.

Section 3162 Implementation

• Provisions for medical surveillance programs need to be initiated. There are some

serious worker medical problems at some sites, and damage control is clearly

called for. 

• What is the role of OSHA standards and guidance? Which agency has jurisdiction,

DOE or OSHA? 

• Labor leaders would welcome an opportunity to meet with David Michaels,

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Safety and Health, to discuss some pertinent

safety and health issues. 

Who Is Overseeing Training Efforts? 

• Security clearance requirements continue to be an issue.

• There should be consistent rules for all workers at a site. Currently there is a

double standard. 
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

52

• Subcontractors working at leased DOE facilities (as tenants) are not required to

have the same training as union workers laboring--often side-by-side.–This is

unfair to union workers who could be doing some of this subcontracted work.

Problems With Integrated Contracts

The decisionmakers at DOE do not go onto the sites because of perceived safety concerns. This

hampers their ability to make the best decisions.

• The use of performance bonuses has been costly and a nightmare in many cases.

The incentive system for reducing overhead costs has often led to certain functions

being cut back only to lead to the need to reinstate them at a later date. This is true

even for some safety and security issues at sites (e.g., Rocky Flats, Savannah

River). 

• Safety concerns seem to get ignored when economic incentives are highlighted.

And security inconsistencies are evident when prison labor is allowed onsite or

when security checks are not mandated as they were during the full operation at

the sites. 

• Because of bait-and-switch strategies used by contractors in proposals, labor often

loses.

University-Type Management

• The proposed addition of the University of Tennessee as a manager at Oak Ridge

runs the real risk of just adding another management layer that costs money. 

Department of Energy Response to Issues

At the meeting between labor representatives and Robert Alvarez, Senior Policy Advisor to

Secretary Richardson, and Robert DeGrasse, Director of the Office of Worker and Community

Transition, a series of responses to the issues raised were offered by the DOE officials.

The following is a list of the principal responses provided by the DOE : 
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

53

• DOE is currently taking action to propose legislation to bring contract workers at

DOE sites into the federal compensation/benefit system. There is a precedent for

such action. 

• Action is also being taken to address the increasing medical problems among

workers at several sites. Beryllium is one of the medical hazards that will be

addressed. DOE's position on these medical problems is that there is no need to

analyze causation for these problems; let's just address them. The Department of

Labor is supportive of this initiative and will be taking the lead as it has elsewhere. 

There will be detail on this in the next month or so. 

• DOE recognizes the importance of dealing with providing continuing medical

insurance coverage for workers after closure, but is currently uncertain just how

this will be accomplished. 

• The Department is willing to follow up with the Community Reuse Organizations

(CROs) to see that efforts are made to hire displaced workers. However, DOE

does not seem to have great leverage. Bob DeGrasse suggested that (1) labor

representatives call him with specific cases where appropriate efforts are not being

made to hire displaced workers, and (2) DOE may be able to affect change

through the grant-making process with CROs. DOE is presently encouraging

CRO grantees to get labor sign-off on proposals to be submitted for grants. 

• DOE wants to have more direct lines of accountability between Headquarters and

the sites and to establish better communication with union executives. 
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

54

APPENDIX A

FINAL PARTICIPANTS LIST

David Abelson

Executive Director

Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments

5460 Ward Road

Suite 205

Arvada, CO 80002

Phone: 303-940-6090

Fax: 303-940-6088

E-mail: dableson@rfclog.org

Cheryl Abernathy

Contractor Industrial Relations Specialist

Nevada Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box 98518

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518

Phone: 702-295-1019

Fax: 702-295-2367

E-mail: abernathy@nv.doe.gov

Sherry Adame

Manager, Human Resources

TRW Environmental Safety Systems, Inc.

1180 Town Center Drive

Las Vegas, NV 89128

Phone: 702-295-5181

Fax: 702-295-5241

E-mail: sherry_adame@ymp.gov

Bob Agonia

Program Manager, Contractor Human

Resources

Nevada Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P O Box 98518

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518

Phone: 702-295-1005

Fax: 702-295-2367

E-mail: agonia@nv.doe.gov

Susan Alexander

Director, Resource Management

Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc.

701 Scarboro Road, MS-8240

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8240

Phone: 423-574-4022

Fax: 423-576-6034

E-mail: yeo@ornl.gov

Bob Alvarez

Senior Policy Advisor

Office of the Secretary (S-1)

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-7131

Fax: 

E-mail: 

Courtney Anderson

Economic Development Analyst

Council for Urban Economic Development

1730 K Street, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20006

Phone: 202-223-4735

Fax: 202-223-4745

E-mail: canderson@urbandevelopment.com

Mellody Anderson

Chicago Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

9800 South Cass Ave.

Argonne, IL 60439

Phone: 630-252-2532
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

55

Fax: 630-252-2919

E-mail: mellody.anderson@ch.doe.gov

Roberto A. Archuleta

Industrial Relations Specialist

Albuquerque Operations Office

U. S. Department of Energy

P O Box 5400

Albuquerque, NM 87185

Phone: 505-845-4222

Fax: 

E-mail: rarchuleta@doeal.gov

Dean Arnold

General Attorney

U.S. Department of Energy

9800 South Cass Avenue

Argonne, IL 60439

Phone: 630-252-2301

Fax: 630-252-2183

E-mail: 

Marilyn Balcombe

Industrial Psychologist

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Worker & Community Transition

(WT-1)

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-2023

Fax: 202-586-1540

E-mail: balcombm@orao.gov

Bob Baney

Grants Administrator

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

(WT-1) Room 6G-063/ FORS

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-3751

Fax: 202-586-1540

E-mail: Robert.Baney@hq.DOE.gov

Robert J. Bardsley

 Industrial Relations Officer

Idaho Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

850 Energy Drive

Idaho Falls, ID 83401-1563

Phone: 208-526-0688

Fax: 208-526-5969

E-mail: bardslrj@inel.gov

Jim Bateman

Vice President

Hanford Atomic Metals Trade Council

(HAMTC)

1305 Knight Street

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-946-0326

Fax: 509-943-5245

E-mail: 

Richard F. Beam

International Vice President

International Guards Union of America

Region I

210 Suntides Boulevard

Yakima, WA 98908

Phone: 509-965-2930

Fax: 509-965-2625

E-mail: goldplate@nwinfo.net

Eileen L. Beaulieu

Community Manager

Albuquerque Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box 5400

Albuquerque, NM 87185

Phone: 505-845-4984
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

56

Fax: 505-845-4239

E-mail: ebeaulieu@doeal.gov

Chuck Bernhard

Manager, Oak Ridge Office

Teledyne Brown Engineering

800 Oak Ridge Turnpike

Suite A103

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Phone: 423-482-8040

Fax: 423-482-0940

E-mail: 

Sarah Billups

Science Applications International Corporation

(SAIC)

901 D Street, SW

Suite 201

Washington, DC 20024

Phone: 

Fax: 202-488-3158

E-mail: 

Thomas A. Biscup

Director, Industrial Relations

Fluor Daniel Fernald, Inc.

P.O. Box 538704, MS-15

Cincinnati, OH 45253-8704

Phone: 513/648-4884

Fax: 513/648-3777

E-mail: thomas_biscup@fernald.gov

Sara Bobersky

Program Manager

StarAccess

3601 Eisenhower Avenue

Suite 450

Alexandria, VA 22304

Phone: 703-317-8373

Fax: 703-960-7007

E-mail: sbobersky@staraccess.com

Raymond J. Borkowski

Vice President

Performance Plus International, Inc.

103 A Donner Drive

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Phone: 423-425-0211

Fax: 423-425-0089

E-mail: rhk@icx.net

Ann Bormolini

Vice President and Director

Kaiser-Hill Company

Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site

Post Office Box 464

Building 111

Golden, CO 80402-0464

Phone: 303-966-7545

Fax: 303-966-4957

E-mail: ann.bormolini@rfets.gov

Mary Ellen Boyd

Special Assistant

Building and Construction Trades Department

AFL-CIO

4th Floor

ll55 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: 202-347-1461

Fax: 202-737-1725

E-mail: 

John Bradburne

President

Fluor Daniel Fernald, Inc.

P.O. Box 538704

Cincinnati, OH 45253-8704

Phone: 513-648-3311

Fax: 513-648-3601
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

57

E-mail: 

Gene Branham

Vice President

Fernald Atomic Trades and Labor Council

Fluor Daniel Fernald

P O Box 126

Ross, OH 45061

Phone: 513-648-5079

Fax: 513-648-3710

E-mail: 

Susan R. Brechbill

Chief Counsel

Richland Operations Office

U S Department of Energy

P.O. Box 550, A4-52

825 Jadwin

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-376-7311

Fax: 509-376-4590

E-mail: Susan.R.Brechbill@RC.gov

John Brock

Labor Relations Manager

Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC

Post Office Box 4699

Highway 58 South

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-7113

Phone: 423-241-1201

Fax: 423-241-1425

E-mail: brockjw@bechteljacobs.org

Lyle Brown

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

(WT-1) Room 6G-057/ FORS

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-0431

Fax: 202-586-8403

E-mail: 

Robert J. Brown, III

 Assistant Manager for Assets Utilization

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box 2001

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Phone: 423-576-2599

Fax: 423-241-4339

E-mail: browarj@oro.doe.gov

Ed Burgess

Director of Regional Office

South Carolina Department of Commerce

P O Box 927

Columbia, SC 29202

Phone: 803-737-0407

Fax: 803-737-0418

E-mail: 

James B. Bussell

Program Manager

East Tennessee Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

P O Box 4247

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Phone: 423-574-3054

Fax: 423-241-6304

E-mail: busselljb@ornl.gov

Matt Cain

Science Applications International Corporation

(SAIC)

901 D Street SW

Suite 201

Washington, DC 20024

Phone: 202/488-6625

Fax: 202/488-3158

E-mail: thomas.m.cain@cpmx.saic.com

Bruce Campbell
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

58

Assistant to General Manager

Mason & Hanger Corporation - Pantex

701 North Taylor Street

Nations Bank Building, Suite 420

Amarillo, TX 79101

Phone: 806-372-4662

Fax: 806-372-4663

E-mail: bcampbel@pantex.com

Tim Carlson

President and CEO

NTS Development Corporation

2340 Paseo del Prado, Suite D-108

Las Vegas, NV 89102

Phone: 702-257-7900

Fax: 702-257-7999

E-mail: tcarlson@ntsdev.com

Margaret Carroll

Industrial Relations Specialist

HRMD-IR

U.S. Department of Energy

1301 Clay Street

700N

Oakland, CA 94612

Phone: 510-637-1892

Fax: 510-637-2008

E-mail: margaret.carroll@oak.doe.gov

Tony Carter

Special Assistant

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

(WT-1) Room 6G-041/ FORS

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-3323

Fax: 202-586-1540

E-mail: tony.carter@hq.doe.gov

William M. Castoro

Chairman

Community Reuse Organization

Pinellas Star Center

7887 Bryan Dairy Road

Suite 150

Largo, FL 33777

Phone: 727-541-8080

Fax: 727-545-8585

E-mail: kmitchel@co.pinellas.fl.us

Thomas Cauthen

Contractor Industrial Relations Specialist

Savannah River Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

Post Office Box A

Aiken, SC 29802

Phone: 803-725-8044

Fax: 803-725-8573

E-mail: Thomas04.cauthen@srs.gov

Chee Chang

Program Manager

International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union

25 Louisiana Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Phone: 202-624-6963

Fax: 202-624-8125

E-mail: chee328@aol.com

Michael Church

President

Paper, Allied Industrial, Chemical, Energy

Workers International Union (PACE)

Local 5-288

P.O. Box 4936

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-4936

Phone: 423-483-3745

Fax: 423-483-6460

E-mail: pace@icx.net
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

59

John H. Clabaugh

Manager, Human Resources

AlliedSignal Inc. FM&T

P.O. Box 419159

Kansas City, MO 64141-6159

Phone: 816-997-5575

Fax: 816-997-7016

E-mail: jclabaugh@kcp.com

Michael J. Cleghorn

President

National Council of Security Inspectors

(NCSI)

705 Glen Abbey Circle

Las Vegas, NV 89107

Phone: 702-259-4410

Fax: 702-259-0010

E-mail: 

Herbert L. Coleman

President

United Plant Guard Workers Association

Local 330

2291 Busswood Drive

August, GA 30906

Phone: 803-952-3365

Fax: 803-471-9592

E-mail: 

Ben D. Corder

Director, Industrial Relations

Flour Daniel Hanford

Box 1000

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-376-5205

Fax: 509-376-8697

E-mail: 

Mike Dabbert

Resource Management Specialist

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

U.S. Department of Energy

P O Box 700

Piketon, OH 45661

Phone: 740-897-5525

Fax: 740-897-2982

E-mail: dabbertmj@ornl.gov

Sandy Davis

Labor Relations Manager

Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC

Highway 58 South, P.O. Box 4699

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-7113

Phone: 423-574-8585

Fax: 423-241-1425

E-mail: davissj1@bechteljacobs.org

Vicky L. Davis

Management Analyst, Public Affairs &

Information Office

Nevada Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box 98518

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518

Phone: 702-295-2770

Fax: 702-295-1810

E-mail: davis@nv.doe.gov

Robert W. DeGrasse, Jr.

Director

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

(WT-1) Room 6G-030/ FORS

1000 Independence Avenue

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-7550

Fax: 202-586-8403

E-mail: robert.degrasse@hq.doe.gov

Thomas B. DePriest

Attorney-Advisor

Office of General Counsel
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

60

U.S. Department of Energy

 (GC-51)

Room 6A-113/ FORS

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-2946

Fax: 202-586-7373

E-mail: Thomas.Depriest@hq.doe.gov

Pam DeRensis

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-6751

Fax: 202-586-8403

E-mail: 

G. Leah Dever

Manager

U.S. Department of Energy

Ohio Field Office

1 Mound Road

P.O. Box 3020

Miamisburg, OH 45458

Phone: 937-865-3977

Fax: 937-865-3426

E-mail: Lorinda.LeDuc@Ohio.DOE.GOV

Sheila Dillard

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

(WT-1), 6F-029/FORS

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202/586-1311

Fax: 202/586-1737

E-mail: shelia.dillard@hq.doe.gov

Lou Doll

Cincinnati Building Trades Representative at

Fernald

Building Trades

Fluor Daniel Fernald

P O Box 538704

Cincinnati, OH 45253

Phone: 513-648-3723

Fax: 513-648-3723

E-mail: Lou.Doll@Fernald.gov

Dana J. Dorr

Employee Relations Manager

Kaiser-Hill Company, L.L.C.

Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site

P.O. Box 464, Bldg. 452

Golden, CO 80402-0464

Phone: 303-966-7978

Fax: 303-966-4991

E-mail: Dana.Dorr@RFETS.gov

John Driskill

President

United Plant Guard Workers of America

Local 111

767 Dry Bridge Road

Smithland, KY 42081

Phone: 270-928-2621Fax: 270-441-6704

E-mail: puradd@apex.net

Clyde M. Elrod

Vice Chairman

PACRO

P.O. Box 588

Mayfield, KY 42066-0588

Phone: 507-247-7171

Fax: 502-251-6110

E-mail: 

Charlie Emery

Vice President, Human Resources

Sandia National Laboratories

P O Box 5800, MS 0186

Albuquerque, NM 87158-0186

Phone: 505-845-7692
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

61

Fax: 505-844-5238

E-mail: cemery@sandia.gov

Cecelia A. Evans

Vice President

Star Access/Star Mountain, Inc

3601 Eisenhower Avenue

Suite 450

Alexandria, VA 22304-6425

Phone: 703-317-0336

Fax: 703-960-7009

E-mail: cevans@staraccess.com

Sam Ferraro

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

(WT-1), 6F-029/FORS

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-5057

Fax: 202-586-1737

E-mail: 

Timothy P. Fischer

Attorney-Advisor

U.S. Department of Energy

Savannah River Site, Office of Chief Counsel

P.O. Box A

Aiken, SC 29802

Phone: 803-725-1022

Fax: 803-725-7544

E-mail: 

Tim Fischer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

SRF-5J

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

Phone: 312-886-5787

Fax: 312-353-8426

E-mail: 

Clara Foster

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

(WT-1), Room 6F-023/FORS

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-5881

Fax: 202-586-1737

E-mail: clara.foster@hq.doe.gov

Terry Freese

Deputy Director

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

(WT-1) Room 6G-030/ FORS

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-5907

Fax: 202-586-8403

E-mail: 

James P. Fuerstenberg

Counsel

U.S. Department of Energy

Chicago Operations Office

9800 South Cass Avenue

Argonne, IL 60439

Phone: 630-252-2043

Fax: 630-252-2183

E-mail: 

David R. Fuller

President

Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

International Union, Local 3-550

2525 Old Cairo Road

Paducah, KY 42001

Phone: 502-441-5967

Fax: 

E-mail: 

Chip Gagne
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

62

Programmer

SAIC

20201 Century Blvd., Suite 300

Germantown, MD 20855

Phone: 301-353-1874

Fax: 301-428-1973

E-mail: gagnere@saic.com

Jon Gahn

President

United Plant Guard Workers of America

Local 66

P.O. Box 1020

Mail Stop 4025

Piketon, OH 45661

Phone: 740-897-2331

Fax: 740-897-2146

E-mail: 

Anthony B. Gallegos

Senior Management Advisor

Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and

Technology

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-0505

Fax: 202-586-8353

E-mail: anthony.gallegos@hq.doe.gov

Richard W. Garretson, Jr.

Representative

Pacific Northwest Regional Council of

Carpenters

Local Union 2403, United Brotherhood of

Carpenters

335 Skagit

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-375-3576

Fax: 509-375-4221

E-mail: Rich2452@AOL.COM

Virginia Geer

GM Co-Director

UAW/GM Center for Human Resources

Region 8

4484 Covington Highway

Suite 102

Decatur, GA 30035

Phone: 404-286-0838

Fax: 404-289-7129

E-mail: 

Michael H. Gibson

Vice President

OCAW Union, Local 7-4200

1 Mound Road

P O Box 3030

Miamisburg, OH 45343

Phone: 937-865-4658

Fax: 937-865-4075

E-mail: Gibsmh@doe-md.gov

Ed Gilliland

Director of Advisory Services

Council for Urban Economic Development

(CUED)

1730 K Street NW

#700

Washington, DC 20006

Phone: 202/223-4735

Fax: 202/223-4745

E-mail: 

William Gilyard, III

Contractor Human Resources Team Leader

Savannah River Operations Office

U S Department of Energy

P O Box A

Attn: AMBL/CMD/CHR
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

63

Aiken, SC 29802-0900

Phone: 803-725-1544

Fax: 803-725-0448

E-mail: william.gilyard@srs.gov

Greg J. Glynn

Manager

Labor Relations

Bechtel Nevada Corporation

P.O. Box 98521, MS- NLV021

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521

Phone: 702-295-0173

Fax: 702-295-2908/3222

E-mail: glynngj@nv.doe.gov

Patti Goin

Manager

Office of Human Resources

Bechtel Nevada

P O Box 98521

M/S NLV009

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521

Phone: 702-295-2294

Fax: 702-295-2448

E-mail: goinpi@nv.doe.gov

Mike J. Grauwelman

President

Miamisburg Mound Community

Improvement Corporation

P.O. Box 232

Miamisburg, OH 45343-0232

Phone: 937-865-4462

Fax: 937-865-4431

E-mail: mmcic@aol.com

Ann Gustavson

Manager, Human Resources & Labor

Relations

Wakenhut Services, Inc.

P.O. Box 96027

Las Vegas, NE 89193

Phone: 702-295-0811

Fax: 702-295-2445

E-mail: gustavson@NV.DOE.gov

Jerry Hall

Hazardous Material Specialist

Sheet Metal Workers International

1321 Homestead Court

Roseville, CA 95661

Phone: 916-786-7513

Fax: 916-786-7595

E-mail: 

James Hall

Manager

U S Department of Energy

Oak Ridge Operations Office

20 Administration Road

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Phone: 423-576-4444

Fax: 423-576-0006

E-mail: 

Jim H. Hanna

Director

Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc.

P.O. Box 1000, H8-24

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-372-8229

Fax: 509-376-8697

E-mail: james_h_hanna@rl.gov

Jerry M. Harden

President

United Steelworkers of America

Local Union 8031

P O Box 745370

Aravada, CO 80006-5370

Phone: 303-966-2798

Fax: 303-966-4317
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

64

E-mail: 

Jenny A. Heckler

Workforce Restructuring Manager

Fluor Daniel Fernald

175 Tri-County Parkway

Cincinnati, OH 45246

Phone: 513-648-6227

Fax: 513-648-6905

E-mail: Jenny_Heckler@Fernald.gov

Kenneth E. Hedman

Vice President and Manager - Labor Relations

Bechtel Construction Company

50 Beale Street ( 7 C-112)

San Francisco, CA 94105-1895

Phone: 415-768-6282

Fax: 415-768-1883

E-mail: kehedman@bechtel.com

James Hendricks

Vice President

PACE Union Local 5-288

International Union, Local 3-288

 P.O. Box 4936

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Phone: 423-483-3745

Fax: 423-483-6460

E-mail: pace@icx.net

Martin Hewitt

Chief Steward

United Plant Guard Workers of America

Local 330

P O Box W

Aiken, SC 29802-0990

Phone: 706-790-1263

Fax: 803-471-3332

E-mail: southsides57@msn.com

David L. Hickey

International Secretary/Treasurer

UPGWA

25510 Kelly Road

Roseville, MI 48066

Phone: 810-772-7250

Fax: 810-772-9644

E-mail: DLHickey@aol.com

Henry Hodges

Treasurer

Paducah Area Community Reuse Organization

P.O. Box 588

Mayfield, KY 42066

Phone: 270-247-7171

Fax: 270-252-6110

E-mail: henry.hodges@mail.state.ky.us

Robert Hoover

President

University of Idaho

Administration Building

Room 105

Moscow, ID 83844-3151

Phone: 208-885-6365

Fax: 208-885-6558

E-mail: hoover@uidaho.edu

Darryl Howe

Manager, Employee Relations, HR 201

Argonne National Laboratory

9700 South Cass Avenue

Argonne, IL 60439-4803

Phone: 630-252-3434

Fax: 630-252-3014

E-mail: dhowe@anl.gov

Walter S. Howes

Director

Contract Reform and Privatization Project

Office (PC-1)

Room 6F-055/FORS
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

65

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-0800

Fax: 202-586-1025

E-mail: 

Henry Huffman

Project Director

Operations Management International, Inc.

2010 Highway 58

Suite 4101

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Phone: 423-241-0727

Fax: 423-241-0734

E-mail: hhuffman@ch2m.com

James Jackson

Manager

Human Resources/Labor/Training and

Admin.Services

Babcock and Wilcox of Ohio

1 Mound Avenue

Miamisburg, OH 45343-3030

Phone: 937-865-5584

Fax: 937-865-3099

E-mail: jackjel@doe-md.gov

Sheria Johnson

HR Associate

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

P.O. Box 2008

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Phone: 423-241-1704

Fax: 423-241-1704

E-mail: wnt@ornl.gov

Gary Jones

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education

(ORISE)

U.S. Department of Energy

 Room 6G-069/FORS (WT-1)

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-0473

Fax: 202-586-1540

E-mail: 

Robert Kaneshiro

President

International Association of Machinists and

Aerospace Workers

76 Pageant Street

Belen, NM 87002

Phone: 505-844-7081

Fax: 505-844-8727

E-mail: rhkane@sandia.gov

Almira Kennedy

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

WT-1, Room 6G-030

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-7783

Fax: 202-586-8403

E-mail: 

Jim H. Key

Safety & Health Representative

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical & Energy

Workers International Union

P O Box 9503

Paducah, KY 42002

Phone: 502-441-6576

Fax: 502-441-6024

E-mail: njnkey@hcis.net

Mike Keyes

President

International Guards Union of America

Local Union No. 14

P O Box 538704

MS-22
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

66

Cincinnati, OH 45253-8704

Phone: 513-648-5614

Fax: 513-648-3601

E-mail: 

Seth Kirshenberg

Executive Director

Energy Communities Alliance

1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: 202-828-2317

Fax: 202-828-2488

E-mail: sethk@energyca.org

Richard Kiy

Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary

Office of Environment, Safety and Health

Room 7A-097

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-0307

Fax: 202-586-6010

E-mail: richard.kiy@eh.doe.gov

Art Kleinrath

Miamisburg Environmental Management

Project

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box 66

Miamisburg, OH 45353-0232

Phone: 937-865-3597

Fax: 937-865-4219

E-mail: 

Brent Knowles

Human Resources Specialist

Mason & Hanger Corporation

Bldg. 16-12

P O Box 30020

Amarillo, TX 79120-0020

Phone: 806-477-5860

Fax: 806-477-7806

E-mail: bknowles@pantex.com

Roy Korkalo

President

Livingston Rebuild Center Northwest, Inc.

Post Office Box 992

Livingston, MT 59047

Phone: 406-222-4208

Fax: 406-222-7679

E-mail: rkorkalo@lrcx.com

Jeanette Langford

Staffing Manager

United States Enrichment Corp. (USEC)

Post Office Box 628

Piketon, OH 45661

Phone: 740-897-4542

Fax: 740-897-2984

E-mail: langfordj@ports.usec.com

Barry R. Lawson

President

Barry Lawson Associates

Old Cemetery Road

P O Box 26

Peacham, VT 05862-0026

Phone: 802-592-3949

Fax: 802-592-3950

E-mail: lawson@helicon.net

David A. Lester

Director

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education

Post Office Box 117

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Phone: 423-576-3304

Fax: 423-576-3646

E-mail: lester@orav.gov
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

67

David A. Lewis

Research Associate

Rutgers University

33 Livingston Avenue, Suite 500

New Brunswick, NJ 08901

Phone: 732-932-4587

Fax: 732-932-4591

E-mail: dalewis@eden.rutgers.edu

Sheila K. Little

Vice President

Business and Community Affairs

Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc.

Post Office Box 1000

H8-63

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-376-9315

Fax: 509-372-2454

E-mail: sheila_k_little@rl.gov

Victor D. Lovato

Chief Steward

Metal Trades Council

1030 San Pedro N E

Albuquerque, NM 87110

Phone: 505-268-3242

Fax: 505-265-7394

E-mail: 

Carol Lyons

Rocky Flats Coordinator

City of Arvada

Post Office Box 8101

Arvada, CO 80001-8101

Phone: 303-421-2550

Fax: 303-431-3911

E-mail: CLyons@ci.Arvada.CO.US

Ed Manning

Construction Manager, Operations and

Services

Bechtel Savannah River, Inc.

Building 704-N

Aiken, SC 29808

Phone: 803-557-4084

Fax: 803-557-4704

E-mail: edward.manning@srs.gov

Patricia J. Marx

Chief Operating Officer

Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute

Post Office Box 5890

Albuquerque, NM 87108

Phone: 505-845-1075

Fax: 505-845-1198

E-mail: aryburn@lrri.org

John J. McAuliffe

Project Manager, Labor Relations

Sandia National Laboratories

MS 1025

P O Box 5800

Albuquerque, NM 87185-1025

Phone: 505-844-9260

Fax: 505-844-8816

E-mail: jjmcaul@saudia.gov

Eugene P. McConville

International President

International Union, United Plant Guard

Workers of America

25510 Kelly Road

Roseville, MI 48066

Phone: 810-772-7250

Fax: 810-772-9644

E-mail: 

Joyce L. McDonald

Staffing Manager

Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies

Company

P O Box 1625
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

68

Idaho Falls, ID 83415-3127

Phone: 208-526-2070

Fax: 208-526-0025

E-mail: mlj@inel.gov

Neal McGregor

Security Officer (President, UPGWA, Local

#251)

AlliedSignal Inc. FM&T

Department D/132, BQ51

P O Box 419159

Kansas City, MO 64141-6159

Phone: 816-997-3601

Fax: 816-997-7281

E-mail: 

Ed Mee

Vice President

Atomic Trades and Labor Council

P.O. Box 2008

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Phone: 423-574-4137

Fax: 423-574-6673

E-mail: mee@ornl.gov

John F. Meese

President

Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO

AFL-CIO Building

1925 K Street, NW, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20006-4189

Phone: 202-293-3812

Fax: 202-293-4287

E-mail: 

John T. Merwin

Workforce Restructuring Manager

Fluor Daniel Fernald

P.O. Box 538704

Cincinnati, OH 45013-9402

Phone: 513-648-6442

Fax: 513-648-6905

E-mail: john_merwin@fernald.gov

Lynn L. Miller

Senior Labor Attorney

Argonne National Laboratory

9700 S. Cass Avenue

OTD/Legal 201

Argonne, IL 60439

Phone: 630-252-3041

Fax: 630-252-5366

E-mail: LLMiller@anl.gov

Richard Miller

Policy Analyst

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy

Workers

International Union

2090 Northampton Street

Holyoke, MA 01040

Phone: 202-637-0400

Fax: 202-637-2977

E-mail: rickyudana@aol.com

Margot Mininni

Senior Advisor

Nuclear Cities Initiative

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-8690

Fax: 202-586-6124

E-mail: 

Jack Monrean

Manager, Labor Relations

Bechtel Hanford, Inc.

3350 George Washington Way, MSIN H0-08

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-375-4683

Fax: 509-372-9417
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

69

E-mail: jrmonrea@bhi-erc.com

Richard E. Nash

Executive & Finance Committee Member

Paducah Area Community Reuse Organization

P.O. Box 36

Calvert City, KY 42029

Phone: 270-395-7138

Fax: 270-395-5554

E-mail: 

David M. Navarro

Vice President

United Steelworkers of America

Local Union 8031

7850 Yates Street

Westminster, CO 80030

Phone: 303-966-6871

Fax: 303-427-3382

E-mail: DavNavarro@aol.com

Brian Nickel

Project Manager

Environmental Protection Agency - Ohio

401 East Fifth Street

Dayton, OH 45402

Phone: 937-285-6468

Fax: 937-285-6404

E-mail: 

Patrick Noone

Management Analyst

EM-73

U. S. Department of Energy

19901 Germantown Road

Germantown, MD 20874-1290

Phone: 301-903-2870

Fax: 301-903-2202

E-mail: noone@em.doe.gov

Robert V. Nord

Subcontract Labor Relations Manager

Bechtel Savannah River, Inc. (BSRI)

704-N Aiken, SC 29808

Aiken, SC 29808

Phone: 706-855-0092

Fax: 803-557-4319

E-mail: robert.nord@srs.gov

Melanie Norton

Account Executive

Magellan Behavioral Health

320 North Cedar Bluff Road

Suite 330

Knoxville, TN 37923

Phone: 423/690-0068

Fax: 423/690-0257

E-mail: msnorton@compuserve.com

Patty Parizzi

Office of Worker and Community Transition

(WT-1) Room 6G-030/ FORS

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-7550

Fax: 202-586-8403

E-mail: 

Eric Isaiah Parker

Committeeman

PACE

5007 Ballard Drive

Dayton, OH 45418

Phone: 937-263-1470

Fax: 

E-mail: PARKER@DOE-MD.GOV

Dennis Pennington

Union - PACE

Operations Management International, Inc.

2010 Highway 58

Suite 4101
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

70

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Phone: 423-241-0729

Fax: 423-241-0734

E-mail: 

Robert C. Perko

Labor Relations Manager

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

P O Box 808, MS L-708

Livermore, CA 94550

Phone: 510-422-9501

Fax: 510-423-5665

E-mail: perko@llnl.gov

Lester (Tony) A. Perry

Director of Business Development

ORAU/ORISE

P.O. Box 117

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117

Phone: 423-576-3304

Fax: 423-576-3643

E-mail: 

Clayton L. Plemmons

International Representative

Laborers International Union of

North America

5845 Live Oak Parkway, Suite B-1

Norcross, GA 30093-1738

Phone: 770-446-1502

Fax: 770-446-6970

E-mail: 

Steven L. Porter

Manager, Legal Department

Battelle - Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory

P.O. Box 999, K1-67

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-372-4131

Fax: 509-375-2592

E-mail: sl_porter@pnl.gov

Herman Potter

Safety Representative

PACE/OCAW

Local 5-689

P.O. Box 467

Piketon, OH 45661

Phone: 740-289-2405

Fax: 740-289-2126

E-mail: PACEPORT@ZOOMNET.NET

Barbara Powers

Contractor Industrial Relations Specialist

Rocky Flats Field Office

U.S. Department of Energy

10808 Highway 93, Unit A

Golden, CO 80403-8200

Phone: 303-966-3317

Fax: 303-966-7447

E-mail: barbara.powers@rfets.gov

Geoffrey Quinn

Field Coordinator

Northern California Teamsters

Apprenticeship Training

Post Office Box 1404

Rancho Murieta, CA 95683

Phone: 916-354-2122

Fax: 919-354-2234

E-mail: 

John L. Rice

Director, Human Resources

Allied Singal FM&T

Federal Manufacturing & Technologies

P.O. Box 419159

Kansas City, MO 64141

Phone: 816-997-3251

Fax: 816-997-7016

E-mail: jrice@kcp.com
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

71

Harry A. Richardson

Laborers' International Union of N.A.

Local 265

3457 Montgomery Road

Cincinnati, OH 45207

Phone: 513-221-5260

Fax: 513-221-5573

E-mail: 

Thomas P. Richardson

Industrial Relations Specialist

U.S. Department of Energy

Oak Ridge Operations Office, AD-441

200 Administration Road

P.O. Box 2001

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8791

Phone: 423-576-0663

Fax: 423-576-6964

E-mail: RichardsonTP@ORO.DOE.GOV

Teresa Riggs

Benefits Administration Manager

Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC

Post Office Box 4699

Highway 58, Gallaher Road

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-7298

Phone: 423-241-1351

Fax: 423-241-0214

E-mail: riggsth@bechteljacobs.org

Bart Roberts

SPO - Vice President

IGAN

8736 Potonza

Las Vegas, NV 

Phone: 702-252-9256

Fax: 

E-mail: 

Mike M. Robinson

Manager, Employee Relations Department

Wackenhut Services Inc

Savannah River Site

P O Box W, MS 708-1B

Aiken, SC 29802

Phone: 803-952-7600

Fax: 803-952-9042

E-mail: 

Marty Ross

Committeeman

PACE International Union

Post Office Box 467

Piketon, OH 45661

Phone: 740-289-2405

Fax: 740-289-2405

E-mail: PACEPORT@ZOOMNET.NET

Mell Roy

Chief Counsel

Rocky Flats Field Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P O Box 926 / B460

Golden, CO 80402-0928

Phone: 303-966-2026

Fax: 303-966-3717

E-mail: mell.roy@rfets.gov

Sharon D. Ruehl

Manager, Contractor Workforce Programs

U.S. Department of Energy

Richland Operations Office

Post Office Box 550, A6-3L

825 Jadwin, Room 605B

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-376-7221

Fax: 509-376-8142

E-mail: sharon_d_ruehl@rl.gov

Gloria Ruiz

Industrial Relations Assistant

Albuquerque Operations Office
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

72

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box 5400

Albuquerque, NM 87185

Phone: 505-845-6668

Fax: 505-845-4715

E-mail: gruiz@doeal.gov

Daniel J. Saiz

Industrial Relations Specialist

U.S. Department of Energy

Albuquerque Operations Office

Post Office Box 5400

Albuquerque, NM 87116

Phone: 505-845-5340

Fax: 505-845-4715

E-mail: dsaiz@doeal.gov

Elmer Salazar

Project Leader

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Mail Stop C333

Los Alamos, NM 87545

Phone: 505-667-5720

Fax: 505-665-3125

E-mail: elmers@lanl.gov

Robert L. San Martin

Manager

U.S. Department of Energy

Chicago Operations Office

9800 South Cass Avenue

Argonne, IL 60439

Phone: 630-252-2110

Fax: 630-252-9473

E-mail: 

Toni M. Sawyer

Human Resources Specialist

West Valley Nuclear Services Co., Inc.

10282 Rock Springs Road

P.O. Box 191

West Valley, NY 14171-0191

Phone: 716-942-4949

Fax: 716-942-4096

E-mail: sawyert@wv.doe.gov

Carl (Bubba) Scarbrough

President

Atomic Trades and Labor Council

Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc

P.O. Box 4068

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-4068

Phone: 423-574-8434

Fax: 423-576-7082

E-mail: cls@ornl.gov

Tom Schaffer

President

Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council

(HAMTC)

P.O. Box 898

Richland, WA 99352-2187

Phone: 509-373-0326

Fax: 509-943-5245

E-mail: 

Bill Sena

Vice President, Metal Trades Council, AFLCIO

Atomic Projects and Production workers

1030 San Pedro NE

Albuquerque, NM 87110

Phone: 505-268-3242

Fax: 505-266-4430

E-mail: 

Roger Shomers

State Director

Rocky Mountain Regional Council of

Carpenters

5155 E 39th Avenue

Denver, CO 80207-1108
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

73

Phone: 303-355-8774

Fax: 303-355-1092

E-mail: 

Russ Showers

Security Specialist

Policy, Standards and Analysis Division

U.S. Department of Energy

19901 Germantown Road

Germantown, MD 20874

Phone: 301-903-5122

Fax: 301-903-8853

E-mail: 

Bernadine Sikorski

Human Resources Director

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Blvd.

Building 27

Golden, CO 80401

Phone: 303-384-7581

Fax: 303-384-7599

E-mail: bernie_sikorski@nrel.gov

Cherie Smith

HR Specialist

Richland Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

Post Office Box 1000, HG2-16

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-372-8231

Fax: 509-372-1010

E-mail: Cherie_H_Smith@rl.gov

Laurel Smith

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

(WT-1) Room 6F-029/ FORS

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-4091

Fax: 202-586-1540

E-mail: laurel.smith@hq.doe.gov

Randy Staudacher

Director

Office of Economic Transition

Fluor Daniel Hanford

P.O. Box 1000, H8-64

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-372-2360

Fax: 509-378-2454

E-mail: randall_j_staudacher@rl.gov

Vickie Stephens

Union Steward

IAMAW

AlliedSignal Federal Management &

Technologies

Post Office Box 419159

Kansas City, MO 64141-6159

Phone: 816-997-4077

Fax: 816-997-7016

E-mail: vstephens@kcp.com

Steve Stoner

Partner

Arthur Andersen

33 West Monroe

Chicago, IL 60603

Phone: 312-507-4480

Fax: 312-507-5311

E-mail: 

Lowell "Pete" Strader

International Representative - Legislative

Department

PACE International Union

2722 Merrilee Dirve, Suite 250

Fairfax, VA 22031

Phone: 703-876-9300

Fax: 703-876-8952

E-mail: pacepetes@aol.com
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

74

Linda H. Strickland

Labor Relations Manager

Bechtel Savannah River, Inc.

(BSRI)

SRS704-N R-62

Aiken, SC 29801

Phone: 803-557-5395

Fax: 803-557-4707

E-mail: linda.strickland@srs.gov

Jean Stucky

Attorney-Advisor

Office of General Counsel

U.S. Department of Energy

GC-51/ Room 6A-113

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-6947

Fax: 202-586-7373

E-mail: 

Stanley R. Sulak

Director for Performance Audits and

Administration

Inspector General, IG-33

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-1801

Fax: 202-586-0099

E-mail: Stanley.Sulak@hq.doe.gov

Deborah Sullivan

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

(WT-1) Room 6G-059/ FORS

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-0452

Fax: 202-586-1540

E-mail: deborah.sullivan@hq.doe.gov

Deborah H. Sumner

Skills Campus Manager

Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc

P O Box 2009, MS - 8091 Bld. 9737

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8084

Phone: 423-241-3111

Fax: 423-241-3113

E-mail: sumnerdh@ornl.gov

Deborah Swichkow

Deputy Director

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

(WT-1) Room 6G-030/ FORS

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-0876

Fax: 202-586-8403

E-mail: deborah.swichkow@hq.doe.gov

Robert G. Tabor

Trustee

Fernald Community Reuse Organization

214 Citation Circle

Harrison, OH 45030

Phone: 513-648-5077

Fax: 513-648-5527

E-mail: robert.tabor@fernald.gov

Sue Taylor Barfield

Director, SCC Metro Center

Shawnee Community College

1003 Catherine Street

Metropolis, IL 62960

Phone: 618-524-3003

Fax: 618-524-3004

E-mail: sueb@shawnee.cc.il.us

Ken Tindall

Acting Chief, Remedial Response Branch 1

Federal Facilities Section
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

75

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

Phone: 312-886-9895

Fax: 312-353-5541

E-mail: 

Terry Tracy

General Engineer

Office of Environmental Management 

(EM-73)

U.S. Department of Energy

Room 1018/ Cloverleaf

19901 Germantown Road

Germantown, MD 20874-1290

Phone: 301-903-2173

Fax: 301-903-2202

E-mail: terrance.tracy@em.doe.gov

William A. Truex

Group Leader, Industrial Personnel Group

Oak Ridge Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P O Box 2001, M/S - AD 441

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8791

Phone: 423-576-0662

Fax: 423-576-6964

E-mail: truexwa@oro.doe.gov

Patricia Tucker

President

Joint Utilization Commission of Grand

Junction, CO

518 28 Road Suite A207

Grand Juntion, CO 81501

Phone: 970-243-1242

Fax: 970-243-1379

E-mail: ptucker@gjct.net

Kay Van Vreede

Head of Laboratory Services

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

University Research Association, Inc.

P.O. Box 500

Batavia, IL 60510

Phone: 630-840-3396

Fax: 630-840-2306

E-mail: vanvreede@fnal.gov

Scott VanLente

Attorney

Idaho Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

850 Energy Drive

Idaho Falls, ID 83401

Phone: 208-526-0026

Fax: 208-526-7632

E-mail: 

Oba Vincent

Deputy Director

Miamisburg Environmental Management

Project

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box 66

Miamisburg, OH 45353-0232

Phone: 937-865-3278

Fax: 937-865-4489

E-mail: 

Jay Vivari

Public Affairs Specialist

Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental

Affairs, (CI-10)

U.S. Department of Energy

Room 8G-048/ FORS

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-5143

Fax: 202-586-0539

E-mail: jay.vivari@hq.doe.gov
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

76

Cathy Wallace

Workforce Restructuring Coordinator

Fluor Daniel Fernald

175 Tri-County Parkway

Cincinnati, OH 45246

Phone: 513-648-6269

Fax: 513-648-6905

E-mail: Cathy_Wallace@Fernald.gov

Gerald D. Watson

Personnel Relations Dept. Superintendent

Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corp

P.O. Box 2008

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Phone: 423-574-4401

Fax: 423-241-1807

E-mail: gyn@ornl.gov

Jim Watts

President

Paper, Allied Industrial, Chemical, Energy

Workers International Union (PACE)

Local 8-369

Post Office Box 524

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-943-8441

Fax: 509-943-8443

E-mail: OCAW1369@Prodigy.net

Stephanie F. Weakley

Team Leader, Contractor Human Resource

Management

Office of Procurement and Assistance

Management, MA-53

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-4156

Fax: 202-586-9016

E-mail: Stephanie.Weakley@hq.doe.gov

Brian Weber

Manager, Labor Relations

Wackenhut Services Inc.

Savannah River Site

P.O. Drawer W

Aiken, SC 29802

Phone: 803-952-7997

Fax: 803-952-9042

E-mail: b.weber@srs.gov

Howard A. Weitzman

National RE/sources

485 West Putnam Avenue

Greenwich, CT 06830

Phone: 203-661-0055

Fax: 203-661-8071

E-mail: 

Steve West

General Manager, Environmental Service

Group

ADF Corporation

1020 Commerce Park Drive

Suite K

Oak Ridge, TN 

Phone: 423-483-0963

Fax: 423-483-4591

E-mail: swest@adfcorp.com

Dorothy Whitt

Director, Personnel Division

Pittsburgh Naval Reactors Office

U S Department of Energy

P O Box 109

West Mifflin, PA 15122-0109

Phone: 412-476-7206

Fax: 412-476-7310

E-mail: whittdl@bettis.gov

Jerry Wienberg

Contractor Industrial Relations Specialist
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

77

Kansas City Area Office

U S Department of Energy

P O Box 410202

Kansas City, MO 64141-0202

Phone: 816-997-3912

Fax: 816-997-5059

E-mail: jwienberg@kcp.com

Joe W. Wiley

Director, Management and Economic

Transition

Richland Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P O Box 550

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-372-4005

Fax: 509-372-4549

E-mail: joe_w_wiley@rl.gov

Clark D. Wilkinson

Senior Finance and Administration Director

MK-Ferguson of Oak Ridge Company

P.O. Box 2011

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Phone: 423-574-2840

Fax: 423-574-2844

E-mail: wilkinsoncd@ornl.gov

Martin Willhite

Project Manager

Mason and Hanger Corporation

Pantex Plant

P.O. Box 30020

Amarillo, TX 79120-0020

Phone: 806-477-3712

Fax: 806-477-5447

E-mail: mwillhit@pantex.com

Charles F. Williams

President

United Plant Guard Workers of America 

Local 146

Babcox and Wilcox of Ohio

321 Whispering Drive

Trotwood, OH 45426

Phone: 937-865-3118

Fax: 937-865-4683

E-mail: 

Gwendolyn W. Williams

Manager, Internal Reassignment

Westinghouse Savannah River Co.

P.O. Box 616, Bldg. 730-1B

Aiken, SC 29808

Phone: 803-952-9467

Fax: 803-952-9583

E-mail: 

Mary G. Wilson

President

Transitions to Tomorrow, Inc.

6605 Uptown Boulevard NE, Suite 390

Albuquerque, NM 87110

Phone: 505-878-0430

Fax: 505-889-8086

E-mail: T3wilson@aol.com

Carol J. Wilson

Contractor Industrial Relations Specialist

Ohio Field Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box 3020

Miamisburg, OH 45343-3020

Phone: 937-865-3871

Fax: 937-865-3843

E-mail: carol.wilson@ohio.doe.gov

Jim Worthington

Nuclear and Hazardous Materials Specialist

Sheet Metal Workers' International

Association

30330 80th Avenue N W
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

78

Stanwood, WA 98292

Phone: 360-629-4348

Fax: 360-629-4086

E-mail: 

Samuel Wyse

Contractor Human Resources Branch

Savannah River Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box A

Aiken, SC 29802

Phone: 803-725-1647

Fax: 803-725-8573

E-mail: samuel.wyse@srs.gov

Lawrence T. Young

President

Community Reuse Organization of East

Tennessee

107 Lea Way

P.O. Box 2110

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-2110

Phone: 423-482-1336

Fax: 423-482-6126

E-mail: younglt@oro.doe.gov
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

79

APPENDIX B

AGENDA

U. S. Department of Energy

Office of Worker and Community Transition

NATIONAL STAKEHOLDER’S WORKSHOP

Chicago Marriott Downtown

Chicago, Illinois

WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1999

10:00 - 5:00 p.m. Exhibit Registration Foyer, 5th Floor

2:00 - 5:00 p.m. Workshop Registration Foyer, 5th Floor

Related Meetings

8:00 - 5:00 p.m. Community Reuse Organizations Los Angeles Room

5

th Floor

8:00 - 3:00 p.m. DOE Industrial Relations Branch Chiefs Miami Room, 5th Floor

1:00 - 5:00 p.m. Labor Organizations Salon C, 5th Floor

3:00 - 5:00 p.m. DOE Employee Session Salon F - H, 5th Floor

THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1999

7:00 - 8:00 a.m. Exhibit Registration and Set-up Foyer, 7th Floor

7:30 - 8:30 a.m. Workshop Registration Foyer, 7th Floor

8:30 - 10:00 a.m. Plenary Sessions

8:30 - 8:45 a.m. Welcome and Introductions Salon II, 7th Floor 

 Speaker: Robert San Martin, Manager, Chicago Operations Office

8:45 - 10:00 a.m. Reuse and Conversion Salon II, 7th Floor

Moderator: Barry Lawson, Lawson and Associates

Speakers: Howard Weitzman, National RE/sources

 Jim Hall, Oak Ridge Operations Office

 Ken Tindall, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 Richard Kiy, Office of Environment, Safety and Health
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

80

This plenary session will discuss the various approaches and identify emerging

issues associated with the Department’s reindustrialization activities at Mound,

Hanford and Oak Ridge. Reuse and conversion challenges faced by the

Environmental Protection Agency and the private sector will also be discussed.

10:00 - 10:30 a.m. Break

10:30 - 12:00 noon Group Discussions - Concurrent Session 1

1A. Leasing Process Salon II, 7th Floor

Moderator: Deborah Swichkow, Office of Worker and Community Transition

Speakers: Tim Fischer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 Brian Nickel, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

 Art Kleinrath, Miamisburg Environmental Management Project

 Terry Tracy, Office of Environmental Management

 Oba Vincent, Miamisburg Environmental Management Project

 Mike Church, Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers

This session will discuss the critical steps for successful DOE leasing including

the roles and responsibilities of the field office, the relationships between the

field and headquarters, the State, OSHA, and EPA, and involvement by

members of the public.

1B. Understanding Business Location Decisions Salon F-H, 5th Floor

Moderator: Bob Baney, Office of Worker and Community Transition

Speakers: Steve Stoner, Arthur Andersen

 Roy Korkalo, Livingston Rebuild Center

 Ed Burgess, South Carolina Department of Commerce

 Jim Watts, Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers 

This session will discuss the elements of business relocation decisions. 

Representatives from public, private and labor sectors will provide their

perspectives.

12:00 - 1:15 p.m. Lunch (on your own)

1:15 -3:00 p.m. Plenary Sessions

1:15 - 2:00 p.m. Program Status/Questions and Answers Salon II, 7th Floor

Speaker: Bob DeGrasse, Director, Office of Worker and Community Transition

2:00 - 3:00 p.m . Maintaining United States Nuclear Weapons Expertise Salon II 7th

Floor

Moderator: Barry Lawson, Lawson and Associates 

Speaker: Robert A. Hoover, President, University of Idaho

. 
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

81

Dr. Hoover served on the Commission on Maintaining United States Nuclear

Weapons Expertise chaired by Admiral H.G. Chiles which was tasked by the

Congress to “develop a plan for recruiting and retaining within the Department

of Energy nuclear weapons complex such scientific, engineering and technical

personnel..in order to permit the Department to maintain over the long-term a

safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile without engaging in underground

nuclear testing.” Dr. Hoover will discuss findings and recommendations made

by the Commission to address challenges in maintaining a robust, capable work

force to meet the stockpile stewardship.

3:00 - 3:30 p.m . Break

3:30 - 5:00 p.m. Group Discussions - Concurrent Session 2

2A. Labor Policy for Privatization Salon II, 7th Floor

Moderator: Barry Lawson, Lawson and Associates

Speakers: Walter Howes, Contract Reform and Privatization Project Office

 Bob Alvarez, Office of the Secretary, Department of Energy

 John Meese, Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO

 Richard Miller, Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers

 Mary Ellen Boyd, Building and Construction Trades Department, 

 AFL-CIO

This session will discuss policy options for work force and labor relations issues

related to changes in contracting mechanisms including privatization and

outsourcing. The Department is seeking to establish policies to create a

cooperative rather than confrontational labor-management environment for

dealing with potential changes in contracting mechanisms. 

2B. Training and Re-skilling the Work Force Salon F-H, 5th Floor

Moderator: Marilyn Balcombe, ORISE

Speakers: Virginia Geer, United Auto Workers/General Motors Center for Human

 Resources

 John Clabaugh, AlliedSignal, Inc., Kansas City

 Vickie Stephens, IAMAW

 

This session will discuss challenges in managing federal and contractor training

programs to assure that they are part of strategic plans to meet operational

requirements and are conducted in a cost-effective manner. The session will

particularly focus on the role that training can play in addressing fluctuations in

skills requirements with the existing work force.

6:00 - 8:00 p.m. Reception Salon D, 5th Floor

FRIDAY, MAY 28, 1999

8:30 - 10:00 a.m. Plenary Session
Seventh National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Chicago, Illinois - May 27-28, 1999 

82

Early Site Closures Salon F-H, 5th Floor

Moderator: G. Leah Dever, Ohio Field Office

Speakers: John Bradburne, Fluor Daniel Fernald

 Gene Branham, Fernald Atomic Trades and Labor Council

 Ann Bormolini, Kaiser-Hill Company, Rocky Flats

 Jerry Harden, United Steelworkers of America

Representatives from the Mound Plant, Fernald and Rocky Flats will share their

on-going experiences in the accelerated closure of the site. It will include

discussions of cross-cutting issues including work force planning, skills mix,

and training for future employment opportunities both inside and outside DOE. 

This challenge affects DOE, contractors, work force/labor, and the community

and will require innovative and creative solutions.

10:00 - 10:30 a.m. Break

10:30 - 12:00 noon Group Discussions - Concurrent Session 3

3A. Long-Range Manpower Planning Challenges Salon F-H, 5th Floor

Moderator: Marilyn Balcombe, ORISE

Speakers: Charles Emery, Sandia National Laboratory

 Carl Scarbrough, Atomic Trades and Labor Council

 Susan Alexander, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems 

This session will discuss approaches to assure the ability to recruit and retain a

quality work force with the necessary skills and experience to meet developing

Departmental missions. A particular focus will be on responding to the

recommendations of the Chiles Report, and on ways to best meet fluctuating

work skill requirements.

3B. Pension and Benefits Portability Avenue Ballroom

 4

th Floor

Moderator: Barry Lawson, Lawson and Associates 

Speakers: Terry Freese, Office of Worker and Community Transition

 Teresa Riggs, Bechtel Jacobs, Oak Ridge

 Sharon Ruehl, Richland Operations Office

 Eugene McConville, UPGWA

 Michael Cleghorn, NCSI 

 

Pension and benefits portability is a critical issue in implementing changes in

contracting mechanisms at DOE facilities. This session will identify characteristics of a

variety of approaches to this issue, discuss two recent experiences for dealing with this

issue at DOE sites, and discuss proposals for addressing cross-site issues.