Office of Worker and Community Transition

United States Department of Energy

Sixth

National

Stakeholder

Workshop

Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia

June 17-18, 1998
 March 5, 1999

To June 1998 Workshop Participants:

The Department of Energy’s Office of Worker and Community Transition held its Sixth National

Stakeholder Workshop on June 17-18, 1998, in Alexandria, Virginia. There were approximately

300 people in attendance.

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 format for this Workshop

focused on discussions of best practices and lessons learned in the process of obtaining an

effective and efficient work force.

The June 1998 Workshop also addressed a wide range of work force restructuring and

community transition issues critical to the future success of the Department. A Workshop

Summary Report is enclosed in this mailing for your information.

If you have any questions concerning the enclosed document, please contact Laurel Smith at

(202) 586-4091. Again, thank you for your time and support of our activities in the mutual

interest of resolving complex work force and community transition issues. I look forward to

seeing you at our next National Stakeholder Workshop in Chicago, Illinois on May 27-28, 1999.

Sincerely,

Robert W. DeGrasse, Jr.

Director, Office of Worker

 and Community Transition

Enclosure
SIXTH 

NATIONAL STAKEHOLDER 

WORKSHOP

SUMMARY REPORT

Alexandria, Virginia

June 17-18, 1998

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

March 1999
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1998

INTRODUCTION ................................................... iii

PLENARY SESSIONS .......................................... iii

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION SESSIONS ......................... v

OPENING PLENARY SESSION - WELCOME, INTRODUCTION 

AND CONFERENCE OBJECTIVES ............................... 1

BUILDING A BETTER LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONSHIP .... 2

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS .................................... 9

REMARKS FROM U.S. SECRETARY OF ENERGY, FEDERICO PEÑA ..... 10

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: .................................. 14

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS - CONCURRENT SESSION 1

1A. IMPACT OF WORK FORCE RESTRUCTURING ON REMAINING 

AND TRANSITIONING EMPLOYEES ............................ 15

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: ............................ 20

1B. INTEGRATED SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .............. 20

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ............................. 23

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS - CONCURRENT SESSION 2 

2A. DEPARTMENT’S PRIVATIZATION PROGRAM: CURRENT 

STATUS ..................................................... 23

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ............................. 25

 2B. LESSONS-LEARNED IN COMMUNITY TRANSITION ACTIVITIES . . 29

 2C. CONSOLIDATED CONTRACT FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS

INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX ...................................... 31

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ............................. 33
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 ii

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1998

PLENARY SESSION - MEETING TOMORROW’S CHALLENGES (EARLY

SITE CLOSURES) ............................................. 34

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ............................. 38

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS - CONCURRENT SESSION 3 

3A. PLANNING GUIDANCE FOR CONTRACTOR WORK FORCE

RESTRUCTURING ............................................ 42

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ............................. 45

3B. ASSET DISPOSITION PILOT PROJECTS ........................ 47

LUNCH PLENARY PRESENTATION - HARNESSING THE CONTRACTOR

PROCESS TO ENCOURAGE LOCAL GROWTH ................... 52

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS - CONCURRENT SESSION 4 

4A. LABOR MANAGEMENT FORUM ............................... 55

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: ............................ 58

4B. COMMUNITY TRANSITION: PROPERTY POLICY ................ 58

BRITISH EXPERIENCE IN ECONOMIC CONVERSION .................. 61

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ................................... 63

APPENDIX A - FINAL PARTICIPANTS LIST ................................. 64

APPENDIX B - WORKSHOP AGENDA ...................................... 91
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 iii

SIXTH NATIONAL STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP

SUMMARY REPORT

June 17-18, 1998

Alexandria, Virginia

INTRODUCTION

On June 17-18, 1998, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Worker and Community

Transition convened its sixth National Stakeholder Workshop at the Ramada Plaza Hotel Old

Town in Alexandria, Virginia. Approximately 325 stakeholders attended representing DOE

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

education and community interest groups. The meeting addressed the progress made on the

issues and challenges identified at the last stakeholder's meeting in Oakland, California on April 9-

11, 1997. Also discussed were the full range of the Department's work force issues and creative

solutions to the inherent challenges of simultaneously implementing the Department's post ColdWar mission, work force restructuring guidance, contract reform objectives, asset disposition,

performance-based management requirements, and business process improvement policies. 

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:

• Welcome and Introductions;

• Opening Remarks;

• Building a Better Labor-management Relationship;

• Keynote Speech from Secretary of Energy Federico Peña;

• Meeting Tomorrow’s Challenges (Early Site Closures);

• Harnessing the Contracting Process to Encourage Local Growth; and,

• The British Experience in Economic Conversion.

Bob DeGrasse, the Director of the Office of Worker and Community Transition (Office), led the

welcome and introductions of the Opening Plenary session. He emphasized the significance of the

Workshop in shaping the Office’s agenda and activities for the future, and encouraged participants

to discuss their expectations and concerns. 
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 iv

Mr. DeGrassse then proceeded to give an overview of how the Office has made a direct

contribution to the Department’s mission. The overview began by commenting that the focus of

restructuring has changed: restructuring is increasingly driven by mission and business. The

number of separations has decreased while sites seek stability. Throughout the changes in work

force restructuring, Mr. DeGrasse noted, the Office mission remains the same — to mitigate

social and economic impacts of restructuring.

Ms. Lavonne Ritter, Commissioner of the Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service, followed

Mr. DeGrasse. Her presentation included an historical overview of dispute resolution along with

an overview of the Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service’s (FMCS) partnership philosophy.

She also gave a review of the programs and processes that are offered by FMCS. Ms. Ritter

began her remarks by recognizing the fact that the current culture for labor, management and

government is a busy and critical one and that there exists an opportunity to build a better and

more secure future for the benefit of all through sharing lessons-learned. This concept was woven

throughout her remarks.

Secretary of Energy Federico Peña followed Ms. Ritter. The Secretary’s remarks highlighted the

changes that have occurred in the last seven years since the end of the Cold War and how those

changes continue to affect the Department, its employees, its contractors, their employees and the

communities in which we perform our work. The Secretary also commended the Department for

how it has worked to make a difficult mission a success. He noted that the circumstances faced

today have required everyone to work very closely together and to depend on strong and effective

partnerships to allow the Department to complete its mission.

Since the beginning of this Administration, the Secretary noted, the Department has reduced its

management contractor work force by approximately 45,000 positions, nearly one third below

peak employment levels. The Worker and Community Transition program has helped achieve this

dramatic restructuring of the contractor work force while limiting involuntary separations. At the

same time, these changes have helped the Department realize more than $2.8 billion in annual

savings for a one-time investment of just under $800 million. The Worker and Community

Transition Program has also provided career transition and training assistance that has made it

easier for displaced workers to move to new careers outside the Department of Energy.

John Merwin of Fluor Daniel Fernald, led a Plenary Session on Meeting Tomorrow’s Challenges

(Early Site Closures). The focus of this session was the closure of the Mound Plant, in

Miamisburg, Ohio. The first speaker, Leah Dever, Manager of the Ohio Field Office, is

responsible for closure and environmental restoration of five nuclear facilities at Fernald, Mound,

Ashtabula, Columbus and the West Valley Demonstration Project. All sites are slated for closure

by the year 2005. Her presentation included a brief history of the Mound Plant. The next

speaker, Jim Powers, Acting Site Manager, Babcock & Wilcox of Ohio, Inc. (BWO), began
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998

v

working at Mound as part of the management team for the new contract. Mr. Powers

commented on plant closure from the contractor’s perspective. The next speaker, Gary Nolley,

OCAW, Local 7-4200, provided a brief overview of the Mound Plant closure from the workers’

perspective. Finally, Mayor Richard Church, City of Miamisburg, provided the community’s

perspective of site closure. 

Mr. Tom Garcia, Deputy Director for Institutional Development, Los Alamos National

Laboratory (LANL), spoke at a Lunch Plenary Session on Harnessing the Contracting Process to

Encourage Local Growth. This session reviewed economic development initiatives instituted by

the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Among the elements covered in this session were

a general background on LANL’s mission and role in the community; the laboratory’s economic

development program goals; the initiatives introduced to achieve those goals; some examples of

substantive results; and the impacts of these efforts on the regional community.

Mr. Tim Knowles, International Research & Graduate Centre, Westlakes Science & Technology

Park, Great Britain, gave a presentation on the British Experience in Economic Conversion. 

Some points he covered were that the British government does not have a role in the strategy for

restructuring as it does in the United States, and that there was an early community relationship

and a push for continued stakeholder involvement.

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION SESSIONS

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

workshop participants on a wide range of issues. The first session of the Wednesday, June 17,

1998 discussion groups included the following topics:

• Impact of Work Force Restructuring on Remaining and Transitioning Employees

• Integrated Safety Management Program

The second session focused on the following topics:

• Department’s Privatization Program: Current Status

• Lessons-learned in Community Transition Activities

• Consolidated Contract for the Nuclear Weapons Industrial Complex

The third session, held on Thursday, June 18, 1998, included the following topics:

• Planning Guidance for Contractor Work Force Restructuring

• Asset Disposition Pilot Projects
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 vi

The fourth and final session included the following topics:

• Labor-Management Forum

• Community Transition: Property Policy

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:

Laurel Smith

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20585-0110

Phone: 202-586-4091

Fax: 202-586-1540

E-Mail: laurel.smith@hq.doe.gov

In addition, you may download a PDF version of the report from the Office’s website at

www.wct.doe.gov.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 1

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1998

OPENING PLENARY SESSION

WELCOME, INTRODUCTION AND CONFERENCE OBJECTIVES

Speaker: Robert W. DeGrasse, Jr., Director, Office of Worker and Community

Transition, U.S. Department of Energy

Bob DeGrasse, Director of the Office of Worker and Community Transition (Office), welcomed

everyone to the conference and provided opening remarks. Recently, Congress has challenged the

existence of the Department and the Office. Mr. DeGrasse opened his remarks with an overview

of how the Office has made a direct contribution to the Department’s mission.

The overview began by commenting that the focus of restructuring has changed. Restructuring is

increasingly driven by mission and business. The number of separations has decreased while sites

seek stability. Throughout the changes in work force restructuring, the Office mission remains the

same — to mitigate social and economic impacts of restructuring.

Mr. DeGrasse noted that in this time of dramatic change, restructuring must be responsive to

business needs. To that end, the Office has revised its restructuring guidance which is available

for public review. He also noted that business objectives are driving the current work force

restructuring. Examples include the new Management and Integration (M&I) contract at Oak

Ridge; early closure activities at Rocky Flats, Mound and Fernald; and the Defense Program

Nuclear Weapons Production concept. The objective of the Office is to mesh business needs with

fair treatment of the work force.

In a discussion on community transition activities, Mr. DeGrasse noted that the Office has had

success with partnerships to reuse facilities and reduce federal costs, such as the Mound and

Pinellas property transfers. The Office is working to clarify policies and procedures for property

dispositions, such as departmental guidance and the EPA/DOE Joint Policy on Implementing the

Hall Amendment. The Office is also emphasizing the self-sufficiency of Community Reuse

Organizations. Mr. DeGrasse commented that community transition is a complicated area

bureaucratically, and that funding of community transition activities will not last forever. He also

stated that the monies used to date have been very successful in terms of jobs created.

In the area of labor relations, Mr. DeGrasse identified labor-management partnerships that had

positive results at: Nevada, Pantex, Mound and Fernald. Mr. DeGrasse also identified

privatization and outsourcing as current labor relations issues. He asserted that the fundamental

principle of the Office is to reach agreement on fair treatment of the work force. The Office has
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 2

prepared a draft Principles of Privatization and a Privatization Checklist which are currently

available for public comment. 

A discussion about the FY1999 budget for the Office, Mr. DeGrasse said that over the last few

years, the program has received a lot of attention from the U.S. Congress. He stated that

Congress believes the Department of Energy separation benefits are much more generous than

separation benefits provided by the Department of Defense and the private sector. 

Mr. DeGrasse continued that while the program does not need as much financial support as was

provided in the past, now is not the time to do away with the program. The program has

demonstrated its cost effectiveness in managing worker and community transition activities. On

another budgetary note, during FY 1998, Congress determined that the Office of Worker and

Community Transition will be the only source of funding for enhanced separation benefits and

economic assistance.

BUILDING A BETTER LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONSHIP

Speaker: Lavonne Ritter, Commissioner, Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service

Ms. Ritter began her remarks by recognizing the fact that the current culture for labor,

management and government is a busy and critical one. More so than ever; however, there exists

an opportunity to build a better and more secure future for the benefit of all through sharing

lessons-learned. She commented that her presentation today would give both an historical

overview of dispute resolution along with an overview of the Federal Mediation & Conciliation

Service’s (FMCS) partnership philosophy. She would also give a review of the programs and

processes that are offered by FMCS to assist in building labor-management relationships that can

indeed ensure a sustainable and profitable future at worksites in America and fulfill for

government agencies the goals of the National Performance Review–resulting in a government

that works better and costs less, and helps government, business and labor forge partnerships

equipped to face the future successfully.

 

Ms. Ritter also gave a brief introduction to the FMCS’s view on conflict and methodologies for

resolving it: how the parties choose to manage and resolve conflict in labor-management relations

on a day-to-day basis more often than not determines its success or failure in day-to-day business

accomplishments. An integrated approach to business and labor relations, Ms. Ritter said, is very

important to the process of growing in the future

Before beginning the body of her remarks, Ms. Ritter cited two individuals in the field of dispute

resolution whom she describes as “experts in the field” and to whom she attributes much of what

she is sharing about the history, philosophy and practical application of conflict resolution: Dr.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 3

John Stepp, formerly a Federal mediator, then Deputy Undersecretary for the Department of

Labor and currently with Restructuring Associates, Inc., and Dr. Jerome Barrett, also a former

Federal mediator, now a respected consultant and instructor in labor-management cooperative

relations and the “father” of the FMCS model for interest-based bargaining. 

According to Ms. Ritter, experts in the field of dispute resolution argue that all disputes are

resolved in one of three ways: by exerting power (one party imposing its will on another); by

exercising rights (often accomplished through contracts, laws, norms or practices); or by both

parties seeking ways to reconcile differences while still advancing their own interests. The history

of relations between nations provides examples of all three types of dispute resolution. The first

type, exercise of power, is illustrated by warfare, waged at great, often devastating cost to both

sides and frequently without reaching long-term solutions. The second type of resolution,

exercising rights, is a more civilized, efficient and effective method by which nations resolve

disputes. When such rights-based dispute resolution is substituted for a power-based resolution,

there is less cost, less damage to relationships and arguably improved results. The third type,

focusing on the common interests of both sides, is the most satisfying alternative. It improves

relationships and makes possible mutually-beneficial solutions. 

Extending these means of resolving disputes into the collective bargaining arena in our country,

Ms. Ritter noted, there exists an evolution in dispute resolution practices which mirrors in many

ways the history of relations between nations. Prior to 1935 and the passage of the Nation Labor

Relations Act (NLRA), the United States had no statutory policies to guide and direct labor

relations except in the Railroad Industry. Government allowed labor and management to

determine their own relationship and unions existed only when they convinced the employer that it

was less costly to recognize them and to bargain than to not do so. This time in history could be

characterized as a street fight: in the absence of a statutory framework, the power of the parties

determined the outcome of labor relations. 

The passage of the Wagner Act, NLRA took the fight out of the street and put it into the ring. 

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) became the referee with power to declare certain

tactics unfair. The preamble of the NLRA, in fact, states that the basic purpose of the law is to

provide a more equitable distribution of power among the parties. The policy itself provides a

“rights” basis for resolving disputes. This Act and the establishment of the War Labor Board

(which essentially banned strikes during World War II) and the parties experience with that during

the War, led them to conclude that rights were superior to power as a means of negotiating and

administering a labor agreement. Strike costs were often enormous with lasting damage to the

relationship. Thus began the system of grievance arbitration which is now an integral part of our

labor relations process. Reinforcing this rights-based approach, between 1945-1975, the U.S.

enjoyed a robust period of economic good fortune where it sold all that it produced and, in large

measure, dominated the world market for many essential goods and services. Stability in labor
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 4

relations became more important than labor costs. Cost increases could be quickly forwarded to

the customer by raising prices, but shut-downs resulted in lost revenue.

During this period, Ms. Ritter continued, both sides were too busy making money to get involved

in the rough and tumble of power-based bargaining. On occasion, strikes or lockouts did occur as

the result of miscalculations, political ambitions or non-economic issues where standards or norms

were non-existent. Life and death struggles over institutional dominance or survival were rare. 

Rights-based bargaining produced rights-based agreements. Labor contracts grew from a few

pages to hundreds of pages. Contract language was substituted for trust. Each side attempted to

minimize risks by crafting reciprocal restraints. More and more the parties became hopelessly

entangled in a web of rules and restrictions.

It is interesting to note, Ms. Ritter said, that these types of labor agreements remain unique to

North America. Only in the U.S. and Canada do contracts attempt to codify all workplace

contingencies in the form of rights. The result is rigid, third-party dependent, status-quo

preserving agreements which more closely resemble cease fire agreements among combatants than

rational compacts for organizing work and working relationships.

By the mid-1970's, the shift from power-based bargaining to rights-based bargaining was

complete. But just as institutionalization was achieved, the system experienced severe turbulence. 

Those countries whose economy had been destroyed during World War II were fully recovered

and labor costs came back into the competitive equation because quality goods produced in the

developed and developing countries around the world were on market shelves at lower prices. 

Global competition had set in, Ms. Ritter noted.

In addition, non-union employers began competing with great success in what were once almost

exclusively unionized industries such as auto, steel, rubber, mining and construction. These

factors, along with the new administration’s policies in 1981 and a vast pool of unemployed

workers created by the recession of 1980-82, gave rise to employers coming to the table,

demanding substantial changes in contract language and reductions in wage and benefit packages. 

All of these forces, plus the changing demographics of our workplaces and deregulations of some

of our key industries began to undermine the post-WWII system which had established rights as a

means of determining equity and bargaining outcomes.

Reaction of both labor and management to these forces were diverse. While some tightened the

screws, seeking to wring additional costs out of existing operations, others engaged in

incremental changes which gave the appearance of dynamic change but fell short of any real

change. Not that changing in increments should be dismissed–it can be a beginning point, but it

must move quickly across the organization to fundamentally change operating systems.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 5

In a third category are employers who, when confronted with these same forces, have recognized

that they are amidst a sea of change and must re-examine all elements of their operation,

beginning with an examination of their business strategies–principally finding a niche in the

marketplace where they can get close to their customer and provide high-quality goods and

services in response to rapidly changing customer needs. Any such business strategy requires a

human resource strategy that is predicated on labor not as a variable cost, but as the employer’s

most precious asset. In these instances, unions and employers have been able to form

partnerships, recognizing that they share common interests in a common future. And many

unions, too, have come to realize that pursuit of a common future through the establishment of

common goals and objectives, including the efficiency and profitability of the employer, is the only

rational route to employment security.

And it is in these types of collective bargaining settings, Ms. Ritter said, that the parties have

begun to move toward an interest-based approach to their labor-management relationship–some

much faster than others–in the “interest” of their joint survival.

Research has confirmed that labor-management collaboration is one of two experiments American

companies and their unions have undertaken since changes in government policies, global

competition and advances in technology have caused unions and business to re-evaluate

themselves. The other experiment is one in which labor is considered a cost that damages the

bottomline. Some companies, rather than choosing collaboration, have seen labor as a “variable

cost, perhaps a most variable of costs” and “when confronted with pressure, they attempted to

drive down labor costs and they didn’t question management practices.” The result of the latter

approach has been reduced hours, reduced wages and in some cases, a reduced workforce.

In contrast, successful collaborative efforts between labor and management tend to share several

common elements. First is employee involvement. This type of cooperation makes every

employee an entrepreneur by allowing them to plan and manage their work loads. Additionally,

cooperative systems give employees meaningful input on the decisions that affect their

employment. While that doesn’t mean that employees and their unions will necessarily gain

representation on the company’s Board of Directors, they will – in this type of effort – have a

voice in decisions that once were made exclusively by management.

The second element that successful collaborative relationships tend to share is that of reciprocity. 

What we are talking about here, Ms. Ritter noted, is that employers get what they want–a highly

motivated workforce–and workers receive stronger assurances of employment security. 

Companies that are serious about collaborative efforts are not telling employees that they are a

variable cost, but rather, they are a valuable asset and that layoffs are a very last resort.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 6

The third element found in successful collaborative relationships is that employers invest in labor

to ensure that employees’ skills do not become obsolete and often offer new methods of

compensation. This involves training, and retraining, Ms. Ritter said. 

Moving from that philosophic examination of power, rights and interests in collective bargaining

through a view of the elements of successful labor-management cooperation, the parties have

looked to the FMCS to assist them in building a foundation for improved labor-management

relationships, not only by assisting them in resolving their collective bargaining disputes through

mediation, but also by promoting in those institutions the development of sound and stable

relations and fostering the kinds of joint efforts that increase labor-management mutual

understanding and ability to resolve common problems. 

Much has and will be said about joint programs, Ms. Ritter noted. There are many examples of

successful programs and processes; where such programs have not worked so well, any number

of factors may be playing out. Examples of these factors are: lack of skills; lack of commitment;

lack of communication to rank and file and first line supervision; lack of training at the front line;

and lack of support be either union or top management officials. It goes without saying, Ms.

Ritter continued, that it is not enough to say “let’s dance.” All parties involved must learn the

steps together, dance to the same music and do the same routine.

For starters, the FMCS suggests that the parties begin by looking at the structure and dynamics of

decision-making in their organization, beginning with strategic decisions. Organizations that are

customer responsive and that survive will be able to respond strategically, effectively and rapidly

to change. A successful strategy for an organization, Ms. Ritter said, is to have shared values at

all levels, i.e. a labor relations strategy which includes the respective labor relations and operating

officers and international union representatives at the level of their strategic decision-making. 

While strategic decisions have traditionally been made simply at the upper echelons of

organizations, the FMCS suggests that the model of the future include the participation of the

international union officers.

The next step, Ms. Ritter noted, is for the organization to look at its collective bargaining

decisions. The decisions of the future should provide for more employer profit and for more

employee security; mutual gain; and self-managing work teams. The scope of bargaining will be

expanded to include anything of importance to the parties, not just permissive subjects.

In the next area, shop floor decisions or decisions on the job, supervisors will need to shed their

John Wayne, fast gun, hard rider stereotype and become instead coaches, facilitators–resource

people who help employees get what they need to get the work done. The shop stewards, Ms.

Ritter continued, will need to be problem solvers, not ambulance chasers and grievance machines. 

The emphasis in the future will be on procedural fairness and mutual problem solving. The mark
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 7

of a good steward, she said, will be that he/she is now part of the solution and responsible for it,

rather than being part of the problem. Ms. Ritter commented that most union and management

leaders who have taken the leap of faith and made the commitment to work toward this kind of

model, have talked about how difficult it was to make the transition–but few want to return to the

old way of doing business.

Besides looking at a new approach for decision-making, Ms. Ritter continued, there are three

functions that occur in the labor-management relationship which would also need to be addressed

in the “organization of the future”: contraction negotiations, contract administration, and extra

contractual activities.

• Contract Negotiations: in their traditional parameters, contract negotiations have been

likened by Marshall Lewin to “driving into the future, looking out of the rearview mirror.” 

In many cases, the parties settle for settlements instead of solutions and the problems

resurface in almost every negotiation. The key for the future will be to utilize negotiations

so that the contract is part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

• Contract Administration: in the traditional model, contract administration has been largely

complaint-driven, litigious, rights-based and dependent on third-party decision-making. It

is characterized by the parties giving up ownership of the problem and relying on

arbitrators’ decisions. Individual victories are celebrated instead of mutual achievements. 

The future of labor management relations should promote the celebration of mutual

achievements.

• Extra-Contractual Activities: these are the activities in which labor and management have

engaged which are outside the four corners of the contract. All too frequently, these

activities have been limited merely to housekeeping, and in a hostile environment, they are

non-existent, almost as if a wall exists between contractual and extra-contractual efforts. 

If everyone is serious about the labor-management relationship, the wall must come down. 

We have to get to how we are going to get an agreement and how to administer it in the

interest of our joint survival. 

Next, Ms. Ritter outlined some of the tools for change offered to interested parties by the FMCS:

• Orientation to Joint Labor-Management Initiative (OJLMI): introduces essential

ingredients of the labor-management relationship. It covers philosophy and value of joint

efforts, gives and overview of the economic climate–both national and global– and

describes new roles for labor and management. It is a low cost, low risk effective tool to

introduce awareness and helps the parties begin an evaluation of what type of change

effort they want to pursue.

• Partners in Change: is an organizational development approach to encourage labor and

management to plan their future jointly. It is designed for parties who have already made
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 8

a basic commitment to cooperation and is based on the assumptions that (1) change must

be confronted proactively; (2) people must be dealt with affirmatively; and (3) new skills

are needed to enable the parties to take up a joint effort. It’s intended purpose is to help

the parties create a joint vision and to explore strategies to achieve that vision.

• Committee Effectiveness Training: helps committees and labor-management teams

address their task and relationship functions productively. It gives the parties a wide

variety of selections from eight different training modules to assist labor-management

committees, problem solving and continuous improvement teams to increase their

effectiveness. The various modules cover, but are not limited to,

communications/listening, problem solving, planning, interpersonal and group dynamics,

consensus-building and other group process techniques and problem-solving methods. The

fact that labor and management define their own needs and that committee effectiveness

training programs are tailored to the parties’ own assessment of their needs is key to

improvements in their functions and skills. Committee effectiveness training is a sort of

all-terrain vehicle–it has brakes, accelerator, steering wheel and all the bells and whistles to

help the group get through the peaks and valleys with greater ease and more safety valves.

• Dispute System Design: explores and assists in the decision of more effective means of

resolving disputes. Grievance mediation is a fundamental tool, but not necessarily as

grievance mediation is traditionally used. In dispute design, grievance mediation may be 

directed to the exploration of interests and resolving grievances in a format designed to

satisfy mutual interests. In addition, FMCS provides training and facilitation services to

assist the parties in designing alternative methods for handling disputes which interfere

with or conflict with their mutual goals. The Work Assignment Dispute Resolution

Process (WADRP), designed by the Southern Nevada Building Trades and Bechtel

Nevada Corporation, is a demonstrated successful approach to dispute design.

• Interest-Based Bargaining: encourages a problem solving approach to negotiations. The

workshop covers a comparison between the traditional approach and the philosophies,

principles and techniques of interest-based bargaining. The process helps us to change our

bargaining behaviors, our thinking, and ultimately, our labor agreements so that we are

more receptive and responsive to rapid changes. It gives the collective bargaining process

greater dignity, respect and recognition.

• Relationship by Objectives (RBO): is an intensive workshop designed for parties whose

relationship is broken or in great danger of being broken. It assists the parties in jointly

identifying the barriers in their relationship which adversely affect both their bargaining

process and their day-to-day dealings on the shop floor. It allows the parties to jointly

formulate a plan of action with timetables and responsibilities in order to overcome those

barriers.

• Steward Supervisor Training: provides for tailor-made training based on the specific needs

of the parties at this level. It impacts shop floor decisions and contract administration

areas, as well as extra-contractual activities and relationships. Combined with OJLMI, it
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 9

can be used to introduce people at the lower levels of the organization to the concept of

change as, basically, to their rights and responsibilities as parties to a collective bargaining

agreement.

In conclusion, Ms. Ritter noted that the country’s come a long way in the labor-management

relationship arena, but that we’ve also got a long way to go toward the creation of a foundation

for solution-seeking among labor and management, and toward creating partnerships that work

and endure. She reinforced that it’s important to remember that change is a process and not an

event, and that partnerships are a journey and not a destination. As an example of partners on the

journey, Ms. Ritter cited Bechtel Nevada Corporation and the Southern Nevada Building Trades.

But the question remains for us all: will labor and management and government indeed work

together toward a mutually beneficial destination, or will they dally on the detours to their

detriment? Only the survivors, Ms. Ritter concluded, will be around to share with us their itinerary

for success.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Q: What was the role of DOE field staff in the Bechtel/BCTC interest-based negotiations?

A: The role of facilitator – to keep them focused on the process and help them move toward

mutual gain outcomes.

Q: What is the role Lavonne Ritter plays in negotiations?

A: Mediator — care that there is agreement not what is agreed upon. Help parties begin process 

and, put substance in a process.

Q: How do you get two parties to sit down when there's no trust? How do you put them

both in the process?

A: While trust is not a prerequisite to start-up, it may require a process such as FMCS’

Relationship By Objectives (RBO) to begin building a relationship where the relationship is very

fragile or broken.

Q: Regarding the role of FMCS, can you identify two or three roles played that would

assist parties in the negotiation process?

A: 1) In interest-based negotiations, the role is that of a facilitator, with a process orientation and

focus. 2) In traditional negotiations, the role is that of a mediator, to help the parties unfreeze

positions, explore possibilities for settlement. The mediator role is both substance and process
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 10

oriented. 3) A hybrid of facilitator/mediator depending upon the needs and relationship of the

parties. 4) In all roles, we try to assist the parties in focusing on the issues, not personalities.

Q: What are the fragile aspects of negotiations and labor-management relationships?

A: Leadership turnover makes building a solid relationship foundation difficult. Downturns in

business severely challenge the parties. Failure to invest in joint training and business education is

still another factor. Lack of skills and understanding of each parties’ interests always tests the

relationship and challenges the negotiation process.

REMARKS FROM U.S. SECRETARY OF ENERGY, FEDERICO PEÑA

Secretary Peña was introduced by Bob DeGrasse. Following is the prepared text as provided by

the Secretary’s Office:

Thank you, Bob, for your introduction. And thank you all for being here.

The changes that we have seen in the last seven years since the end of the Cold War continue to

affect the Department, its employees, its contractors, their employees and the communities in

which we perform our work.

We are, in fact, on course to continue cleaning up and shutting down sites that the country no

longer needs. While we are pleased at the prospect of reducing our nuclear arsenal, you and I are

faced with many challenges as we try to adjust to these changing times.

Ours is a very different mission now; it has gone from a build up to a shut down mode. And, if the

Russians ratify START II this year, the downward trajectory of arms reduction we have seen will

continue. The implication for us is evident: a continuing reduction in our arms manufacturing

process that will further reduce our role in that arena.

When we change the way we do business, the Department affects workers and communities. We

will engage those affected by change, and we will include them in our efforts to accomplish our

mission.

Despite the implications for us, I must commend you for how you have worked to make a difficult

mission a success. The circumstances we face today have required us to have to work very closely

together and to depend on strong and effective partnerships to allow us to complete our mission.

Since the beginning of this Administration, the Department has reduced its management

contractor work force by approximately 45,000 positions, nearly one third below peak

employment levels.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 11

The Worker and Community Transition program has helped achieve this dramatic restructuring of

the contractor work force while limiting involuntary separations. At the same time, these changes

have helped the Department realize more than $2.8 billion in annual savings for a one-time

investment of just under $800 million.

The Worker and Community Transition Program has also provided career transition and training

assistance that has made it easier for displaced workers to move to new careers outside the

Department of Energy. The program is benchmarked with the best business practices in the

private sector and the experience of the Department of Defense.

Initially, much of this restructuring was done in response to budget constraints and to bring the

work force into better coordination with ongoing mission requirements.

While the pace of restructuring has moderated, the worker and community transition task is not

over. We still anticipate between 3,000 and 5,000 contractor workers will be affected for each of

the next several years.

The challenges we now face involve transitioning the work force to new, more efficient,

contracting mechanisms; retaining the right work force to achieve early closure of designated

sites; and assuring the right skills are available when needed for an evolving mission.

Achieving these goals will demand increased flexibility and creativity in developing work force

restructuring strategies that meet our business needs, while still meeting the objectives of section

3161.

In this environment, we have gone from an Management and Operations (M&O) to an

Management and Integration (M&I) approach, and we are analyzing the impact of that

management strategy. The jury is still out. We are also looking at privatization options. We are

still in the process of evaluating this approach, but I am hopeful that properly applied, it will help

the Department reach its goals.

Regardless of our eventual conclusions about that approach, clearly, fair treatment of workers in

this transition is an essential element of making change possible.

One of our challenges is to retain good workers while our sites are being closed and tasks are

being completed. This is a serious challenge for us, especially if the Nation's economy maintains

its present course of growth and expansion.

It may be difficult to retain workers who can see the end of their jobs approaching and who can

see other opportunities for themselves and their families. We have to do some serious thinking

about how we accomplish this part of our mission.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 12

At today's stakeholders' conference, there will be an important dialogue on providing training and

other assistance for workers leaving the Department of Energy. In some cases, this assistance

may be linked to an employee's agreement to remain as long as the Department's mission requires.

There will also be lively discussion of principles for dealing with work force transition issues

related to privatization actions. Balancing business efficiency objectives with fair treatment of

affected workers is a challenge that can only be met through frank and open discussion.

Let me give you an example of how the Department of Energy accomplished its mission more

effectively by being sensitive to the concerns of workers and communities -- specifically, in the

communities of Miamisburg, Ohio and Pinellas, Florida. 

Five years after the decision to convert unneeded facilities to commercial use, the Pinellas facility

was transferred to the local community. Since that time, over 500 private sector jobs have been

created and are now housed in the old nuclear weapons facility.

We completed our responsibilities at Pinellas 18 months ahead of schedule at a savings of at least

$29 million to the American taxpayers.

At Mound, we are on track to close out our activities by 2005, three to four years earlier than

expected, at a savings between $150 and $200 million. Already, the community is using buildings

on the site to support over 200 private sector jobs and have agreed to take the entire site after we

complete the cleanup.

Neither of these accomplishments would have been possible if we had not sought to develop

partnerships with the local communities and worked to earn the trust of those affected by these

changes.

Since 1993, on average, communities have created one job for every $11,000 in adjustment

assistance provided. This ratio is as good as the best benchmarks in the economic development

world. According to a GAO report, for example, all federal assistance for base closures resulted in

roughly one job per $35,000 in assistance provided .... so our record is three times better.

An additional challenge is our dependence on transportation systems for the orderly integration

and exportation of waste materials. However well we might have done our jobs, we still are going

to be subject to other factors that might complicate our schedules, goals and timelines for cleaning

up and closing our sites. Legal and other kinds of challenges can be mounted at any time and can

disrupt our intentions. We must try to anticipate those issues and address them to avoid litigation.

In Nevada, we proved that effective partnerships can work. Our contractors and labor worked

together recognizing that we have a common goal that can only be met as a team. A total of 32
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 13

separate agreements have been integrated into a single agreement through interest-based

bargaining strategies that will benefit the Department, the contractor and the work force.

I want to especially recognize the work done by Lavonne Ritter of the Federal Mediation and

Conciliation Service for the many hard hours of work she devoted to making our experience at

Nevada a success. Similar success to realize a co-operative labor-management relationship is

being achieved at the two Ohio closure sites Mound and Fernald, and efforts are underway at

several other sites to carry out this new spirit of cooperation.

But in order for our approach to work, that is, to be able to do the things that are needed when

they are needed, we must have consistent funding from Congress. This applies to those funds

directly dedicated to accomplishing the mission as well as funding necessary to provide the tools

needed to mitigate the impact of these changes on workers and communities.

Given the constraints Congress is under, the Department has done well thus far in the

Congressional review of the Fiscal Year 1999 budget. But I am concerned that the significant

reduction proposed in the Worker and Community Transition account recommended by the

House Energy and Water Development Subcommittee could undercut our ability to continue the

success we have achieved thus far. Be assured, that the Department will do all it can to make the

Congress aware of the acute need for a healthy worker and community transition program.

The job we all have to do is part of a great American tradition. It is an important as winning the

Cold War. We have to continue to be focused on the goals that we have set for ourselves.

During my service as Secretary of Energy, I have been proud of the work that each of you has

done in this challenging arena. On behalf of a grateful Nation, I want to thank you. Your job is

not easy, but you are doing it well.

Thank you very much.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Q: What can be done to address the bureaucratic related problems some communities have

encountered with regards to asset disposition?

A: Should not have problems with bureaucratic inconsistent messages — the process should

operate smoothly.

Statement: Asset sales policy of DOE is to provide economic assistance to communities — should

be as supportive of communities as possible.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 14

Q: What is the sense of Congress’s will to continue cleanup of Hanford?

A: An obligation exists with the Federal government to clean up sites, but it has to be done better. 

Some members believe we should not put as much money in cleaning up all the sites and that we

should just build a fence around some sites. We must, however, be more focused because

contaminations are increasing and cleanup is a national challenge. Overall, we are pleased with

what Congress has done in the FY 1999 budget.

Q: Will there be handicapped efforts by the Department in the transition of the Grand

Junction Plant since it is not a 3161 site?

A: If a proposal is submitted, maybe the Department can incorporate it into the budget.

Q/Statement: Attention of DOE is needed to let them know more money is needed to clean

up Oak Ridge.

A: Oak Ridge is not being overlooked by the Department. We at Headquarters are aware of the 

challenges. I am also aware of a study of people medically affected by health problems at Oak

Ridge and would like to reemphasize that cleanup is a national challenge. We need an agreement

involving all governors and we need to go to Congress as a united front.

Q: What guarantee is there that the Administration is supporting cleanup programs?

A: The Administration supports the program and has asked for sufficient funding.

Q/Statement: Privatization is not cost effective.

A: The problem is how the Department uses the word “privatization.” Pure privatization means

DOE no longer has a role. (Environmental Management involved the private sector in helping the

Department clean up its sites). The Department must conclude that privatization is cost effective.

Q/Statement: Privatization does not result in fairness to the workers.

A: We have to work with contractors regarding labor relations — the effort cannot work without

partnership.

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS - CONCURRENT SESSION 1
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 15

1A. IMPACT OF WORK FORCE RESTRUCTURING ON REMAINING AND

TRANSITIONING EMPLOYEES

Moderator: Marilyn Balcombe, ORISE

Speakers: Eileen McNeely, Boston University, School of Public Health

David O’Connell, Boston University, School of Management

Gail Fairhurst, University of Cincinnati, Center for Environmental

Communication Studies

Susan Holliday-Cox, Star Access, Inc.

This session was designed to provide an overview of the impact of work force restructuring on

remaining and transitioning employees. It included discussions on the effective ways to mitigate

impacts to remaining workers; effective communication and leadership styles for transition; and

how to help individuals leaving DOE sites.

Dr. Marilyn Balcombe, an Industrial Psychologist with the Oak Ridge Institute for Science

Education (ORISE) and currently detailed to the Department of Energy’s Office of Worker and

Community Transition, began the session with a few brief comments on the need to “focus on the

‘human’ in human resources.” Work force restructuring actions have a major impact not only on

those directly affected or separated, but also on those employees remaining behind. How these

remaining employees are affected is a topic of great concern to the Department in general, and to

the Office of Worker and Community Transition in particular. The concern for this issue among

the Department’s stakeholders is reflected in the fact that sessions related to this topic have drawn

the largest response in the last two Stakeholder Workshops.

The speakers in this session were selected to address several of the issues surrounding the impact

to remaining workers. First, Dr. Eileen McNeely and Dr. David O’Connell, both from Boston

University, reported on the progress to date of a project (funded by the Office of Worker and

Community Transition) to study the effects of downsizing across the complex on remaining

workers. Second, Dr. Gail Fairhurst, University of Cincinnati, Center for Environmental

Communication Studies, described the results of a single case study of the impacts of work force

restructuring on communication and leadership efforts at the Fernald site. Last, Ms. Susan

Holliday-Cox, Star Access, Inc., discussed the career counseling efforts employed at the

Department’s headquarters facility for contractor and Federal employees affected by restructuring

actions.

Dr. McNeely began by describing the methods employed for their study on the impacts to

remaining employees. Four basic research questions were addressed: 1) what are the impacts of

restructuring; 2) what actions have been taken; 3) what are the obstacles; 4) and what are the next

steps. Their team conducted interviews with 12 focus groups of remaining employees across
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 16

several sites, talked with over 50 Human Resources professionals at 14 sites, and then coded the

transcripts of these discussions to search for common themes.

What are the impacts of restructuring? The results were categorized at the individual,

organizational and site levels. For individuals, the leading concerns were job insecurity, high

stress, and low morale. At the organizational level, key concerns include the ability to recruit

(creating a competitive disadvantage in the market for the Department and its contractors), loss of

appropriate skills (through the separation action), increased turnover (losing the best and the

brightest), and declining training budgets. This combination suggests a coming ‘train wreck’ for

the Department. At the site level, the data clearly reflects a majority of employees having

difficulty in coping with the situation. The study also identified certain risk factors that were

predictors of how difficult the layoffs were for each site; in particular, the type of layoff (voluntary

or involuntary), the characteristics of the local economy (could it absorb the layoffs), and the

uncertainty surrounding the remaining site mission.

What actions have been taken? Several initiatives by various sites were identified as supporting

the goal of addressing these potential impacts to remaining workers. Changes occurred in the

areas of communications (greater frequency and the use of more appropriate media), career

development (assisting employees to look ahead several years), coping strategies, HR policies

(aimed at giving back some control to employees), and the actual reduction-in-force steps taken. 

In addition, some sites have taken action to address staffing needs, training, and management

development initiatives, among others. Areas where improvements are needed (on a site-by-site

basis) include: greater commitment to addressing these issues; current approaches are uneven --

ranging from one day seminars to complete overhaul of relevant systems; the need for more direct

efforts -- some programs are actually designed for other purposes and are utilized for

restructuring-related needs only as a by-product of that effort; and better performance measures

for determining effectiveness and identification of what else is needed.

What are the obstacles? Two basic issues serve to inhibit success in addressing impacts: control

and culture. Interviewees expressed concern that the ‘arms length’ relationship that they felt

should exist between the Department and the contractor is non-existent; that the Department

micro-manages operations. As one put it, “If you never know how much budget you’re going to

get, then you’re forced to a year-to-year planning as opposed to more of a long range planning.” 

The culture of Department sites was also cited as a problem. Focus on small planning horizons,

annual budgets, mission uncertainty, and contractor changeovers all serve to inhibit success. 

Further, managers state that workers have an ‘entitlement’ mentality that makes it difficult

sometimes to make the hard decisions that are necessary in restructuring actions.

What are the next steps? Several actions were suggested that might serve to address the impacts

to remaining workers. The Department could decentralize control, increase survivor-related
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 17

resources, limit involuntary layoffs, and stabilize contractor relationships. Further, contractors

should carefully assess site impacts, target survivor initiatives, evaluate progress and innovate

their culture in an effort to support these actions.

Dr. Fairhurst reported on a site-specific study conducted at the Department’s Fernald site in Ohio. 

The study was borne out of the problems associated with an earlier restructuring at the site -- a

site-wide communication audit (1992) suggested a highly fragmented culture, expectations of

long-term employment, restricted information flows, and widespread distrust on the part of the

employees. Their team analyzed the current state of work force restructuring at Fernald through

the use of case study analysis, interviews, observations, questionnaire and archival analysis. This

study was conducted as a pilot study in an attempt to test some new methods for studying

communication methods and leadership issues associated with work force restructuring actions. 

Particular attention was paid to those Fluor Daniel Fernald (FDF) and DOE individuals charged

with managing work force restructuring and the employees affected both now and in the future.

Forty-seven interviews were conducted for this study; nine with FDF and DOE management, nine

with salaried FDF employees, and 29 exit interviews with employees after meetings announcing

work force restructuring actions for certain job classifications. The findings are classified into

two groups: the FDF and DOE management and salaried interviews, and the 29 exit interviews. 

From the FDF and DOE management and salaried personnel, the following findings were

suggested:

• First, there is strong evidence that organizational learning was occurring for those who

dealt directly with work force restructuring as lessons-learned from earlier efforts were

carried through to later initiatives. 

• Second, the presence of a strong senior leader was key (as many described the FDF

President) -- someone with a strong commitment to balancing the interests of the site with

the interests of the transitioning employees. 

• Third, the presence of a senior leader with a “velvet boot” vision was indicated -- FDF’s

human resource manager formulated an innovative vision of the work force restructuring

effort, including a focus on ‘managed attrition,’ giving employees a ‘two-year’ look ahead

on manpower planning efforts, for better personal planning, etc.

• Fourth, the study found that key leadership and management functions performed with

respect to the “velvet boot” vision. 
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 18

• Fifth, the contractor exhibited a proactive section 3161 and customer orientation -- section

3161 was initially seen as a constraint for the contractor, but came to be viewed as an

opportunity, and the basis for many of the concepts of FDF’s restructuring vision. 

• Sixth, it was evident that a strategically managed relationship between FDF and DOE

existed on work force restructuring, a ‘teaming partner’ relationship was identified. This

relationship countered the traditional ‘arms-length’ view of government oversight of

contractors. 

• Seventh, there was a well designed communications strategy on work force restructuring,

particularly concerning message clarity, timing, voice, frequency, and channel. There was

also a heightened sense of language, so terms were more clear and user friendly.

• Finally, there appears to be an ongoing, inevitable, complex tension between work force

restructuring advocates and the leadership team, the Inspector General, and labor.

The exit interviews suggested the following:

• First, they generally endorsed the FDF/DOE communications strategy with respect to

work force restructuring. 

• Second, it appears that trust in top management has remained stable with 1992 levels. 

This suggests that trust is not easily restored in today’s organizations in the age of

corporate downsizing. 

• Third, the study found that the intransigence of the wage culture remains although its

impact may be diminishing, suggesting possibly that many wage employees are still in

denial over site closure.

In conclusion, the study begs two important questions: first, how will this velvet boot vision of

work force restructuring play itself out over time, and second, what lessons-learned can be

transferred to other sites. A definitive answer to the first question may not be available until after

several more restructurings, as numerous roadblocks to success will surely surface as

restructuring proceeds. The second question, the keys to success for FDF/DOE have been: 1)

outside the box innovative thinking; 2) a willingness to take risks; 3) perseverance; and 4) a

concern for relationships. To the extent that these characteristics exist at other sites, contractor

and government representatives should be able to successfully apply or improve upon the ideas

developed at Fernald. 
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 19

Ms. Holliday-Cox, Senior Career Counselor for the Department of Energy’s Career Management

Resource Center (CMRC), discussed the recent restructurings at the Department’s headquarters

and the role the CMRC plays in employee transitions. She addressed the efforts on an

organizational and individual level, both past experiences and present situations (i.e., the

remaining employees), as well as highlighting the available resources and services provided by the

CMRC. The CMRC provided services such as relocation guidance, career planning, career and

personal assessments, assistance with Internet resources, referrals to community resources,

interviewing practice, computer skills upgrades and resume critiques. They also provide

workshop and seminars on issues like developing job search skill and entrepreneurship, supported

guest speaker series and held career fairs for employees.

At the organizational level, those program offices that addressed restructuring issues early by

coordinating their actions with available CMRC resources, incurred much smoother transitions,

both before and after the reductions-in-force (RIF). For others, there was a wide variation in RIF

communications (notices varied from 1 day to 6 months, some notices given then rescinded, etc.)

which damaged management credibility and interfered with ongoing productivity concerns. At the

individual level, the emotional impact of restructuring varied, ranging from devastation to anger to

eagerness for the new opportunity. The outcomes for individuals also varied, ranging from

finding new opportunities immediately, to others taking over a year to land new jobs.

For the remaining organization, two years of chaos caused setbacks to group effectiveness and

productivity. However, there were some positive effects: improved strategic planning to avoid

future RIFs, focus on succession planning, cross training and a move to flatten organizations and

a shift toward more employee empowerment and innovation in work place issues. There were

also some positive and negative affects on the remaining employees. On the negative side, many

were less trustful and more cynical, unsure of their roles (but afraid to ask), and unexpressed

angers are now surfacing which exacerbate existing problems. On the positive side, more

employees are actively adjusting to new work structures and better managing their careers, some

are seizing the opportunity to make life changes, and others are exhibiting increased signs of

empowerment.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Q: Does the information provided by Ms. Holliday-Cox relate only (mainly) to Federal

employees at Headquarters?

A: No, there are some contractors that make use of our services.

Q: Was the downsizing at Oak Ridge considered fair and compassionate?
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 20

Comment: None of the panelists were specifically qualified to address the “fairness” of that

particular effort. Another attendee commented that he had seen downsizing in

several environments, and that Rocky Flats (his site) had done a good job under

difficult conditions. He also mentioned that it’s important to remember that the

managers are just trying to do the best that they know how–there is a human

impact on the managers and supervisors as well as the employees. Finally, a

comment was made that there is a big problem with those left behind if the

restructuring action is perceived as not fair.

1B. INTEGRATED SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

MODERATOR: Barry Lawson

SPEAKERS: Juan Alvarez, Mason & Hanger Corporation, Pantex Plant

Duane Smith, Metal Trades Council, Pantex Plant

Skip Maas, Mason & Hanger Corporation, Pantex Plant

Dennis Kelly, Amarillo Area Office, U.S. Department of Energy

This session provided an overview of the Pantex Plant Integrated Safety Management

Framework, including a detailed description of the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) and the

Enhanced Work Planning (EWP) process. Juan Alvarez and Skip Maas, from Mason & Hangar

Corporation provided information from the contractor’s perspective, while Duane Smith from the

Metal Trades Council, presented the perspective of organized labor. Dennis Kelly from the

Department of Energy Amarillo Area Office provided the Area Office perspective of the VPP.

The VPP is an integrated part of the safety management at the Pantex Plant. To attain DOE-VPP

status, participating contractors must have management systems in place for at least one year that

address the five basic elements of an effective occupational safety and health program:

management leadership and commitment, employee involvement, work-site analysis, hazard

prevention and control, and safety and health training. Applications for participation in the DOEVPP program typically undergo rigorous review at three organizational levels: operation/area

offices, cognizant secretarial offices, and the DOE-VPP Headquarters office. Once the

application is completed and determined to be acceptable, and independent onsite review team is

fielded to conduct an extensive onsite evaluation. Pantex began the VPP process in March 1994. 

A seven-member continuous improvement team was formed in the spring, followed by a twentymember Steering Committee in the fall.

The VPP relies on employee participation and is concerned with employee safety. The VPP is

one indicator that Pantex is a safe place to work, as well as being a safe contribution to the

community. The program promotes positive morale and relationships among employees. Because
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 21

of fewer accidents, employees do a better job and go home in the same condition as when they

arrived on the job.

The key to the VPP success was to have the steering committee drive the implementation and to

get management support of the committee decisions. To begin, the steering committee visited

OSHA-VPP sites to provide a benchmark for the Pantex program. The committee visited Dow

Chemical, Sterling Chemical, and Star Enterprises. During this process, the committee saw how

the VPP could work at a production facility. They then developed the Safe Work Awards

Program (SWAP), the Hazard Identification Teams (HIT), and the VPP Employee Handbook. 

They also devised various promotional ideas for awareness, including crossword puzzles, banners

and posters, introduction of the VPP logo, the VPP hotline, Halloween bags, a safety calendar,

and a coloring contest for children. The new awareness initiatives included monetary On-the-Spot

Awards and Safety Excellence Awards, bingo and pizza parties, and a Pantex safety film.

Management commitment to the program was illustrated by allowing employees the opportunity

to learn about VPP, initiating programs to improve safety and create a culture change, financing

promotional and other divisional awareness initiatives, providing personnel time to conduct HIT

inspections, and encouraging employee involvement in the safety program. The underlying

premise of the VPP is by encouraging employees to get involved in problem solving, managers

and supervisors provided them with the opportunity to be creative. This increases employee

ownership of their own safety, and they are much more likely to support the safety program

To evaluate the success of the VPP, several safety indicators were used. In FY 1997 there was a

20 percent reduction in required first aid, a 30 percent reduction in TRC, and a 33 percent

reduction in lost time due to safety related incidents.

In addition to the VPP, the panel provided an overview of the Enhanced Work Planning (EWP)

process currently being used at Pantex. EWP, introduced in FY 1996, is formally recognized as a

significant part of the Plant’s Integrated Safety Management System. The Facilities Division

assumed the lead for EWP, and it became a grass roots program. EWP is a tool that evaluates

and improves the site processes by which work is identified, planned, approved, controlled, and

executed. The key elements of EWP include line management ownership, organizationally diverse

teams, a graded approach to work management, worker involvement beginning at the earliest

phases of work management, and organized, institutionalized communications. 

The EWP process continues to reduce overhead cost and administrative functions. One example

of its effectiveness is the dismantlement and decommissioning of 23 Safe Secure Railcars. There

was a four-month reduction in procedure development and review time; the project was
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 22

completed weeks ahead of schedule and under budget; there were no injuries of any kind; and the

project received the Al Gore Hammer Award. 

Dennis Kelly, DOE Amarillo Area Office, then provide a comprehensive model of the Pantex

Plant Integrated Safety Management Program. Integrated Safety Management (ISM) includes

defining the scope of work, analyzing hazards, developing and implementing controls, and

performing the work safely. The model also includes program direction and feedback and

improvement. An integral component to the process in worker participation. . Several attributes

of ISM include worker empowerment and ownership, management commitment, team approach,

integration of worker and safety disciplines into work execution, coordination and

communication, hazards identification and assessment, and controls tailored to work. As a result

of the ISM, total recordable cases rate has steadily declined since FY 1995, explosive related

occurrences have steadily declined since FY 1996, and the radiation material violations have

dropped dramatically since FY 1996.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Q: Can you tell us about the cover up at Pantex that was aired on PBS in March?

A: An evaluation will be conducted at the end of the year. The production technician issue was

settled by the Department of Labor with a favorable outcome, although it found fault on both

sides. Sensitivity training was recommended

Q: What about privatization at Pantex?

A: We have not really looked into it.

Q: What has been done to improve or encourage employees with regards to their safety

and the safety of others?

A: We encourage employees to speak out by providing incentives. We conduct shop safety

meetings.

Q: How are injured worker issues handled? How are safety issues handled? Do employees

have the power to stop work if a safety issue is involved without fear of losing their jobs? 

What about the VPP Agreement and the bargaining agreement?

A: We have established written policy guidance that any employee can stop work if a safety issue

arises without fear of retaliation. We are not familiar with the collective bargaining agreement.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 23

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS - CONCURRENT SESSION 2

2A. DEPARTMENT’S PRIVATIZATION PROGRAM: CURRENT STATUS

Moderator: Barry Lawson, Lawson and Associates

Speakers: Walter Howes, Contract Reform and Privatization Project Office,

U.S. Department of Energy

This session provided an overview of the Department’s perspectives on privatization and related

work force transition issues. Walter Howes, the new Director of the Department’s Contract

Reform and Privatization Project Office (Project Office), spoke about the new office and the role

it will play in the Department’s privatization initiatives. Mr. Howes has been with Project Office

for three months and has a background in raising capital for energy-related technology

development projects as well as experience in the privatization initiatives of foreign countries,

specifically Argentina and Czechoslovakia. The session included a brief overview by Mr. Howes,

followed by a more lengthy question and answer period.

The focus of the new Project Office, will be Department-wide, although there will certainly be a

significant amount of early attention paid to Environmental Management. Defense Programs and

the laboratories will also be addressed. The Office Director reports to the Secretary of Energy. 

To date, the budget and mission have been approved, and new staff is being recruited from the

private sector to support the mission. Specifically, they are looking for financial engineering type

skills not traditionally found in the Department, as well as training personnel.

Mr. Howes indicated that the privatization initiative is centered on improving management

practices in the Department -- determining how to use market forces to achieve more effective

and efficient management. He stated that there is no static definition of privatization. He

acknowledged that it is a controversial issue and that the formation of his office is somewhat of a

response to several policy shifts in recent years. Initially, contracts were on a cost plus basis,

which provided the wrong incentive to contractors and led to cost overruns. The policy then

swung too far in the other direction, to all performance-based contracts (which he stated was also

not the right approach). Now his office will try to bring the discussion and policy back to the

center.

Mr. Howes suggested that there are 13 to 14 types of risk involved in government contract work,

and privatization now addresses who is best able to handle certain types of risk. For example, the

private sector may be better able to handle risks associated with timing, construction, and

performance, while it may be more appropriate for the public sector to handle regulatory risk. 

This risk-based approach should bring about more stable management practices.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 24

He stressed the need to work together to use limited funds more effectively and efficiently as

Congress is looking closely to see if we succeed. One of the motivations to look into

privatization and performance-based activities in the first place was a GAO document addressing

the role of private sector capital in government programs. This report addressed the cost of

private versus public capital and the different risks associated with each. While private sector

funds were seen as more expensive than public sector funds, one must take into account the

typical cost overruns and inefficiencies associated with some public sector funding to make a

proper comparison. For example, the GAO report also indicated that 65 percent cost overruns

were typical of public sector capital, which means there’s a lot of room for improvement.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: 

Q: Who in Rocky Flats should we start talking to about privatization issues? Some of the

subcontractors have some ideas they want to put forward, but they don’t know where to

start.

A: Start with your Rocky Flats management, but you can always come to the Contract Reform

Project Office. We are available to help.

Q: How will labor be involved in the privatization process from the beginning?

A: Everyone must work together on this for it to work. You should work directly with my office,

as well as the Office of Worker and Community Transition on these issues. 

Comment: At Savannah River, when a privatization proposal is made, we convene a

privatization core team with Federal and contractor employees; that’s one way to

get labor involved. (Mr. Howes indicated that the Project Office would look into

this model as a means for structuring the process).

Q: At Rocky Flats, the process is addressed in negotiations. The company is required to

provide cost analysis to labor on any privatization initiatives. The problem has been in

implementation -- the company provides limited information, the communications are not

good on this issue. Every privatization effort proposed has been determined to have cost

savings associated with it, but I know that most have been more costly. We need somebody

to assess these costs better. The process is flawed, or we’re going ahead with privatization

no matter what, which is also a problem. (Someone asked for an example of a failed

privatization effort and the cold laundry was suggested. It was indicated that the group

hired to do the laundry could not keep up with the need, and there were occasions where

clothes were not available when needed.)
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 25

A: The pursuit of cost savings is pervasive. Privatization has been suggested as a way to getting

new dollars -- this is an inappropriate way to look at privatization and will stop. Also, I don’t

believe it’s true that privatization always leads to greater costs. The drive is for better outcomes,

which may mean more safety, faster clean-up, etc. The drive to improve is important, not just to

reduce the cost.

Q: What is the relationship between contract reform and privatization?

A: The distinction between the two offices should go away. Mr. Howes read the Contract

Reform Mission Statement and noted that there is a Web site coming by the end of the summer

that will address these issues more fully.

Contract Reform Mission

The guiding principle of the office is that private sector practices can be optimized

to assist senior Department managers to more efficiently and effectively

accomplish the Department’s mission in a changing environment. In that regard, a

main goal of the office is to stimulate innovation in order to better manage change

in departmental programs and in order to help ensure a proper allocation of risk in

business and management strategies. A main objective of the office is to assist in

the coordination and development of the Department’s overall business strategy

and to champion integrative management systems.

This office is established to guide and coordinate the implementation of the

Department’s privatization and contract reform initiatives, to facilitate and oversee

their implementation,.and to represent the Department in dealings with outside

entities. The office will also develop and coordinate the overall Departmental

business and management strategy in conjunction with the Department’s senior

managers. Although operating responsibilities will remain with the program

offices and the field organizations, the office provides a focal point for

coordinating and facilitating Contract Reform and Privatization activities

throughout the Department.

With respect to privatization initiatives, the office will represent the Office of the

Secretary in coordinating privatization policy development and implementation,

strengthen procedures for oversight and review of privatization projects, and

establish mechanisms to incorporate best practices and “lessons-learned.” The

office will focus primarily on contracting out activities throughout various program

areas -- providing expertise to ongoing programs and projects and working to

identify and develop new opportunities that offer the potential for improved cost-
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 26

efficiency. In the areas of privatization categorized as asset transfers and

divestiture of function, the office will provide assistance to lead programs.

With respect to contract reform, the office will work with the Procurement

Executive to ensure the institutionalization of this initiative, which was launched in

1994. The office also has concurrence authority on major procurement actions,

and will participate with programs in advance business and management planning.

The office reports to the Deputy Secretary. This reporting relationship assures

prompt access to senior Department management, thereby furthering innovative

approaches and policy resolution.

There is no further subdivision within this organization.

Q: So the definition of privatization is better management practices -- it’s a tool not a

program?

A: At its core, it is an ‘incentive alignment.’ It is an opportunity to align incentives to the task

responsibilities.

Q: What are some examples of good Department privatization efforts, and why?

A: One example would be the privatization of the power plant at Savannah River. That effort

works because it’s an opportunity to deliver a homogenous commodity, it’s a well understood

technology, all the issues involved are well known, and it had the potential to grow (apply power

elsewhere).

On the other hand, it’s not yet clear if the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC)

privatization is a good candidate. There are many complicated issues involved with moving

weapons grade materials.

Demonstrating a new technology is also a difficult candidate for privatization. The Federal

government should probably bear the risk for demonstrating new technologies.

Q: What did you save at the Savannah River power plant, and what were the impacts to

the work force?

A: (Personnel from Savannah River responded) It’s more cost effective; the savings were the cost

of a new power plant capacity. There was a big savings in avoiding the cost of a new plant. The

work force members who wished to move to the new group were allowed to do so.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 27

Q: What do you think about the dual track process (like the Tours facility in Richland,

WA)?

A: The issue is how to bring about the optimum degree of competition, especially when there’s

only limited experience in a new technology. A lack of competition was the reason for Tours. 

Therefore, the dual track process was a good idea as the competition increased, the price of the

bids dropped down considerably.

Q: Competition drives down prices, not privatization. Let everyone enter the game,

including labor. Let them prepare a package to compete.

A: Yes, there are opportunities for labor to bid against privatization actions (for example the

utility services at Richland). We want to encourage these opportunities for labor and others as

privatization proceeds.

Q: Regarding the cost of capital: the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability says that firms

like BNFL have an unfair advantage compared to US firms, with lower cost of capital for

British firms (makes their bids more competitive).

A: There are some valid points in that argument, but the cost-of-capital logic is flawed. Consider

the GAO report: you need to look at the ‘net effective cost of capital’ -- what it costs to get

something done. In the earlier example, the government may be able to get funding at a cheaper

rate than the private sector, but with 65 percent cost overruns, the net effective cost of capital

increases considerably.

Q: What is the distinction between privatization and outsourcing?

A: I don’t make a distinction; it’s all about risk engineering. Privatization does bring in

 private sector dollars (putting their money at risk), which is not necessarily the case in

outsourcing.

Comment (Bob DeGrasse, Director, Office of Worker and Community Transition):

A copy of the draft DOE privatization policy is available. You’re encouraged to

take a look. The policy will be implemented in a fashion similar to the Work Force

Restructuring Planning Guidance -- we do not intend to make it a regulation. 
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 28

2B. LESSONS-LEARNED IN COMMUNITY TRANSITION ACTIVITIES

Moderator: Bob Baney

Speakers: David Trojnar, PerforMax3

Tim Carlson, NTS Development Corporation

Jeff Finkle, National Council for Urban Economic Development

(CUED)

Bob Baney, Office of Worker and Community Transition, opened the session by introducing the

speakers and giving the themes of their respective presentations.

David Trojnar, a former Human Resources Director from the now-closed Pinellas Plant in Largo,

Florida, gave a presentation on the challenge of maintaining productivity and morale while in the

midst of a complete shutdown. His case study examined five years of experience at the Pinellas

Plant. After a major layoff in December, 1992, DOE identified the Pinellas Plant on September 8,

1993, as a facility that would be closed. The focus of leadership then became to prepare the

employees for life after the plant closing. 

He discussed the key points of change that focused on the constant state of change in which we

live and work. Mr. Trojnar explained that the way the leadership of an organization reacts, as

demonstrated by their actions and statements, will determine whether transition will be successful.

He next compared the changes that occurred at the Pinellas Plant from 1992 to the present. In

1992, the work environment was very stable, salary and benefits were high, and there was a

paternalistic relationship between the M&O contractor and the employees. After the plant

closing, 90% of the employees changed careers and now take full responsibility for their own job

security within private business. By creating strategic objectives and focused, practical tactics,

the management team maintained high levels of employee commitment. The benefits and

compassionate treatment by Lockheed-Martin and DOE also helped to accomplish the objective

of keeping people committed to safe shutdown of the plant.

Mr. Trojnar then focused on the specific situation experienced at the Pinellas Plant. He examined

the objectives, tactics, and results. A big change for management was switching a major part of

their emphasis from a production orientation to dealing with people’s basic needs. By doing so,

they felt able to maintain morale among the workers who were left in the work force. They found

that communication was essential, that news must be disseminated as quickly as possible and

every concern should be addressed. Mr. Trojnar then provided a summary of significant results,

including: no litigation, no workplace violence or sabotage, and closing the facility three years

ahead of schedule, saving $29 million. 
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 29

Mr. Trojnar concluded with a short discussion of his own personal experience in forming the

company PerforMax3. He showed how he took advantage of some of the benefits and

opportunities as the Pinellas Plant closed. 

Tim Carlson, NTS Development Corporation, was the next speaker. He described the

performance of the transition at the Nevada Test Site north of Las Vegas, Nevada. He began by

discussing Kistler Aerospace, a private firm that will use a portion of the Nevada Test Site for a

re-usable launch facility for the commercial satellite industry. The company has already done

considerable development on their launch vehicle and expect to be able to perform their first

launch within the next two years. Tim attributed the success of their program to date to a

combination of luck, assessing the assets and community characteristics, and hard work. In his

discussion of the program, he brought out the needs the company is seeking to fill and the steps

they have taken to be innovative and to resolve some of the problems that have surfaced.

Mr. Carlson then outlined some of the other programs at the Nevada Test Site. He stressed that

the Community Reuse Organization (CRO) tried to select programs and partnerships for their

situation carefully, such as the Hydrogen Enriched Lean Burn and other alternate energy

programs. He concluded by mentioning the CRO at the Nevada Test Site has plans that will

contribute to self-sufficiency by the year 2000.

Jeff Finkle from the National Council for Urban Economic Development concluded the program

by examining performance measures. He mentioned that the guiding principles for any

performance measure is to determine the information that is sought and the rationale for seeking

it. The reasons for seeking information were listed as follows:

S Accountability

S Influence over performance expectations

S Program improvement

S Contract adherence

The purpose for gathering the information will affect the parameters of the data collected.

He then discussed the distinction between performance measures and benchmarks and then

provided examples of performance measures which included a mix of objective and subjective

measurements. Mr. Finkle then began a discussion of the measurement of performance for

community transition activities, including factors that affected performance. Among the topics he

addressed were: calculating the cost-per-job, the time frame, jobs resulting from different types of

projects, project objectives, location, and the facility of data gathering. It was also mentioned that

Federal agencies use different definitions of cost per job, project scopes, and time frames which

make comparisons between agencies difficult.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 30

He concluded with a set of recommendations for measuring performance that would contribute

the most benefit to the managers of the program. By using the information collected, the

managers could determine the continued need for the program as well as the appropriate policies

to follow.

 2C. CONSOLIDATED CONTRACT FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL

COMPLEX

Moderator: Marilyn Balcombe, ORISE

Speakers: Earl Whiteman, Albuquerque Operations Office, U.S. Department of

Energy

Felix Oritz, Albuquerque Operations Office, U.S. Department of

Energy

On June 4, 1998, the Department of Energy announced a proposal to consider consolidation of as

many as six existing contracts at Department’s nuclear weapons program production facilities into

a single management contract has been released for industry, community and other stakeholder

comments. The announcement was issued in Commerce Business Daily on June 4, 1998. The

contract would be awarded in early 2000.

This session provided an opportunity for the Department of Energy’s Albuquerque Operations

Office to provide information on the proposal and to get feedback regarding some of the issues

work force restructuring stakeholders may have concerning the proposal. The session was not

considered an opportunity for stakeholders to make formal comments on the proposal. 

Participants were asked to make formal comments using the official comment process. 

Earl Whiteman from the Albuquerque Operations Office began the session with an overview of

the proposal for the Consolidated Contract for the Nuclear Weapons Industrial Complex . 

Handouts also provided an overview of consolidation proposal. 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is actively considering the consolidation of its nuclear

weapons industrial activities into a single contract. This would include the existing contracts at

the Kansas City Plant, the Y-12 Plant in Tennessee, and the Pantex Plant in Texas; and

potentially, the weapons production responsibilities at Sandia and Los Alamos National

Laboratories in New Mexico and tritium operations at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.

The consolidated contract would centralize management and operating responsibility for DOE's

entire Nuclear Weapons Industrial Complex (NWIC), and should provide significant benefits to

DOE in improved programmatic execution and potential cost savings.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 31

The NWIC has experienced significant restructuring and downsizing of its infrastructure and work

force over the past several years, and this will continue into the future. These changes are

consistent with the December 1996 Record of Decision on the Stockpile Stewardship and

Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. A key element of the strategic

planning is the transition to smaller and more efficient production operations consistent with the

needs of a smaller nuclear weapons stockpile. Toward that end, the Department has been

exploring various ways to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its management of the

NWIC contractors.

Programmatically, the use of a single contractor could consolidate accountability for production

operations that is currently distributed among up to six different contractors. A single contractor

could also bring a unified production focus and better integration of priorities and resources;

clearer lines of authority and responsibility among the sites; improved inter-site cooperation,

information sharing, and technical integration; and greater retention and utilization of technical

expertise. In addition, the DOE would expect the contractor to bring its commercial and

corporate "best business practices" along with its ability to improve the efficiency, coordination,

and integration of all production sites, similar to the significant savings and operational

improvements realized through recent mergers in the private sector. In parallel with these

contractor changes, DOE will be exploring opportunities to improve Federal management of

Defense Programs.

Potential contract cost savings could be achieved by eliminating duplication of certain functions

and reducing overhead. Additional cost savings should come from shrinking levels of

management, integrating production support functions, standardizing and integrating technical

and operating support systems, and consolidating subcontracts. There are also risks and costs

involved in contract consolidation. The Department of Energy would want to see a vigorous

competition for a large, consolidated contract; but may not attract an adequate number of

competitors due to the complexity and other challenges of the job, or teaming among potential

competitors that would limit the number of actual proposals. With one consolidated contract,

DOE might be overly dependent on the performance of a single contractor. A consolidated

contract that delivers improved performance and cost efficiencies could likely have impacts on

both contractor and federal jobs, and on the companies who hold the existing contracts. Finally,

there may be significant up-front costs including work force restructuring, overlap of contractor

costs during the transition, and other single system implementation costs.

The Department of Energy has developed a concept paper on contract consolidation, which is

available on the Internet (http://www.doeal.gov/nwic/). A public announcement was made

through a Commerce Business Daily notification. The Department of Energy is seeking industry

and other interested individuals comments on the concept, in writing and through individual

meetings.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 32

In identifying reasons for the proposal, Mr. Whiteman stated that DOE is looking for a different

way to conduct business. The Department of Energy is moving towards a smaller complex and is

doing a different kind of work. 

The vision of the consolidation is to achieve effective and efficient management of the Nuclear 

Weapons Industrial Complex. The approach to consolidation will: (1) consolidate contracts so

there will be a single M&O contract; (2) improve cost and fee incentive; (3) consolidate/centralize

functions; and (4) utilize a single business system. There will be no change in mission between

the sites.

The objectives of the consolidation are to capitalize on best business practices; improve efficiency,

coordination, and integration; strengthen performance accountability; and enhance corporate

support/involvement with DOE. 

The potential benefits of the consolidation include:

C Clearer lines of authority/responsibility

C Standard streamlined processes

C Cost savings that will allow reinvestment in NWIC infrastructure through:

S Consolidation of overhead/support

S Consolidation of production support

S Consolidation of other functions

S Single system effectiveness

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Q: In regards to general administration/overhead, can a contractor in the name of better

business practice move such function from one site to the other?

A: Yes, the Department would encourage such action.

Question/Statement: DOE influence would become less and contractor role will be much

greater.

A: DOE responsibility in regards to community involvement and site ES&H would be unchanged

— we would need to define the Federal organization before an award is made.

Q: Why was Nevada excluded from the list?
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 33

A: DOE looked at the site, but it was determined that Nevada’s mission did not lend itself to be

included on the list.

Q: When the changeover occurs, what will happen with regards to the collective

bargaining agreements?

A: Existing collective bargaining agreements at each site would be unchanged by this action.

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1998

PLENARY SESSION

MEETING TOMORROW’S CHALLENGES (EARLY SITE CLOSURES)

Moderator: John Merwin, Fluor Daniel Fernald

Speakers: Leah Dever, Ohio Field Office, U.S. Department of Energy

Jim Powers, Babcock & Wilcox of Ohio, Inc.

Gary Nolley, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union

(OCAW), Local 7-4200

Mayor Richard Church, City of Miamisburg

John Merwin of Fluor Daniel Fernald introduced the session topic and speakers. The focus of this

session was the closure of the Mound Plant, in Miamisburg, Ohio. 

The first speaker, Leah Dever, Manager of the Ohio Field Office, is responsible for closure and

environmental restoration of five nuclear facilities at Fernald, Mound, Ashtabula, Columbus and

the West Valley Demonstration Project. All sites are slated for closure by the year 2005. 

Ms. Dever presented a brief history of the Mound site, which began with tritium production in

1948. The site was placed on the National Priorities List in 1989, was then determined a closure

site in 1992, and production stopped in 1994. In 1997, Babcock and Wilcox was selected as the

new closure contractor. In January 1998, the decision was made to sell Mound to the Mound

Miamisburg Community Improvement Corporation (MMCIC) to be used as a technology park in

the future. Cleanup work at Mound includes 55 buildings scheduled for demolition or removal,

as well as the excavation of the Miami-Erie Canal. Progress is being made and cleanup is ahead

of the initial schedule. 

The federal work force at Mound consists of around 100 employees, all of whom had to be

convinced that closure was going to happen and was a good idea. Solid planning was

implemented to ensure the success of closure. Planning began with the Department’s strategic
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 34

vision which stated that the site would be closing. Planning for closure was then integrated into

EM’s strategic vision and the Ohio Field Office vision. Comprehensive project baselines were

then developed to encompass all work that needed to be done prior to closure. 

The work force is consistently evaluated in terms of strategic alignment during an annual staffing

summit which provides an opportunity to determine critical skills and essential positions. The

transition plan for the work force was developed by the employees themselves. They wanted

tuition reimbursement for training outside the scope of their current position, they wanted

retention bonuses, and they also wanted to address the involuntary reduction-in-force process.

The Ohio Field Office is working with the DOE Field Management Office to understand the

options available for federal employees. There are some opportunities for existing federal

employees to transfer to other DOE sites. New hires are aware that their jobs will be eliminated

in 2005. The key is to motivate and encourage people to stay in critical positions until closure.

The next speaker, Jim Powers, Acting Site Manager, Babcock & Wilcox of Ohio, Inc. (BWO),

began working at Mound as part of the management team for the new contract. Mr. Powers

commented on plant closure from the contractor’s perspective. Though DOE is closing down

operations at Mound Plant, the Mound site is not going away. This presents the BWO team with

a particular challenge. Over the next five years, DOE and the contractor will literally go out the

back door while private enterprise will be coming in through the front door. 

The existing work force consists of over 700 employees out of a work force that at one time

numbered over 2,000. These workers have already seen a tremendous change. They are being

asked to change again. 

BWO recognized the need for more flexibility in the way assignments were made to represented

workers. Changes to the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union (OCAW)

agreement were negotiated to allow fewer classifications of workers to do a larger variety of tasks

under much simpler work rules. With an investment in training for cleanup work, the existing

work force will come away from their current assignments with marketable skills appropriate to

the remediation industry. Environmental remediation is extremely complex. These activities must

be conducted by a work force that is skilled, knowledgeable and flexible. They also must be

willing and able to tackle the upcoming tasks. 

Mr. Powers stated that salaried positions are also changing. People who were hired years ago and

have dedicated their careers to the defense of the Nation, are facing changing times. Not

represented by a union, many of them feel abandoned or discarded by the industry they have

supported for their working lifetime. He noted that getting them to apply their skills with

enthusiasm is a real challenge.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 35

There is also a period of adjustment for the new owners of Mound. There is an extensive period

of coexistence. The three parties involved all have different relationships with each other. DOE

has negotiated a sales agreement with the MMCIC, and DOE and BWO have a contract which

requires BWO to perform to a budget and a schedule, but there is no contractual relationship

between BWO and MMCIC. 

To bridge the lack of a common contractual bond, a reuse partnership council was formed. This

allows a forum for communication of needs and wants pertinent to the three parties. The

partnership council sets a stage for meaningful progress. The council forum provides an

opportunity for: 1) understanding of each other’s limitations, strengths and abilities; 2) motivation

to stay focused on the goal; 3) a commitment to open, honest communication; and 4) respect for

each other. 

Mr. Powers stated the transition to private enterprise is inevitable. When DOE is gone, Mound

will still be a part of the community at Miamisburg. Many of the people currently working at

Mound will still be working at Mound. This time for private industry making high quality

products or services and they will look back at this time of transition as simply another interesting

part of their history.

The next speaker, Gary Nolley, OCAW, Local 7-4200, provided a brief overview of the Mound

Plant closure from the workers’ perspective. Workers have gone through many work force

changes from Monsanto, to EG&G, and now BWO. The workers have formed a partnership with

the contractor. They are committed to working hard toward the successful closure of the Mound

Plant.

Mayor Richard Church, City of Miamisburg, provided the community’s perspective of site

closure. Mayor Church presented an overview of what has happened in the city of Miamisburg

since the Department of Energy decided to close the plant and eliminate its 1,800 jobs. At the

outset, Mayor Church stated that while many communities are facing the challenges of defense

conversion, each community has to approach closure in its own way. 

In 1993, when DOE announced that the Mound Plant would close within five years, Mound was a

place where brilliant scientists and engineers used the most advanced technologies to develop and

manufacture detonators for nuclear weapons. It was also a place that had some environmental

problems, and was designated a Superfund site. 

Knowing of DOE’s decision to close Mound, the community had two options: close the gates or

move towards defense conversion. Although it was an uphill battle, the community chose defense

conversion. This was the only way to preserve what the country had invested in so heavily, to

keep people working and to maintain Mound as a positive force in the local economy.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 36

With DOE as its partner, the community accepted the challenge of defense conversion. The first

step they took was to establish the Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation

(MMCIC) as an arm of the city. The MMCIC would manage and coordinate all the city’s efforts

at Mound. After the MMCIC was formed, the Mound Reuse Committee was created, consisting

of a group of citizens who represent various community interests in decisions about Mound’s

cleanup standards and future uses. The next step was to establish the following vision for the site:

“To establish the Mound Advanced Technology Center as a privately owned, economically viable

industry and technology park by the year 2005.”

The goal at the Mound Plant is to build businesses around it’s technological capabilities. Mayor

Church stated that Mound has a lot to offer manufacturing companies needing research and

development capabilities and solutions to their problems. Historically, Mound’s geographic

region has been a manufacturing mecca, the community is building on that history by focusing

their economic development efforts in four industries — automotive, aerospace, machine tool and

information systems. 

MMCIC developed an economic development plan which included three programs geared to

helping Mound employees who wanted to start businesses around their technologies: (1) MMCIC

sponsored classes that taught Mound employees about starting and running a business; (2)

MMCIC established a business incubator to nurture start-up businesses, providing low-cost lease

rates, shared administrative services, and technical assistance; and (3) MMCIC provided loans to

help some of the businesses get started. Mayor Church noted that there are approximately 20

businesses which have been started by former Mound employees.

The MMCIC marketing and networking program is another major initiative that supports Mound

workers who have started new businesses. There is a synergy of technologies on the Mound

campus; combined they represent a one-stop solution for companies with manufacturing

problems. This one-stop feature is heavily marketed to industry. They have also combined

certain equipment, facilities, and skills into technology packages which have been marketed. The

goal is to attract a company or companies that would build a business around one of those

technology packages. MMCIC also encourages the privatization of site contractor’s work to

leverage work for Mound businesses. A Mound company could rely on a start-up base of

business while it markets its services to other customers. This effort has not yet been successful. 

Mayor Church continued to note that there is momentum for the region to establish itself as a

center of technological excellence. The community sees a role for Mound businesses in this

initiative and has created linkages with the key players in the area, such as, the Materials

Command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and the University of Dayton Research Institute.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 37

There are many important pieces of the puzzle that allows the community to move forward

toward commercialization of the Mound site. But the greatest accomplishment to date occurred

last January when a sales agreement was signed to convey ownership of the site from DOE to the

MMCIC. This breakthrough allows MMCIC to make commitments for the future —

commitments that give private business owners a comfort level with making investments in

building improvements and equipment.

Since the beginning, the Mound effort has faced numerous challenges and obstacles to economic

development. The greatest challenge resulted from the fact that neither DOE nor the community

had ever gone through defense conversion before. So they were inventing the process as they

went along, resolving disagreements about responsibilities, equipment and the best path forward.

Mayor Church stated that much of what has been accomplished at the Mound site has been made

possible through the Office of Worker and Community Transition, especially Bob DeGrasse,

through his support of the MMCIC goals. Mayor Church is optimistic about the future of the

Mound Advanced Technology Center and the prospects for former Mound employees who have

become business leaders, as well as the new businesses that have come to the site. 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Q: To Gary Nolley: From a Union perspective what unique challenges are you facing as

your site moves ever closer to a final closure mode and what efforts are being taken to

prepare for eventual separation of your membership?

A: We have developed the Partnership Council between DOE, the contractor, and labor. We

meet weekly to discuss projects. Our long-term contract also guarantees employment through

2002.

Q: To Jim Powers: Please discuss the differences between your initial expectations of

being a closure contractor and the realities of being a prime contractor to the Department

of Energy?

A: I was surprised with the low morale at the site. There was a high level of frustration and

sadness. The reward mechanisms weren’t working. 

Q: To Leah Dever: Being relatively new to the Ohio Field Office you are in a unique

position to look at the task at hand objectively, that is to say, the Ohio Field Office has five

sites scheduled for closure, what factors seem to be working the best to enhance the

accelerated clean-up of these sites?
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 38

A: There are many things that are working. For example: 1) The vision statement is a powerful

tool to communicate what we are doing. The strategic plan is a tactical tool for how we are going

to do it. 2) There is uniqueness and similarity across the five sites. The sites meet at the summit

to share lessons-learned. It allows us to find new answers. 3) We try to find deployable

technologies. I need something that is going to work today, not five years from now. 4) We have

buy-in from stakeholders and regulators. They are as committed to closure as we are. 5) We

have team work. The Partnership Council is very important. 6) We have a positive attitude — a

can do attitude.

Q: To Mayor Church: Intentions, perceptions and reality are not always one in the same

in the world in which we live. As the City of Miamisburg begins their partnership with

DOE and eventually Plans to assume ownership from DOE, what events or opportunities

did happen or needed to happen to insure a successful transition?

A: We formed an alliance with employees. The Mound Citizens Action Group meets weekly. I

also think the community needs to step up and take charge. The community needs to speak with

one voice. There must also be a partnership among all entities.

Q: To Gary Nolley: From a broad perspective, what efforts need to be, could of been, or

are being taken to make the eventual transition of the Mound Plant a success in the eyes of

your work force?

A: The contract extension was the biggest factor, the work force is more settled. I tell my people

to get ready for 2002. Communications have improved. Trust has to be visible for transition to

work.

Q: To Jim Powers: As a closure contractor, how are you managing to maintain a positive

work environment, retaining the skills you need and keeping morale high with a workforce

who’s jobs are eventually going to be discontinued? What innovative solutions are you

considering and how do you deal with the workers caught in the middle, those not making

high salaries or part of a bargaining unit?

A: We have a positive work environment. We have implemented a number of initiatives such as 

the exit-equity share program where employees receive one share per every quarter they stay

employed. This provides retention money for staying until closure. We also provide quick

recognition for good deeds. We have hope for the future and we concentrate on fairness. We are

judged by our actions, not our rhetoric.

Q: To Leah Dever: From your initial presentation it is obvious that you believe in the

philosophy “What’s good for the goose is also good for the Gander” in that your staff is
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 39

undergoing some of the same types of Manpower Planning as the contractor. What

thoughts are being given to the sharing of resources across contractor/federal lines as the

sites continue to get smaller? Do you see the eventual sharing of training staffs, HR staffs,

purchasing staffs as a feasible plan under the OFO?

A: We share federal resources as we get smaller and smaller. We use help from other operations

offices. We use the financial administrative resources at Oak Ridge and the training resources at

Savannah River. We have also used TeleVideo training resources. We will start looking for

technology support. We will get people coming into the Ohio Field Office on detail for a year or

two. We also have to remain clear about DOE federal duties versus contractor duties.

Q: To Mayor Church: What advice do you have to offer other sites as they move towards

a smaller and more concentrated operation while at the same time making facilities open

for public use and employment?

A: It is important to form partnerships with other communities in the area, such as the Energy

Communities Alliance. It is also important to set goals, be flexible, and think outside the box.

Q: To Jim Powers: How does the Exit-Equity Program work?

A: Employees get shares that will be cashed out at the end of the project. We need to keep those

critical skills.

Q: To Leah Dever: What was the peak employment at DOE-OH?

A: The peak employment was 270 employees, which is up considerably from when the staff was

considered the Dayton Area Office and received services from Albuquerque. The current Federal

work force for all Ohio Field office projects is 225.

Q: To Jim Powers: How are you dealing with the skills mix issue?

A: We rely on subcontractors. As you know, there have been problems with the traditional

manpower planning.

Q: What is the current staffing level at the site?

A: There are approximately 700 BWO employees, 100 federal workers, 30-50 subcontractors,

and approximately 260 non-DOE business people working at the site.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 40

Q: To Jim Powers and Leah Dever: As you approach closure, what is the feeling among

the work force concerning preference in hiring?

A: Jim Powers: That depends on the stage in one’s career and how enmeshed they are in the

community. Leah Dever: Part of the transition plan for the federal workers is to request other

Federal agencies to consider our employees first. DOE can also provide relocation assistance to

federal workers.

Q: To Gary Nolley: Are any union members taking advantage of the section 3161 training

opportunities?

A: Everyone that wanted to get retraining was able to sign up for training under section 3161 and

our contract.

Q: To Mayor Church: Can you briefly describe the process of transferring property from

DOE to non-DOE usage? 

A: The process has been a two year process and is very complicated. It would be difficult to

discuss it in the detail required during this Q&A session. (Note: Attendee was invited to talk

about the property transfer process after the session.)

Q: To Leah Dever: How cooperative will other installations be for hiring DOE-OH federal

workers?

A: Right now the cooperation is not high because all the Operations Offices are facing

downsizing. But as time goes on and after we have cut to the bone, opportunities may arise. 

People have to be willing to move if they want to stay with DOE. I am hoping that the

opportunities will be there in the years 2002 and 2003.

Q: To Mayor Church: What is the salary structure of new businesses and the new jobs

created? Is there a discrepancy?

A: Yes, there is a discrepancy. The base salary is lower. The new businesses are typically startup business, which traditionally have lower salaries. Right now about 60% of the private workers

at the Mound site are displaced Mound workers. 

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS - CONCURRENT SESSION 3
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 41

3A. PLANNING GUIDANCE FOR CONTRACTOR WORK FORCE

RESTRUCTURING

Moderator: Barry Lawson, Lawson and Associates

Speakers: Terry Freese, Office of Worker and Community Transition, U.S. DOE

Bob Card, Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC

This session provided an opportunity for open discussion on any issues raised in draft revisions to

the Planning Guidance for Contractor Work Force Restructuring.

Terry Freese, Deputy Director, DOE Office of Worker and Community Transition, gave an

overview of the Department’s work force restructuring activities to date, highlighting how

restructuring was accomplished in the past and the changes in the restructuring environment that

led to a new approach for future restructurings. Mr. Freese was followed by Mr. Bob Card,

President and CEO, Kaiser-Hill Company, the management and operating contractor for the

Department’s Rocky Flats site. Mr. Card gave a site-specific overview of work force

restructuring actions at Rocky Flats, one of the Department’s closure sites.

Mr. Freese noted that the initial work force restructurings incorporated large, episodic reductions,

often budget driven, where announcements of several thousand reductions were made at one time,

followed by periods of no adjustments. During this period, voluntary programs predominated,

with 88 percent of separations being on a voluntary basis through 1996. This initial approach to

work force restructuring required each site to develop multiple plans, with a new plan for each

episodic reduction. Often there was confusion as to which plan applied (those in place or the new

plan under development for a new action). Due to bureaucratic challenges, plans were frequently

approved after restructurings occurred. Accompanying uncertainty about the long-term size and

structure of the work force undercut the ability to conduct long-term work force planning.

Key changes in the Department’s restructuring environment served to move the restructuring

methods away from the initial approach. These changes included the development of long-term

strategic plans (e.g., Stockpile Stewardship Programmatic EIS, EM Paths to Closure) which

identified future operating expectations at the sites, including several sites moving to closure in 5

to 10 years. There were also changes in the contract mechanisms employed across the

Department, including a move towards incentive (performance-based) contracts, an increased

utilization of privatization and outsourcing efforts, and the new management and integrating

approach used at Oak Ridge. Further, work force changes were becoming increasingly driven by

project completion and mission shift concerns -- with changes in skills mix factors increasing,

gross reductions were less significant. Finally, opportunities for continued voluntary separations

programs diminished. Skills mix requirements demanded better targeting in separation actions

and participation levels declined as a result of repeated offerings over the past several years. 
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 42

Also, Congress has also directed that “enhanced benefits” can only be funded through the Worker

and Community Transition account.

All theses changes provided the impetus to move to a new approach for work force restructuring

for the Fiscal Year 1997 and 1998 separations. The Office of Worker and Community Transition

has been managing the restructuring efforts to meet these changes and implement the new

approach. One of the more significant changes is a move to a single work force restructuring plan

for each site, which will remain in place to cover restructuring requirements as they occur. This

plan can be amended as necessary, and allows stakeholder consultation prior to and during

restructuring implementation. In addition, the new approach provides greater flexibility and

responsibility for Department field offices and contractors. For example: implementing an

ongoing plan requires headquarters notification, as opposed to their approval; requests to fund

enhanced benefits will be reviewed in a more expeditious fashion; and work force management

can be used as a performance measure for contract incentives. Further, incentives are now

targeted to program requirements (to promote retention as needed, particularly at closure sites),

and restructuring efforts are better coordinated with community transition efforts.

Mr. Bob Card, President and CEO of Kaiser-Hill Company (KHC), described some work force

restructuring issues, particularly associated with the goal of closing Rocky Flats by the year 2006. 

The project’s elements needed to meet the goal include: 1) returning the site to reuse or open

spaces; 2) demolishing 700 structures; 3) remediating or closing 200 environmental sites;

4) recovering and shipping plutonium and uranium liquids, special nuclear material, transuranic

waste and low level wastes; 5) disposing of 150,000 containers of chemicals; 6) disposing of

1 million items of property, and 7) restructuring approximately 5,500 jobs. He stated that as a

closure site, Rocky Flats presents some unique and challenging concerns for work force

restructuring. In order to make closure in the year 2006 a reality, KHC needs to:

• tailor the work force size and skills mix commensurate with the project cash flows

and performance needs; 

• motivate the work force to engage in an accelerated closure effort and remain at

the site until their services are no longer needed; 

• achieve a level of work force safety, compliance and performance consistent with

industry standards; 

• minimize cost and schedule, as well as work force and community impacts; and,

• operate the complex like a commercial model -- first to market with experience

and technologies.

Mr. Card noted that the DOE approach to restructuring still needed some improvements to meet

adequately the needs of the sites. Faster approvals and more flexibility for complying with section

3161 for the contractors is necessary. One concern identified by Mr. Card is that all sites be
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 43

treated as if they were all the same. This is ineffective since many sites have unique social and

political considerations that should be taken into account. At Rocky Flats, they are still treated

like everyone else, but in reality they are different than other sites (e.g., there is low

unemployment in the area and the surrounding community is not supportive). Continued DOE

involvement in contractor personnel issues is not effective. DOE should not be micro-managing

work force issues; it establishes rewards and penalties for contractor behavior, then leaves the

management of those issues to the contractor. Another concern is that section 3161 still creates

two classes of employees (cold war workers and non-cold war workers), making it even more

difficult for the contractor to handle restructuring actions effectively.

Mr. Card also identified several management strategies designed to support the site’s

restructuring focus, including strategies associated with labor relations issues, enhancing

employability, and softening the transition at the end of closure. Labor relation strategies include

restructuring bargaining agreements to remove drivers for reduced employment, addressing

jurisdictional agreements between bargaining units, establishing a steady (as opposed to

fluctuating up or down) operating union employment, and upgrading first line supervisors. 

Strategies for enhancing employability include making it a positive feature to have Rocky Flats

experience on your resume (as opposed to an inhibitor for future employment), outsourcing to

lower tier contractors, and establishing commercially competitive compensation for employees.

Finally, Mr. Card described some of the progress to date at Rocky Flats regarding work force

issues, including:

 • a percentage increase in hourly workers since 1995 (i.e., the employees actually

doing the closure work); 

 • a decrease in radiological violations;

 • improved productivity (i.e., an increase in sites dispositioned and waste disposal

versus a declining budget);

 • outsourcing key functions (e.g., analytical laboratories, chemical management,

engineering services and road and ground services); and

 • positioned other functions for transition (e.g., occupational medicine and the fire

department). 

Along with this progress are several outstanding issues to be addressed. The more salient include: 

• motivating personnel to save the government money at their expense (e.g.,

possibly offering end of project termination benefits);

• improving the ability to change the performance/competency mix;

• eliminating the class division and management preference in section 3161; and

• dealing with the year 2002-2004 transition from steel workers to building trades.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 44

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Q: I haven’t really seen much flexibility in downsizing. Who gets the enhanced benefits (at

Oak Ridge for instance)?

A: (Terry Freese) Regarding flexibility, we’re trying to meet particular circumstances at each site

-- recognizing site-specific considerations. At Oak Ridge, for example, we were involved in the

new Request-for-Proposal for the Management and Integrating contract to identify issues such as

multiple employer pension plans (to address continuity issues) and make sure service credit

continued, as well as other worker-related concerns. At Rocky Flats there was a different

approach, including incrementally working tasks through outsourcing. Several options are

considered. Someone might take the voluntary separation package (get enhanced severance) then

opt for employment with DOE. Another option is to be involuntarily separated, get severance,

then go to the new contractor through preference-in-hiring.

As far as who decides what the enhanced benefits are, it’s based on the work force restructuring

guidance, and ultimately the decision is for the OWCT. We must manage our budget between a

number of competing demands.

As far as the two classes of workers are concerned, the program has historically been very

embedded in the idea that we are rewarding cold war workers. We’re saying now that work force

restructuring is an ongoing process, and not just related to cold war workers -- only preferencein-hiring is still tied to the end of the cold war (September 27, 1991 for the purposes of our

program).

Q: At Rocky Flats, the concept of work force management as a performance measure

worked well initially, but now it’s gone. It makes a big difference if it’s part of the

performance measure bonus calculation. Also, Bob, what did you mean by wanting DOE

to distance itself from the work force management?

A: (Bob Card) No other large Federal program has this level of involvement in work force

management. We want more control, we want to be in charge of our own work force - just like

the private sector.

Q: DOE never formally sat at the table in labor-management relations -- but was close

behind the scenes. There are areas where DOE is very needed, for example, in the

continuity of health benefits.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 45

A: (Bob Card) On the issue of retirees, yes, DOE needs to be involved. I’m talking about the

management of current workers at the sites. We’re very interested in the portability of health

benefits.

(Terry Freese) DOE is currently looking at a catastrophic illness program possibility, particularly

if there is a gap in coverage. A big issue for DOE is the potential multi-billion dollar medical

liability for retirees down the road.

Q: There have been radical improvements at Rocky Flats since KHC came in. We are

getting closer to commensurate salary levels and the increase in hourly workers is a good

sign. But several issues are still outstanding. We need to ramp up the number of people

needed to meet the year 2006 closure date. We have a shortage of critical skills folks -- we

need apprenticeship programs to meet these needs. We should spend the money to train

in-house as opposed to spending dollars just for separations. Also, I don’t really agree with

the date for the transition from the steel workers to the building trades, especially for the

more contaminated buildings.

A: (Terry Freese) We do encourage the use of funding for training and internal placement.

(Bob Card) I agree that looking at an apprenticeship program is a good idea.

Q: Is Portsmouth covered under section 3161?

A: (Terry Freese) We have made funding available to Portsmouth prior to this year. The new

legislation may affect that, but we’re funding it. Our ability to continue funding does depend on

Fiscal Year 1999 budgets.

3B. ASSET DISPOSITION PILOT PROJECTS

Moderator: Rich Aiken, Office of Worker and Community Transition

Speakers: Stuart Fribush, Coopers and Lybrand

Tom Lukow, Rocky Flats Field Office, U.S. Department of Energy

Lawrence Young, Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee

The central theme of these projects is to provide a mechanism to leverage unneeded Department

of Energy (DOE) assets as a means to reduce mortgage costs. This session focused on solutions,

rather than problems, using specific examples of viable opportunities, which were applied to

current asset disposition projects.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 46

Previous studies have cited the DOE's inventory of excess assets, which have been accumulating

over many decades, as a major problem. There are costs associated for maintaining unneeded

assets, even though in the current DOE accounting system they may not be very visible. Not only

is there the obvious additional cost of merely maintaining the unneeded properties, but there also

exists the potential for "down-stream" liability. Good cost savings figures, which could be used to

better incentivize, are still lacking. The Office of Worker and Community Transition is

considering funding a study to better identify and monitor such costs.

To help address these issues, the Department put forth "pilot" legislation to address costs, and

instituted an integrated policy on property disposals. Section 3138 of the 1998 National Defense

Authorization Act implemented the asset management pilot program. This program identifies six

pilot projects located at four DOE Field/Operations Offices -- Oak Ridge (Tennessee), Richland

(Washington), Rocky Flats (Colorado), Savannah River (South Carolina), and allows for revenue

retention to offset program costs of property dispositioning. The pilot projects basically delve

into three specific areas: leasing of facilities, electronics recycling, and selling unneeded assets. 

Although the primary goal of the pilot program is to reduce Departmental mortgage costs, this

program also helps with economic diversification as a means to that end. 

Correct policies, proper authorizations, appropriate scheduling, as well as creative ideas are all

needed for asset disposition projects to succeed. There also needs to be more thinking outside

one's immediate environment, that is, outside the proverbial "box". Knowing about opportunities

is one thing, but one must also take advantage of available tools (e.g., sale/leasing authority, cost

reimbursement, local expertise). Two examples of innovative use of tools within DOE are

economic development mechanisms applied in the reindustrialization efforts at Oak Ridge, and the

creative processes used in personal property disposal at Rocky Flats.

The first speaker was Stuart Fribush of Coopers and Lyband, who stated that asset management

can no longer be approached as a support function to an operating site. Rather, it should be a

core function which needs to be better aligned with evolving missions. As an example, in the

environmental cleanup area, equipment must first be removed from those areas requiring D&D

(decontamination & decommission) work. Embedded in the asset management philosophy is a

"life cycle" issue, or idea that is finally coming to fore.

The concept of strategic asset management embodies certain characteristics. Primary elements

focus on creating incentives as a means to align asset management with mission, considering the

different asset types (e.g., personal property, real property, nuclear materials, intellectual

property) synergistically (i.e., benefits that could be derived by putting things together as a

"package"), and realizing that while it may begin as a site-specific activity (with the site being the

lead), it follows a bottom-up approach and eventually becomes a Department-wide corporate

function. Several examples of incentives include revenue retention from sales which would be
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 47

used for additional mission-related activities, potential to mine value of underlying assets (e.g.,

nickel found at an Oak Ridge facility during D&D efforts), and the potential for significant

benefits for site transition or regional reindustrialization as a means to incentivize environmental

cleanup activities.

There are benefits to viewing asset management strategically: creation of incentives for mission

completion (e.g., reindustrialization); reduction of life-cycle costs and liabilities; capturing the

value of underutilized assets; better alignment of multiple objectives (e.g., Environmental

Management's cleanup function and support of worker and community transition activities). 

Examples include the efficient cleanup and reindustrialization of the former K-25 Site at Oak

Ridge (now known as the East Tennessee Technology Park) by leveraging existing physical assets

and emerging intellectual property; multi-site business centers for specialized assets to generate

revenue and lessen costs (this is especially prominent for personal property and is evident with the

precious metals center also in Oak Ridge); and new markets for isotopes developed and supported

in industry and health care (e.g., food irradiation, radiopharmaceuticals) using DOE physical

assets, intellectual property, and human resources.

Some barriers to efficient asset management include: lack of incentive for disposition (e.g., there

is little incentive to declare assets unneeded, high environmental/national security transaction

costs, and revenues generated are returned to the U.S. Treasury without covering DOE

transaction costs); lack of incentive to avoid costs; lack of corporate business systems; fragmented

statutory authorities for asset disposition; and the mentality of keeping unneeded assets "just in

case" they might be required at a later date.

To overcome these barriers there needs to be a linkage of asset management with mission (sitespecific concept with corporate Headquarter's support), a clear DOE-wide corporate policy on

the use of existing statutory authorities and public/private partnerships, an entrepreneurial

government process (cross-cutting business centers for certain categories of assets when business

case exists), and creating synergy between various categories of assets. The Department needs to

move away from its ingrained corporate thinking of "this is the way we've always done it".

There was a brief discussion of several public-private partnerships from other Federal agencies

and their various activities. Included were the Department of Defense: Reuse of Proceeds from

Surplus Real Property Sales (authority since 1991); Housing Revitalization Programs (Corpus

Christi, Texas and Everett, Washington); Energy Initiatives (compensation for "avoided" energy

expenses); Department of Transportation (State Infrastructure Banks); NASA (Commercial

Technology Management System); USDA (Alternative Research and Commercialization

Corporation). The partnerships listed above are successful examples of the entrepreneurial

government approach, and serve as precedents for DOE efficiency-enhancing initiatives similar to

Section 3140 of the Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Authorization Act.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 48

The disposition process for real property was discussed. The lack of statutory authorities and

interpretations of existing statutory authorities have led to more public-private partnerships,

including limited liability corporations (LLC). The basic concept of a LLC is to foster a broader

cooperation between DOE and the community reuse organizations. Through a LLC, the property

is transferred to a local entity with DOE as a limited partner, while limiting the local entity's

environmental liability. DOE would use the net lease revenues received to invest in mission areas. 

Mr. Fribush suggested that the Department should consider the establishment of business centers

for the management and disposition of personal property. Unlike real property, personal property

management does not have to be site-specific. Complex-wide business centers could take

advantage of economies of scale and special market-specific expertise to reduce carrying costs as

well as generate revenue. Examples of business centers include DOE precious metals, DOE

isotopes program, and the DoD Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service. The disposition of

personal property is most effective when coordinated with the disposition of intellectual property

and real property (e.g., fully-functional buildings available for reuse and incorporation of DOE

technologies).

Intellectual property assets represent assets of the future and will likely be a significant force for

attracting new life (e.g., food irradiation, radiopharmaceuticals, inorganic membrane technology

commercialization), and hence incentivize cleanup operations. The potential for commercializing

DOE intellectual property is great: 30 DOE labs maintain a staff of nearly 60,000 with an

operating budget of about $7.5 billion. Every year, about 500 licenses are awarded for

technologies that are developed in these labs.

The next speaker, Mr. Lawrence Young, Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee, 

stated that there are currently 11 Community Reuse Organizations (CROs) across the DOE

complex. The CROs were created to assist with property transfers and to better package assets,

that used to be liabilities, to create jobs and job opportunities. The ultimate goal of the CROs is

to work with the private sector to create jobs.

The Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (CROET) was created to lease Federally

owned properties and sublease them to private industry. Mechanisms used by CROET include

bartering (e.g., use of equipment/facilities in exchange for cleanup services), providing short-term

markets for recycled materials, and traditional leases.

Leasing/subleasing is a reindustrialization tool utilized to cost effectively accelerate and integrate

environmental restoration and facility reuse. Reindustrialization is an economic boon for a

community with many good paying jobs being created. As of the end of April 1998, 

reindustrialization efforts in the Oak Ridge area accounted for over 370 new jobs being created

with more than $15 million in annual wages (average wage for a new job was $41,293).
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 49

The main area of the East Tennessee Technology Park (formerly known as the K-25 Site)

contains about 1,500 acres, with slightly more than half of this acreage within a security fence. 

There are approximately 125 major buildings with more than 13 million sq. ft. of floor space. 

These are not just empty buildings, but in many instances buildings which are functional operating

facilities containing specialized equipment. Currently available major facilities include K-1401 and

K-1037. The K-1401 Maintenance Building has 473,000 sq. ft. of space; high bay facilities;

precision machining capabilities, with over 400 major machine tools; and a main machine shop

that can lift/manipulate 46 ton, 12ft. diameter pieces. The K-1037 Production-Development

Facility with 334,000 sq. ft. of space has metallography and material test capabilities, as well as a

stress laboratory; a railroad spur at a large loading dock; and a 17.5 MW uninterruptible power

source. There are also 26 miles of paved roads and almost 10 miles of railroad tracks. Also, not

to be overlooked, is the fact that this area is home to a highly skilled work force.

During the last two years, the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) has acquired 14 tenants. 

As of April 1998, the tenants included American Technologies, Inc.; Blue Ridge Development;

Cook Heat and Air; Diversified Environmental Services; East Tennessee Materials and Energy

Corp.; GLR Corp.; Infrared Technologies; Machine Kinetics Corp.; Materials and Chemistry

Laboratory; Operations Management International; Southern Freight Logistics; Strip

Technologies of America; TRISM Environmental Services; and VasCon Foundation. 

Also mentioned was specific information regarding several of the ETTP tenants. American

Technologies has leased a facility already equipped with machinery for its activities; and Infrared

Technologies, Inc. which specializes in applying infrared technologies to heat and process metals,

plastics, and ceramics, is leasing about 5,000 sq. ft. of space in Building K-1401 to manufacture

specially designed infrared heating systems.

The final speaker, Tom Lukow from the Department of Energy’s Rocky Flats Field Office, stated

that Rocky Flats, a former nuclear weapons site, is currently under a closure phase; which is

anticipated by the year 2006. Objectives during this phase include the expeditious disposal of

property; removal of procedural and regulatory barriers; increased efficiency and achieving an

economic balance between waste determination, reutilization, and sales.

The Rocky Flats Field Office has the realistic expectation that many items screened will not be

reused, and that it would not be cost effective to do a 100 percent survey/release for most of the

personal property items. Approximately 1 million personal property items need to be

dispositioned by the year 2006, at a rate of 150,000 items per year to meet the closure schedule. 

Screening items helps to locate homes in (DOE facilities, schools, other public agencies) for

approximately 6% of the excess property, with the remaining 94% being sold to the public. The

personal property sold to the public is generally comprised of small, low-value items. In fiscal

year 1998, approximately 40,000 pieces of equipment have been disposed. Increasing the
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 50

effectiveness of current disposal procedures is critical: Rocky Flats is looking to reengineer old

processes and establish new procedures. The Rocky Flats Field Office is concentrating on high

value items that are pretty much "ready to go", and is establishing an excess property central

processing center to facilitate disposal. In addition, the Rocky Flats Field Office is developing

economic disposition plans to plot the appropriate disposition path for the different classes and

categories of equipment.

An economic disposition plan would typically involve the sorting of property into selected

categories, conducting field assessments using mobile multi-functional teams, and making a

determination if the property could be free released (taking into account nuclear proliferation and

classification concerns). The disposal team then develops readiness and removal cost data

(including decontamination, dismantlement, repair, and packaging costs), and compares disposal

costs to the property's fair market value to decide whether to release the property for reuse or

dispose it as waste. Due to its limited budget and schedule for property disposal, the Rocky Flats

Field Office cannot transfer equipment desired by other DOE sites without reimbursement for

packaging and shipping costs. Other DOE sites are asked to pay the Rocky Flats Field Office for

the costs of transferring requested high value property to their locations.

Also discussed was the asset management pilot project at Rocky Flats. The National Defense

Authorization Act for FY 1998 authorized the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site to

retain revenues from the sale, lease, or disposal of personal property to offset the program costs

of property disposition. Typical revenue streams could include public auctions; sealed bid sales;

retail sales; scrap sales; Rocky Flats Local Impacts Initiative sales (the Rocky Flats Community

Reuse Organization); and recovery of costs for transferring items for other Federal agency use. 

Typical program costs could include such items as priority utilization and disposal (e.g., economic

disposition planning, reclamation, staging/warehousing); management and planning (e.g.,

distribution to projects). Net proceeds for the first half of fiscal year 1998 totaled $242,786; with

the largest component of $92,041(or nearly 40%) the result of the public auction mechanism.

Basic rules governing the reutilization and disposal of property date back to the Government

Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. Even with subsequent Executive Orders and

Public Laws modifying the process, the intent of the law has been to use excess property as the

first source of supply, and to allocate available property within a hierarchy regardless of cost or

cycle time. The intent of this process conflicts with the Site closure mission. On May 29, 1998,

the RFFO Manager informed DOE/HQ that Section 161 (g) of the Atomic Energy Act would be

implemented at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. Section 161 (g) would enable

property disposition to be conducted on an expedited basis, thereby reducing the cost of disposal

activities and allowing the Site to focus on high value property in good condition. Moreover, the

use of Section 161 (g) authority permits the Site to buy-down its infrastructure costs by mitigating

or eliminating the property management function within some site facilities.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 51

LUNCH PLENARY PRESENTATION

HARNESSING THE CONTRACTOR PROCESS TO ENCOURAGE LOCAL GROWTH

Speaker: Thomas A. Garcia, Deputy Director for Institutional Development,

Los Alamos National Laboratory

This session reviewed economic development initiatives instituted by the Los Alamos National

Laboratory (LANL). It was presented by Tom Garcia, LANL Deputy Director for Institutional

Development.

Among the elements covered in this session were a general background on LANL’s mission and

role in the community; the laboratory’s economic development program goals; the initiatives

introduced to achieve those goals; some examples of substantive results; and the impacts of these

efforts on the regional community.

Mr. Garcia’s presentation began with a brief background on the laboratory, whose mission

includes stockpile stewardship, non- and counter-proliferation, and environmental restoration. He

discussed the role of the laboratory in the development of Los Alamos and the Northern New

Mexico economy and community. He noted, for example, that although LANL accounts for 30%

of the local economy — an annual impact of $3.85 billion — the site had no history of

philanthropic involvement in the Los Alamos community.

Philanthropic participation is one of four LANL economic development goals. The other three

are job creation, significant regional investment, and diversifying the local economy. To achieve

these goals, LANL has implemented economic development efforts aimed at:

C Increasing the public sector market share;

C Growing the industrial and private sector market share;

C Leveraging the laboratory’s sub-contractors; and,

C Infrastructure revitalization.

From 1998-2003, Mr. Garcia expects that LANL will engage in more than $1.2 billion worth of

Federal construction programs for the laboratory’s stockpile stewardship, stockpile management,

and non-proliferation activities. The laboratory has also formed commercial partnerships which

include such private firms as US West, Motorola, TRU, and Xerox, all in an effort to expand

LANL’s industrial and private sector market share.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 52

The budget for these collaborations was $10 million in 1996, and $78 million in 1997. Public and

private partnerships such as these are the product of the laboratory’s concerted efforts to promote

outside investment into the local economy. Mr. Garcia noted, for example, that the US West

Service Center is estimated to produce a regional economic impact of $11.25 million a year or

$56.24 million over the next 5 years.

Last year, through their Technology Commercialization Office, LANL budgeted $78 million for

public and private sector market expansion activities, including the 1999 leasing of 50 Department

of Energy acres to Los Alamos County for construction of a Research Park that will be managed

by the Los Alamos Economic Development Council. The first 50,000 square foot building in the

complex will be occupied by Motorola.

By re-competing their largest sub-contracts (worth $704 million), Mr. Garcia stated that LANL is

able to apply leverage to these sub-contractors to include stipulations covering such items as local

hiring, economic diversification, local community investment, and a 25% WMBE requirement. 

Benefits for the sub-contractor are derived through reduced cycle-time (an annual savings of

between 10% and 15%), and other economic incentives offered by LANL.

Mr. Garcia identified some early examples of LANL’s economic development efforts, including

the locating of offices or plants in northern New Mexico by:

C Fluor Daniel, Inc. -- Architects/Engineers, 100 to 150 jobs (Española);

C Johnson Controls of Northern New Mexico, Inc. -- 600 to 1100 jobs (Española);

C Protection Technology Los Alamos, Inc. [PTLA – 100 new jobs and an $11.95 million

total regional impact]; and

C Burns & Roe, Inc. -- Architects/Engineers, 50-60 jobs (Los Alamos).

LANL estimates that its economic development initiatives will create 5,700 new jobs in New

Mexico between 1997 and 2001. Of those, 83% (4,700) will be in northern New Mexico. 

Through LANL’s Procurement Initiative, formed by the Northern New Mexico Procurement

Advisory Committee and the Strategic Learning Systems Partnerships, regional procurement

increased by $50 million (or 22%) to $274.3 million in fiscal year 1997.

Mr. Garcia’s economic development office also works hand-in-hand with the public/private Los

Alamos National Laboratory Foundation. The Foundation promotes educational enrichment

(through an alliance with the Tri-County Higher Education Association and the Northern New

Mexico Council for Excellence in Education), economic development, and accessibility to social

services.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 53

The total 1998 LANL grants to the Foundation totaled $1.75 million. Other commitments to the

Foundation, which will come from the University of California, an annual fund-raiser, and public,

private, and matching grants, will average $8 million a year or $40 million over the next 5 years.

Mr. Garcia concluded his presentation by recognizing his LANL colleagues who have worked

with him on these and other economic development efforts. He circulated contact names and

phone numbers for various personnel responsible for community outreach and economic

development.

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS - CONCURRENT SESSION 4

4A. LABOR MANAGEMENT FORUM

Moderator: Barry R. Lawson, President, Lawson Associates

Speakers: John F. Meese, Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO

John Bradburne, Fluor Daniel Fernald

Gene Branham, Fernald Atomic Trades & Labor Council

Greg Glynn, Bechtel Nevada

Dave Garbarino, International Union of Operating Engineers, 

Local 12

Lavonne C. Ritter, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

Region

This session was organized to communicate the experiences of labor and management

representatives during collective bargaining negotiations at Department of Energy sites in Ohio

and Nevada. The session was divided into two panels with union and management negotiators

from the Fernald Environmental Management Project in Ohio, and the Southern Nevada Labor

Alliance in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Among the elements presented during this forum were discussions on the use of the Federal

Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) to facilitate labor negotiations and examples of

various methods to developing productive and credible labor-management relationships.

Panel 1: Fernald Environmental Management Project

Title: “Spirit of Collaboration”

Participants: John Meese, Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO

John Bradburne, Fluor Daniel Fernald 

Gene Branham, Fernald Atomic Trades and Labor Council 
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 54

John Meese, President of the Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO opened the session with

remarks on the dynamics of good labor-management partnerships, his perspective on the state of

labor relations in the United States and the history of the Department of Energy’s role in

promoting productive labor-management relationships. Mr. Meese also presented his views on

the recent privatization efforts, noting that the Department should take into account a greater

diversity of views on the issue. He noted that while there are many positive aspects to reform, the

Department should not lose sight of the policy impact on the individual worker.

John Bradburne, President, Fluor Daniel Fernald and Gene Branham, Fernald, Atomic Trades and

Labor Council discussed the 1998-2003 agreement between Fluor Daniel Fernald and the Fernald

Atomic Trades and Labor Council (FAT&LC). Together, Fluor Daniel Fernald and FAT&LC

were able to develop a contract that satisfied the dual goals of maintaining necessary skills for

project completion, while preparing those who have fulfilled their roles at Fernald for employment

elsewhere.

Through enhanced work planning, FAT&LC members are equal partners in the planning and

execution of work on site. This partnership has resulted in dramatic improvements in safety,

efficiency, and cost-savings for projects of all sizes and scope.

The career development opportunities in place at Fernald are unequaled anywhere in the DOE

complex. The site has two full-service Career Development Centers staffed with professional

career counselors.

Through a working labor-management partnership, Fernald has implemented innovative programs

that expand team members’ options. These include:

C Commercial Driver’s License Training Program;

C CSX Training Program;

C Fluor Daniel Craft Certification Program; and the

C Craft Apprenticeship Program.

Fluor Daniel Fernald and FAT&LC are committed to providing development opportunities to

team members that will enable them to leave Fernald employed.

The panel credited the tremendous progress they are making on cleaning up the Fernald site to the

collaborative relationship Fluor Daniel Fernald and FAT&LC have been able to achieve.

Panel 2: Southern Nevada Labor Alliance

Title: “Labor-Management Partnerships -- Innovative Approaches”

Participants: Greg Glynn, Bechtel Nevada Labor Relations Director
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 55

Dave Garbarino, International Operating Engineers Local 12 

Lavonne C. Ritter, Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service 

Dave Garbarino, Greg Glynn, and Lavonne Ritter delivered a joint presentation on their

experiences in creating the Southern Nevada Labor Alliance (SNLA), a “partnership to promote

labor and management cooperation based on trust and teamwork.”

Early in their bidding process to operate the site, the contractor, Bechtel Nevada, informed the

Department of Energy that they would be creating an alliance with the union. Mr. Garbarino,

International Operating Engineers Local 12 , agreed that the Bechtel Nevada takeover of the site

was crucial to forming the successful type of labor-management relationship that now exists.

The agreement and alliance was made possible through, first and most importantly, union

leadership and ‘buy-in.’ The union had to not only agree to work through the process, but take

an active, leading role in it. Second, management support of the effort. The contractor’s support

was crucial to ensuring a credible and enduring partnership. Third, agreed upon and

understandable goals had to be established. Finally, both sides had to work together on

developing a plan on how to reach those goals.

Parties participated in a “Team Building Skills Training” provided by the FMCS. The training

focused on the consensus/decision-making process and emphasized listening and communications

skills. Meetings between labor and management were facilitated by the FMCS and observed by

Department of Energy representatives. Through this process, a mission statement for the

continuous improvement processes were established.

Areas for improvement were jointly determined through the establishment of various committees,

including the first two committees formed: the Craft Work Rules and Jurisdictional Work

Assignments. The latter Continuous Improvement (CI) Committee was formed to address a 40-

year ongoing problem for the site. CI Committees and members were identified and established. 

Through this process, workers were able to participate in the decision-making process, thus

making them feel a part of the system and creating a more accommodating work environment. 

The foundation for the negotiations were set through a process of “Interest-Based Bargaining”

(IBB) with FMCS providing training and facilitation. After 40 years and 31 individual labor

agreements, there was consensus to consolidate boilerplate language for 16 construction unions

and nine maintenance unions.

The “Work Rules” and a “Dispute Resolution Process,” developed by the labor-management

Continuous Improvement committees, were incorporated into Agreements as were principles of

the SNLA.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 56

In conclusion, the panel discussed the following points to ensure reaching an agreement:

C FMCS Facilitation (where necessary)

C Skills Training (Joint Labor-management)

C Union Leadership

C Management Support

C Time and Patience

C Trust and Teamwork

In all, the formation of the SNLA and the resulting Agreements encompassed 110 negotiating

sessions over a nine-month period.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Q: How did you work through the issues surrounding jurisdictional work assignments?

A: A pre-job conference, involving all parties, was established as a critical part of the process. At

this pre-job conference, work is assigned to the various crafts. If, after that conference, there is

still a dispute between or among the crafts with respect to work jurisdiction, that dispute is

submitted to a panel composed of three representatives from disinterested crafts. These

representatives hear the case and assess the dispute based on eight specific criteria agreed to by

the parties. The panel then renders, in writing, a final and binding decision on which craft does

the work.

4B. COMMUNITY TRANSITION: PROPERTY POLICY

Moderator: Debby Swichkow, Office of Worker and Community Transition, U.S.

Department of Energy 

Speakers: Jim Woolford, Environmental Protection Agency

Bob Rosselli, Richland Operations Office

Ben Bennett, Port of Benton

Robert Brown, Oak Ridge Operations Office

Debby Swichkow, Deputy Director, Office of worker and Community Transition introduced the

topic and the various aspects to be addressed during the session. Transfers under both the Hall

Amendment and the Atomic Energy Act would be examined. The role of the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) would be discussed. Speakers would also include examples of transfer

and re-use activities. Ms. Swichkow also provided a general overview of the property transfer

efforts within the Department of Energy (DOE). She indicated that a joint policy with EPA that

establishes procedures for consultation and concurrence was to be completed soon.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 57

Jim Woolford of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Facilities Restoration and

Reuse Office, provided comments about the coordination between the DOE and EPA. He

explained that EPA had been heavily involved in property transfer for the last four to five years.

Because DOE property is frequently contaminated, EPA has a role in the property transfer under

the provisions of CERCLA. The EPA also becomes closely involved during the use of the Hall

Amendment because EPA concurrence is required before the transfer may occur. 

The use of the Hall Amendment has been tried at several sites with varied results. Through both

the DOE’s and EPA’s experiences, a standard process has been developed. The overall intention

has been to promote reuse, including the reuse of “brown” facilities. At the same time, reuse must

be compatible with protection of human health and the environment. The EPA can assist in

achieving reuse of facilities but can provide the best assistance only if involved early in the

process. Mr. Woolford also invited participants to visit the web site for his office. The address of

that site is: www.epa.gov/swerffr.

The next speaker, Bob Rosselli, Richland, provided a federal viewpoint. He first recognized the

contribution that reused Federal assets could make to local economic development. He also

mentioned how, through communication, timely action, and flexibility, all parties involved in asset

transfers can form a partnership to accomplish their respective goals.

Mr. Rosselli next examined the different kinds of reuses, i.e., disposals, leases, and licenses.

Examples of disposals included industrial facilities transferred to the Port of Benton and the

pending transfer of several buildings. Specific equipment has also been disposed of or is presently

being processed for disposal including more than 100 pieces of equipment that have aided

community development and an extrusion press for aluminum manufacturing. This latter piece of

equipment will result in the development of new jobs as it is placed in commercial operation. 

He next provided samples of leases and the authorities used to lease the facilities. The leased

facilities have included both research and development buildings, industrial processing facilities,

and facilities that will help the Port of Benton with its industrial development. The Operations

Office has estimated that the life cycle cumulative savings produced by leasing will be about $800

million. An advantage of leasing is that the operations office has been able to complete the leases

quickly and the reuse of existing facilities helps in trying to attract employers paying comparable

wages to the workers affected by restructuring.

Licenses were the last topic in his presentation. The licenses are characteristically for underutilized equipment or facilities. Unlike leases, they allow for dual use by both government and

other users. Also, because they are for underutilized assets, the asset is not yet excess property

subject to the GSA Property Leasing rules and they are still able to yield an additional return to

the community.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 58

The next speaker was Ben Bennett from the Port of Benton. He first provided some general

information on the history of the Port of Benton. He provided examples of projects involving

property transfers that have already occurred — some many years before the community

transition program began. These included the Richland Airport and the Technology and Business

Campus.

The Richland Airport was transferred in 1962 and was developed as initially planned with a

variety of businesses, support facilities, and recreation facilities. The Technology and Business

Campus (obtained in 1960) was originally planned for industrial park use, such as warehousing

and railroad facilities. However, its actual development has made it a laboratory and business park

that supports Battelle, the supply system, and DOE contractors. The new Advanced Processing

Engineering Laboratory (APEL) has also located there.

New projects include the APEL facility mentioned above, which is integrating the resources of

DOE, local governments, local development authorities, and private industry to build a

technology based center for industry. The Port of Benton is also working on use of the Hanford

Railway System. The Port envisions the existing facilities to be a catalyst not only to attract

manufacturers interested in being located at a trans shipment point between rail and ship.

He concluded by pointing out the advantages in reusing existing facilities. Among the benefits

cited were lower cleanup costs, preserving the assets as usable facilities for other uses, and

changing the assets from a liability requiring federal maintenance to an asset producing taxable

income.

The final speaker was Robert Brown of the Oak Ridge Operations Office. He addressed a major

reuse effort of the Oak Ridge Complex which has been labeled “Reindustrialization.” As a part of 

this effort, the Department will be involved with the transfer of underutilized assets to accomplish

some of the Department’s goals.

A key feature of the project is an innovative partnership between the Department and private

industry. In this partnership, participating companies would be able to exchange use of underused

DOE facilities for cleanup of the Oak Ridge facility. Such an exchange would accelerate the

cleanup of the Oak Ridge facility at lower cost than if the Department contracted the performance

of the task; although DOE would still have the responsibility to assure that the facilities are

adequately cleaned. The indirect benefits are quicker conversion of DOE facilities to commercial

use resulting in creation of jobs and generation of revenues.

In a discussion of a flow chart for a typical lease activity, the presentation repeated some of the

findings of other speakers. The common principle these projects share with other sites is the need

to have early involvement of regulators and other interested parties. In the sample flow chart,
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 59

after preliminary evaluations indicate that an opportunity exists, EPA is notified and the processes

for environmental and other clearances are started.

Ms. Swichkow concluded by mentioning that the Department is developing internal Departmental

guidance on property transfer. She pointed out that the DOE Field is responsible for

documenting and justifying its transfer decisions. Abuse of authorities for expediency or other

reasons could jeopardize the Department’s continued ability to use that authority.

BRITISH EXPERIENCE IN ECONOMIC CONVERSION

Speaker: Tim Knowles, International Research & Graduate Centre, Westlakes

Science & Technology Park, Great Britain

Tim Knowles, Director, International Research & Graduate Centre, Westlakes Science &

Technology Park in Great Britain, provided a unique opportunity to discuss a successful and

comprehensive partnership in West Cumbria, Great Britain, between private enterprise, local

government, and community leaders. The overall aim of Westlakes Science & Technology Park is

to bring academic and scientific research into successful union with commercial applications, and

thereby foster economic rejuvenation and regeneration in West Cumbria. The result is a synergy

between individuals, organizations and disciplines - a fusion of energy and ideas. 

Mr. Knowles began his presentation with a historical perspective of the economy of West

Cumbria between 1950 to 1990. Steel and coal were the dominate resources in the 1950's until

they were replaced by the nuclear industry. The shipping, mining, steelmaking, metal goods

production and railway activities, at their peak employed tens of thousands of individuals. With

the demise of these industries, West Cumbria is a stark reminder of the need for economic

diversity and the importance of not being too reliant on one industry, or group of associated

industries.

He stated that the diversification of the West Cumbria economy was one of the main objectives of

West Cumbria Partnership, which was formed in 1987. Its mission is to create an environment in

which science and technology can be developed and exploited commercially and academically, in

order to contribute to the economic regeneration and diversification of West Cumbria. Involved

in this Partnership are the public an private sectors in the area, including British Nuclear Fuels

Limited (BNFL), Allerdale and Copeland Borough Councils, Cumbria County Council, the Rural

Development Commission and the local business community. The Partnership created a

stakeholder strategy to address public concerns, loss of jobs, and the economic regeneration of

West Cumbria. The success of this strategy relied on: 1) a recognition of importance of each

stakeholders contribution to build a genuine appreciation of mutual needs; 2) to engage the whole

community to create ownership. 
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 60

The initial concept of a “science park” came from the United States, beginning in the 1950's with

initiatives at Stanford, Boston and North Carolina. Mr. Knowles stated that the elements of

successful science parks demonstrate that both large and small firms have a role to play in the

innovation process. The costs and techniques that need to be employed to innovate a new

product, material or process, are often so demanding of resources (and the payback so uncertain)

that it is only the large firm that has ability to devote sufficient resources to undertake applied

research which may lead to their development. Small firms, however, are also often involved in

the diffusion of innovations in the market place. Flexible and adaptable, they are often well placed

to identify customer needs and move rapidly to develop an innovation into a profitable market

niche.

He continued to state that science parks, then, involve a nexus between science and the market for

technology-based high value-added products. They provide an environment for the creation of

firms based on new technology which, embodying technologies of the future, may offer secure

high quality jobs, in commercially sound areas. With technologies increasingly depending on pure

and applied science, science park environments (close to that science) will come to play an

increasingly important role in the development of high value-added products.

In addition, Mr. Knowles continued, it has been recognized that there are other problems in

creating the right conditions for stimulating the West Cumbrian economy. A particular problem is

the narrow range of higher education facilities. The dearth of such facilities means that young

West Cumbrians of high ability go elsewhere for their education and many do not return to the

area. Because of this, the entrepreneurial culture found near many universities, which spins-off

many small firms, simply does not happen in West Cumbria. In the past, there has been little

opportunity for developing a constructive relationship between industry and graduates locally. 

Mr. Knowles stated that, as developments continue at Westlakes, a clear goal will be not only to

link to its academic activities with the region’s existing universities, but to integrate them into the

concept of a multi-site university within Cumbria.

As of the Spring 1996, there are four major developments on the Westlakes site: the Geoffrey

Schofield Laboratories; the conversion of the Ingwell House and its extension in two phases; the

Westlakes Research Institute; and the building of the International Research and Graduate Centre. 

The major successes of the Partnership and the Westlakes Park are: 

C In the past 10 years, the Partnership has created or safe guarded approximately 3,500 jobs;

C 26 companies at Westlakes Park;

C over 350 people employed at the Park with a target of 1,000 employed by 2003;

C $35 million capital funding since 1991 of which $8 million is European funding (funding

target was $20 million);

C business survival rate in West Cumbria 15% above national average;
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 61

C placed in the Top 6 ERDF funded research and development success stories in Europe;

C experience in economic regeneration being applied internationally, specifically in the

Ukraine and Chernobyl.

In conclusion, Mr. Knowles stated that the key to economic conversion in dependency economies

is the development of comprehensive and creative partnerships between stakeholders. Innovation,

focus, commitment, creativity, mutual support and ownership are all hallmarks of the successful

and winning partnerships and they can and do deliver jobs, prosperity and hope for communities

and provide a win-win solution for government and business.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Q: What was the number of workers at the plant?

A: Employment went from 16,000 to 9,000.
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 62

APPENDIX A

FINAL PARTICIPANTS LIST

Mr. 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

Mr. Richard Aiken

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

Room 8F-073/FORS 

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-0415

Fax: 202-586-1737

Mr. Robert C. (Bob) Allen

Vice President & Division Manager

Human Resources Programs & Services

Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC

Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site

P.O. Box 464

Golden, CO 80402-0464

Phone: 303-966-3395

Fax: 303-966-8121

E-mail: bob.kh_hr.allen@fets.gov

Mr. Juan Alvarez

Manager, Internal Audit, Assurance & Quality

Mason & Hanger Corporation

Pantex Plant Post Office Box 30020 

Building 12-6

Amarillo, TX 79120-0020

Phone: 806-477-4055

Fax: 806-477-5930

E-mail: jalvarez@pantex.com

Ms. Courtney Anderson

Research Associate

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.co

Mr. Kenneth P. Armstrong

Manager, Site Transition

Babcock and Wilcox of Ohio

1 Mound Road 

Maimisburg, OH 45343

Phone: 937-865-3395

Fax: 937-865-1351

E-mail: armskp@doe-md.gov

Mr. Harris Arthur

Senior Deputy Chief of Staff

Office of the President/Vice President

PO Box 9000

Window Rock, AZ 86515

Phone: 520-871-7008

Fax: 520-871-4025

E-mail: harthur@shiboy.nncs.his.gov

Mr. Lewis C. Attardo

Executive Director

Savannah River Regional

Diversification Initiative (SRRDI)

P O Box 696

Aiken, SC 29803

Phone: 803-593-9954x1409

Fax: 803-593-4296

E-mail: lewis.attardo@srrdi.org
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 63

Mr. Raymond Baca

Industrial Relations Specialist

Albuquerque Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box 5400

Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400

Phone: 505-845-6274

Fax: 505-845-4715

E-mail: rbaca@doeal.gov

Ms. Cheri Bahrke

C2NET Coordinator

Science Applications International Corporation

2597 B Road 

Grand Junction, CO 81503

Phone: 970-248-6038

Fax: 970-248-6040

E-mail: cbahrke@doegjpo.com

Ms. Marilyn Balcombe

Industrial Psychologist

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education

Office of Worker & Community Transition 

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-2023

Fax: 202-586-1540

E-mail: balcombm@orao.gov

Mr. Bob Baney

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

Room 6G-063/ FORS 

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-3751

Fax: 202-586-1540

Mr. 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

Ms. Dei Barney

Director, Staffing

Lockheed Martin Idaho

P.O. Box 1675

Idaho Falls, ID 83415

Phone: 208-526-8674

Fax: 208-526-0025

E-mail: dei@inel.gov

Ms. Eileen L. Beaulieu

Program Manager

Albuquerque Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box 5400

Albuquerque, NM 87115

Phone: 505-845-4984

Fax: 505-845-4239

E-mail: ebeaulieu@doeal.gov

Mr. Ben Bennett

Executive Director

Port of Benton

3100 George Washington Way 

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-375-3060

Fax: 509-375-5287

E-mail: pob@port-of-benton.com

Mr. Andy Bennett

Executive Committee

Paducah Area Community Reuse Organization

Post Office Box 588 

Mayfield, KY 42066

Phone: 502-247-7171

Fax: 502-251-6110
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 64

E-mail: puradd@apex.net

Mr. Robert A. Bergin

Director, Human Resources

B&W Services, Inc.

Post Office Box 11165 

Lynchburg, VA 24506

Phone: 804-522-6333

Fax: 804-522-6983

E-mail: robrt.a.bergin@mcdermott.com

Mr. Leo Berroteran

President

Local Lodge 990 of IAMAW

Allied Signal Federal Manufacturing &

Technologies

P O Box 419159

Kansas City, MO 64141-6159

Phone: 816-997-3625

Fax: 816-997-3331

Mr. Toby C. Bickmore

Industrial Relations Specialist

Nevada Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

PO Box 98518

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518

Phone: 702-295-1012

Fax: 702-295-2367

E-mail: bickmore@nv.doe.gov

Mr. William J. Biloski

Facilities Reuse Manager

Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC

P.O. Box 4699

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-7169

Phone: 423-574-4182

Fax: 423-576-7536

E-mail: uzy@ornl.gov

Mr. Thomas A. Biscup

Director, Industrial Relations

Fluor Daniel Fernald

P.O. Box 538704, MS-15

Cincinnati, OH 45253-8704

Phone: 513-648-4884

Fax: 513-648-3777

E-mail: thomas_biscup@fernald.gov

Mr. Randy Blakelock

BDM Federal/TRW

4001 North Fairfax Drive 

Suite 750

Arlington, VA 22203

Phone: 703-351-6967

Fax: 703-351-6909

E-mail: rblakelo@bdm.com

Mr. Jack Blanchard

Director, Asset Management

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

Room 6F-029/FORS

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202/586-6703

Fax: 202/586-1737

Mr. Rick Blea

Business Representative

United Association of Plumbers and Steamfitters

Local Union No. 412

510 San Pedro, S.E.

Albuquerque, NM 87108

Phone: 505-265-1513

Fax: 505-265-7127

Ms. Sara Bobersky

Job Development Specialist

Star Access

3601 Eisenhower Avenue

Suite 450

Alexandria, VA 22304

Phone: 703-317-8873

Fax: 703-960-7007

Mr. David O. Bolling
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 65

Anderson County Executive

Anderson County Government

100 N. Main Street, Room 208 

Clinton, TN 37716

Phone: 423-457-5400 

Fax: 423-457-5491

Ms. April Bonet

Program Coordinator

StarAccess

3601 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22304

Phone: 703-960-7000

Fax: 703-960-7009

E-mail: abonet@staraccess.com

Mr. Raymond J. Borkowski

Vice President

Performance Plus International, Inc.

103 A Donner Drive 

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Phone: 423-425-0211

Fax: 423-425-0215

E-mail: rhk@icx.net

Mr. Leo Bowman

Chairman

Board of Benton County Commissioners

P.O. Box 190 

Prosser, WA 99350

Phone: 509-786-5600

Fax: 509-786-5625

E-mail: carol_tripp@co.benton.wa.us

Mr. John Bradburne

President

Fluor Daniel Fernald, Inc.

PO Box 538704

Cincinnati, OH 45253-8704

Phone: 513-648-3311

Fax: 513-648-3601

Mr. Gene Branham

Vice President

Federal Atomic Trades and Labor Council

Fluor Daniel Fernald

P O Box 538704 

Cincinnati, OH 45253

Phone: 513-648-5343

Fax: 513-648-3710

Mr. Robert L. Bray

Chairman

Joint Utilization Commission

1015 N 7th Street 

Grand Junction, CO 81501

Phone: 970-242-3647

Fax: 970-242-0436

Mr. John Brock

Labor Relations Manager

Bechtel Jacobs

Post Office Box 4699 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-7113

Phone: 423-241-1201

Fax: 423-241-1425

E-mail: o93@ornl.gov

Mr. 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

Mr. Robert J. Brown, III

Oak Ridge Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

20 Administration Road 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Phone: 423-576-2599

Fax: 423-241-4439

Mr. James B. Bussell

Program Manager
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 66

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

Mr. 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

Mr. Allen R. Callaway

Financial Secretary

Fluor Daniel Fernald

P O Box 538704 

Cincinnati, OH 45253

Phone: 513-648-5343

Fax: 513-648-3710

Mr. Bruce Campbell

Advisory Board Liaison

Mason & Hanger Corporation

701 South Taylor Street 

Nations Bank Building, Suite 420

Amarillo, TX 79101

Phone: 806-372-4662

Fax: 806-372-4663

Mr. Jim Campbell

President

East Tennessee Economic Council

Post Office Box 5957 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Phone: 423-483-3047

Fax: 423-483-3062

E-mail: campbell@orcc.org

Mr. Bob Card

President

Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC

P O Box 464, Building 111

Golden, CO 80402-0464

Phone: 303-966-9870

Fax: 303-4998443

Mr. 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

Mr. John B. Carpenter

Team Leader

Personal Property Sales and Reuse

HR-53

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20585

Phone: 202-586-4157

Fax: 202-586-0757

E-mail: john.b.carpenter@hq.doe.gov

Ms. Lisa B. Carter

Contractor Industrial Relations Specialist

Oak Ridge Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P O Box 2001, M/S - AD- 441

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8791

Phone: 423-576-0141

Fax: 423-576-6964

E-mail: carterlb@oro.doe.gov

Mr. Tony Carter

Special Assistant

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

(WT-1) Room 6G-041/ FORS 

Washington, DC 20585
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 67

Phone: 202-586-3323

Fax: 202-586-1540

E-mail: tony.carter@hq.doe.gov

Mr. Manual "Skip" Castro

Field Liaison Officer

Office of Field Management (FM-10)

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW Room 1J-051/

FORS

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-4937

Fax: 202-586-3933

E-mail: manuel.castro@hq.doe.gov

Mr. Thomas Cauthen

Contractor Industrial Relations Specialist

Savannah River Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

Post Office Box 9 

Aiken, SC 29802

Phone: 803-725-8044

Fax: 803-725-8573

Ms. Chee Chang

Program Manager

International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union

25 Louisiana Avenue N W 

Washington, DC 20001

Phone: 202-624-6963

Fax: 202-624-8125

E-mail: chee328@aol.com

Mr. Michael Church

President

Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

International Union, Local 3-288

Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. 

P.O. Box 2003

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-7113

Phone: 423-483-3745

Fax: 423-483-6460

The Honorable Richard C. Church

Mayor

Mayor, City of Miamisburg

10 North First Street 

Miamisburg, OH 45342

Phone: 513-866-3303

Fax: 513-866-0891

Mr. 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

Mr. Dave Clark

Contractor Industrial Relations Specialist

Idaho Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

850 Energy Drive, MS-1152 

Idaho Falls, ID 83401-2563

Phone: 208-526-6591

Fax: 208-526-5969

E-mail: clarkda@inel.gov

Mr. Herbert L. Coleman

UPGWA Local 330

2291 Busswood Drive

Augusta, GA 30906

Phone: 706-798-5932

Fax: 803-471-9592

Ms. Susan Connor

Program Manager

Albuquerque Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box 5400 ETDD

Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400

Phone: 505-845-4345

Fax: 505-845-5960

E-mail: sconnor@doeal.gov
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 68

Mr. Tim Cooper

General Engineer

Nevada Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

232 Energy Way 

North Las Vegas, NV 89030

Phone: 702-295-2379

Fax: 702-295-1113

E-mail: cooper@nv.doe.gov

Mr. Ben D. Corder

Manager

Industrial Relations Administration & Oversite

Fluor Daniel Hanford

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-376-5205

Fax: 509-376-8697

Ms. Sharon C. Cornwell

Fernald Community Reuse Organization

P.O. Box 38

Ross, OH 45011

Phone: 513-648-4165

E-mail: sharon_cornwell@fernald.gov

Mr. Mark Coronado

Management Analyst

Richland Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

Management & Economic Transition Division P O

Box 550, 

MSIN K8-50

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-372-4100

Fax: 509-372-4037

E-mail: mark_a_coronado@rl.gov

Mr. Dan Cudaback

President

Eastern Idaho Economic Development Council,

Inc.

683 North Capital Avenue

Idaho Falls, ID 83402

Phone: 208-522-2014

Fax: 208-522-3824

E-mail: eiedc-dc@srv.net

Ms. Sandy Davis

Labor Relations Manager

Bechtel Jacobs

Post Office Box 4699 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-7113

Phone: 423-574-8585

Fax: 423-241-1425

E-mail: sxd@ornl.gov

Mr. Brad Davis

Executive Committee

Paducah Area Community Reuse Organization

P.O. Box 588 

Mayfield, KY 42066

Phone: 502-247-7171

Fax: 502-251-6110

Ms. 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: 702-295-5300

Mr. Mark Deathridge

President & CEO

East Tennessee Mechanical Contractors

109 Bertrand Street

Knoxville, TN 37917

Phone: 423-522-6108

Mr. Robert W. DeGrasse, Jr.

Director

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

(WT-1) Room 6G-030/ FORS 
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 69

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-7550

Fax: 202-586-8403

E-mail: robert.degrasse@hq.doe.gov

Mr. Kirby Denslow

Work Force Planning Specialist

Battelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratory

K1-34 P.O. Box 999

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-375-6733

Fax: 509-375-6479

E-mail: kirby.denslow@pnl.gov

Mr. Thomas B. DePriest

Attorney-Advisor

Office of General Counsel

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

Mr. Don H. “Doc” DeTonancour

President

Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Local 2-652

510 Ruth Avenue 

Idaho Falls, ID 83405

Phone: 208-529-4718

Fax: 208-524-9901

Ms. G. Leah Dever

Manager

Ohio Field Office

U.S. Department of Energy

Post Office Box 3020 

Miamisburg, OH 45342

Phone: 937-865-3977

Fax: 937-865-3426

Ms. Anita L. Dever

Manager - Employment

Administrative Support

Lockheed Martin Utility Services, Inc.

P O Box 628, 3930 US Route 23 South

Piketon, OH 45661

Phone: 614-897-2615

Fax: 614-897-2984

E-mail: deveral@1mus.com

Mr. Paul Dickman

Special Assistant

Albuquerque Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box 5400

Albuquerque, NM 87185

Phone: 505-845-4313

Fax: 505-845-5872

E-mail: pdickman@doeal.gov

Ms. Shelia 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

Ms. Cheryl L. Dinkins

Director, Administrative Services

Office of Worker and Community Services

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20585

Phone: 202-586-7388

Fax: 202-586-1540

Mr. Lou Doll

Representative

Building Trades

Fluor Daniel Fernald

P.O. Box 538704 

Cincinnati, OH 45253
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 70

Phone: 513-648-5343

Fax: 513-648-3710

Mr. Dana J. Dorr

Employee Relations and Staffing Manager

Kaiser-Hill Company, L.L.C.

Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site

P.O. Box 464, Bldg. T452 

Golden, CO 80402-0464

Phone: 303-966-7978

Fax: 303-966-4991

E-mail: dana.dorr@rfets.gov

Ms. Kimberly C. Driggins

Economic Development Analyst

Council for Urban Economic Development

(CUED)

1730 K Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006

Phone: 202-223-4735

Fax: 202-223-4745

E-mail: kdriggins@urbandevelopment.com

Mr. John Driskill

Executive Committee

Paducah Area Community Reuse Organization

Post Office Box 588 

Mayfield, KY 42066

Phone: 502-247-7171

Fax: 502-251-6110

E-mail: puradd@apex.net

Mr. William F. Edwards

Supervisor

Site Infrastructure Division

U.S. Department of Energy

Post Office Box 550, A2-45 

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-372-1291

Fax: 509-372-1291

E-mail: william_f_bill_edwards@rl.gov

Dr. G. (Jerry) R. Eisele

Director, Center for Human Reliability Studies

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education

MS-50, P.O. Box 117

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117

Phone: 423-576-2208

Fax: 423-576-7903

E-mail: eiseleg@orau.gov

Mr. Charlie Emery

Vice President, Human Resources

Sandia National Laboratories

P.O. Box 5800

MS 0186

Albuquerque, NM 87158-0186

Phone: 505-845-7692

Fax: 505-844-5238

E-mail: cemery@sandia.gov

Ms. 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

Ms. Gail Fairhurst

Professor

Center for Environmental Communication Studies

University of Cincinnati

Cincinnati, OH 45221-0184

Phone: 513-556-4460

Fax: 513-556-0899

E-mail: fairhug@email.uc.edu

Mr. 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
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 71

Mr. Jeff Finkle

Executive Director

Council for Urban Economic Development

(CUED)

1730 K Street NW Suite 700 

Washington, D.C., DC 20006

Phone: 202/223-4735

Fax: 202/223-4745

E-mail: jfinkle@urbandevelopment.com

Mr. Timothy Fischer

Attorney-Advisor

Savannah River Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box A 

Aiken, SC 29802

Phone: 803-725-1022

Fax: 803-725-7544

E-mail: timothy.fischer@srs.gov

Ms. Amy Fitzgerald

Special Assistant to the City Manager

City of Oak Ridge

Mayor’s Office

P.O. Box 1

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0001

Phone: 423-577-1182

Fax: 423-577-3864

E-mail: fitzamy@aol.com

Mr. Ben Floyd

Economic Development Coordinator

Benton County Commissioners Office

P.O. Box 190 1766 Fowler, Suite C

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-736-3082

Fax: 509-736-2708

E-mail: floyd@co.benton.wa.us

Mr. Mike Flynn

Director, Safety & Health

International Association of Machinists

9000 Machinists Place

Upper Marlboro, MD 20772

Phone: 301-967-4704

Fax: 301-967-3431

E-mail: mflynn@iamaw.org

Ms. 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

Mr. R.J. Fraser

Manager

Employee and Labor Relations

Sandia National Laboratory

P.O. Box 5800, MS 1025

Albuquerque, NM 87185-1025

Phone: 505-844-3115

Fax: 505-845-8816

E-mail: rjfrase@sandia.gov

Mr. 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

Mr. Stacey L. Freitas

Assistant Labor Relations Representative

Labor Relations

Bechtel Nevada Corporation

Post Office Box 98521 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8552

Phone: 702-295-2303

Fax: 702-295-2908

E-mail: freitasl@nv.doe.gov
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 72

Mr. Stuart Fribush

Manager

Coopers and Lybrand Consulting

12902 Federal Systems Park Drive 

Fairfax, VA 22033-4412

Phone: 703-633-4520

Fax: 703-633-6225

E-mail: stuart.fribush@us.coopers.com

Mr. David R. Fuller

President

Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

International Union, Local 3-550

670 Springwell Lane 

Paducah, KY 42001

Phone: 902-994-0812

Mr. David Garbarino

Business Manager

International Union of Operating Engineers

Local 12

360 Shadow Lane 

Las Vegas, NV 89106

Phone: 702-598-1212

Fax: 702-598-1756

Mr. Arthur B Garcia

Chief of Staff

Los Alamos National Laboratory

P O Box 1663, MS P124 

Los Alamos, NM 87545

Phone: 505-667-1887

Fax: 505-665-5728

E-mail: garcia_arthur_b@lanl.gov

Mr. Tom A. Garcia

Deputy Laboratory Director for Business

Administration

Business Administration

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Post Office Box 1663, MS A113 

Los Alamos, NM 87545

Phone: 505-665-4234

Fax: 505-665-2679

E-mail: tagarcia@lanl.gov

Mr. Richard W. Garretson, Jr.

President

United Brotherhood of Carpenters

Local Union 2403

335 Skagit 

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-375-3576

Fax: 509-375-4221

E-mail: w.w.com@aol.rich2452

Ms. Wendy Gehring

Booz, Allen & Hamilton

20201 Century Boulevard

Germantown, MD 70874

Phone: 301-916-7388

Fax: 301-916-7277

E-mail: gehring-wendy@bah.com

Mr. Mike Gibson

Vice President

OCAW Local 07-4200

P.O. Box 3000

Miamisburg, OH 45005

Phone: 937-865-3389

E-mail: mikeg38@aol.com

Ms. Mary Gilbert

Office Manager

BDM Federal/TRW

4001 N. Fairfax Drive

Arlington, VA 22203

Phone: 703-351-6932

Fax: 703-351-6909

E-mail: mcollin2@bdm.com

Mr. Ed Gilliland

Director of Advisory Services

Council for Urban Economic Development

(CUED)

1730 K Street NW #700
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 73

Washington, DC 20006

Phone: 202-223-4735

Fax: 202-223-4745

Mr. Sam Glenn

Savannah River Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box A

Aiken, SC 29801

Phone: 803-725-2425

Fax: 803-725-1910

E-mail: melton.glenn@srs.gov

Mr. 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

Ms. 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

Ms. Charlene Goldman

Manager of Community Transition Program

Rocky Flats Local Impact Initiative

5460 Ward Road, Suite 205 

Arvada, CO 80002

Phone: 303-940-6090

Fax: 303-940-6088

E-mail: erp@rflii.org

Mr. Mike O. 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

Mr. Abe Greenberg

Project Manager

Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc.

Post Office Box 1000 (H8-69)

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-372-2817

Fax: 509-376-2410

E-mail: abe_greenberg@rl.gov

Mr. Larry V. Gregoire

Vice President

International Chemical Workers Union

Council/UFCW

5880 Florida Blvd., Suite 310 

Baton Rouge, LA 70806

Phone: 504-928-1536

Fax: 504-928-1837

Mr. Jim Hanna

Director, Industrial Relation

Fluor Daniel Hanford

P.O. Box 1000, MSIN H8-24

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-372-8229

Ms. Dorothy Hansen

Manager, Worker Transition

Human Resources

Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc.

PO Box 1000, MS - H2-16

Richland, WA 99352-1000

Phone: 509-376-8180

Fax: 509-373-1010

E-mail: dorothy_e_hansen@rl.gov
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 74

Mr. Ken Hedman

Vice President

Bechtel Construction Company

50 Beale Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-768-6282

Fax: 415-768-1883

E-mail: kehedman@bechtel.com

Mr. David Allen Henderson

Community Development Specialist

Ohio State University

Piketon Research and Extension Center

1864 Skyville Road 

Piketon, OH 45661-9749

Phone: 740-289-2901

Fax: 740-289-4591

E-mail: henderson67@osu.edu

Mr. James Hendricks

Vice President

Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

International Union, Local 3-288

Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-7113

Phone: 423-483-3745

Fax: 423-483-1507

Mr. Ralph Hennard

Fluor Daniel Fernald

P O Box 538704 

Cincinnati, OH 45253-8704

Phone: 513-648-3303

Fax: 513-648-3601

Mr. David W. Hepner

Manager, Community Affairs

Savannah River Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box A

Aiken, SC 29802

Phone: 803-725-1206

Fax: 803-725-5968

E-mail: david.hepner@srs.gov

Mr. Martin Hewitt

Chief Steward

United Plant Guard Workers of America

Local 330

P.O. Box W

Aiken, SC 29802-0990

Phone: 803-952-7029

Fax: 803-952-7731

Mr. Jimmie Hodges

Site Office Manager

Paducah Site Office

U.S. Department of Energy

PO Bod 1410

Paducah, KY 42001

Phone: 502-441-6806

Fax: 502-441-6801

E-mail: hodgesjc@ornl.gov

Mr. Henry Hodges

Executive Committee

Paducah Area Community Reuse Organization

P.O. Box 588 

Mayfield, KY 42066

Phone: 502-247-7171

Fax: 502-252-6110

E-mail: puradd@apex.net

Ms. Susan Holliday-Cox

StarAccess, Inc.

11904 #T-4 Parklawn Place 

Rockville, MD 20852

Phone: 202-586-2656

Fax: 202-586-2522

Mr. Robert Hottel

Manager, Economic Transition

Westinghouse Savannah River Company

Savannah River Site 

Aiken, SC 29808

Phone: 803-725-7600
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 75

Fax: 803-725-1036

E-mail: robert.hottel@srs.gov

Ms. Jane Howard

Export Administrative Manager

Bechtel Corporation

1015 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: 202-828-7374

Fax: 202-785-2645

E-mail: jahoward@bechtel.com

Mr. Walter Howes

Contract Reform and Privatization Project Office

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-0800

Fax: 202-586-1025

Mr. Shawn W. Hughes

Deputy General Manager

MK-Ferguson of Oak Ridge Company

P O Box 2011 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Phone: 423-576-3541

Fax: 423-574-1814

E-mail: hughessw@mkf.ornl.gov

Mr. Leroy Jobe

General Treasurer

International Guards Union

1703 Jasmine Street

Amarillo, TX 79107

Phone: 806-383-9903

Fax: 806-383-1329

E-mail: igua2@amaonline.com

Mr. Earl Johnson

Vice President

Atomic Trades and Labor Council

Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc.

Post Office Box 2009 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Phone: 423-241-3200

Fax: 423-574-0482

Mr. Gary Jones

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education

Room 6G-069/FORS (WT-1)

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-0473

Fax: 202-586-1540

Mr. Bob Juba

Pantex Coordinator

Amarillo Economic Development Corporation

600 S. Tyler, Suite 1503

Amarillo, TX 79101

Phone: 806-371-7199

Fax: 806-371-0112

E-mail: bob@aedc.com

Mr. Peter Karcz

Office of Environmental and Regulatory Analysis

U.S. Department of Energy

(EM-75) Room 1H-088/ FORS

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-0488

Fax: 202-586-9732

E-mail: peter.karcz@em.doe.gov

Mr. Dennis Kelly

Integrated Safety Process Program Manager

Amarillo Area Office

U S Department of Energy

Highway #60 at FM2373 

Amarillo, TX 79177

Phone: 806-477-7161

Fax: 806-477-5893

E-mail: dkelly@pantex.doe.gov

Mr. Thomas Kelly

Golden Field Office

U.S. Department of Energy

1617 Cole Boulevard
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 76

Golden, CO 80401

Phone: 303-275-4759

Fax: 303-275-4788

E-mail: tom_kelly@nrel.gov

Ms. 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

Mr. Jim H. Key

Union Representative

OCAW, Local 3-550

P.O. Box 9503

Paducah, KY 42002

Phone: 502-441-6576

Fax: 502-441-6024

E-mail: njnkey@hcis.net

Mr. Mike Keyes

Fluor Daniel Fernald

P.O. Box 538704 

Cincinnati, OH 45253-8704

Phone: 513-648-3303

Fax: 513-648-3601

Mr. Seth Kirshenberg

Executive Director

Energy Community Alliance

1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20036

Phone: 202-828-2317

Fax: 202-828-2188

E-mail: sethk@energyca.org

Mr. 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

Mr. Tim Knowles

Director

Westlakes Science and Technology Park

Moor Row 

Cumbria CA24 3JY, England

Phone: 01946514134

Fax: 01946514114

E-mail: tim@tknowles.demon.co.uk

Ms. Elaine Kocolowski

Team Leader, Contractor Industrial Relations

Chicago Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

9800 South Cass Avenue 

Argonne, IL 60439

Phone: 630-252-2334

Fax: 630-252-2919

E-mail: elaine.kocolowski@ch.doe.gov

Mr. Michael P. Kuberski

Executive Secretary/Treasurer

Rocky Mountain Regional Council of Carpenters

5155 E 39th Avenue 

Denver, CO 80207-1108

Phone: 303-355-8774

Fax: 303-355-1092

Mr. Ric Ladt

Executive Committee

Puducah Area Community Reuse Organization

Post Office Box 588 

Mayfield, KY 42066

Phone: 202-247-7171

Fax: 202-251-6110

E-mail: puradd@apex.net

Mr. James H. Lander

Deputy Director, Human Resources

Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 77

Building 703A

Room A-212

Aiken, SC 29808

Phone: 803-725-8451

Fax: 803-7225-1991

Mr. 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

Mr. David H. Leffen, Sr.

President

UPGWA Local 109

338 New Midway Road

Kingston, TN 37831

Phone: 423-376-4576

Mr. Stephen Lerner

Congressional Liaison

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20585

Phone: 202-586-5470

Fax: 202-596-0143

Mr. Walt Lips

Field Coordination Advisor

Defense Programs 

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20585

Phone: 202-586-1806

Fax: 202-586-1873

Ms. Sheila K. Little

Vice President

Reengineering/CPI, Economic Transition and 

Communications

Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc.

P.O. Box 1000 

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-376-9315

Fax: 509-372-1050

Ms. Paula R. Littles

Citizenship-Legislative Director

Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International

Union/AFL-CIO

2722 Merrilee Drive, Suite 250 

Fairfax, VA 22031

Phone: 703-876-9300

Fax: 703-876-8952

E-mail: ocawleg@aol.com

Mr. Chris Logan

Managing Editor

Weapons Complex Monitor

1826 Jefferson Place

Washington, D.C. 20006

Phone: 202-296-2814, ext. 20

Fax: 202-296-2805

Mr. Burke R. Long

Vice President, Local 2-652

430 Melrose 

Idaho Falls, ID 83401

Phone: 208-523-7144

Fax: 208-524-9901

Mr. Charles M. Lopez

Business Agent

Hanford Guards Union, Local 21

1305 Knight Street

P.O. Box 687

Richland, WA 

Phone: 509-946-8785

Mr. Tom Lukow

Director, Assets Management Division

Rocky Flats Field Office

U.S. Department of Energy
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 78

P.O. Box 928, Bldg. 116 

Golden, CO 80402

Phone: 303-966-4561

Fax: 303-966-2994

E-mail: tom.lukow@rfets.gov

Mr. Lee Lyon

Director of Personnel

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

P O Box 4349, MS 11

Stanford, CA 94309

Phone: 650-926-2283

Fax: 650-926-4999

E-mail: lyon@slac.stanford.edu

Mr. Skip Maas

Maintenance Staff

Mason & Hanger Corporation

P.O. Box 30020 

Amarillo, TX 79120-0020

Phone: 806-477-5846

Fax: 806-477-3448

E-mail: smaas@pantex.com

Mr. Ed Manning

Construction Manager/Manager of Labor Relations

Bechtel Savannah River, Inc.

Building 794-5N, Room 150 

Aiken, SC 29808

Phone: 803-557-5667

Fax: 803-557-4707

E-mail: edward.manning@srs.gov

Mr. Charles Maples

Executive Secretary - Treasurer

Tennessee Carpenters District Council

1451 Elm Hill Pike, Suite 106 

Nashville, TN 37210

Phone: 615-366-3149

Fax: 615-366-3303

Mr. Rick Marcum

Executive Director

Los Alamos Regional Development Corporation

P.O. Box 6850

Santa Fe, NM 87504

Phone: 505-820-1226

Fax: 505-992-0702

Mr. Jim Martin

Executive Committee

Paducah Area Community Reuse Organization

P.O. Box 588 

Mayfield, KY 42066

Phone: 502-247-7171

Fax: 502-251-6110

E-mail: puradd@apex.net

Mr. Dale M. Martinez

Secretary/Treasurer

International Union of Police Associations

Local 7002

512 Chama NE Suite A

Albuquerque, NM 87108

Phone: 505-265-7809

Fax: 505-265-0647

Mr. Pat J. Marx

Chief Operating Officer

Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute

2425 Ridgecrest SE 

Albuquerque, NM 87108

Phone: 505-262-7938

Fax: 505-262-7043

E-mail: pmarx@lucy.tli.org

Mr. Ken Matthews

Health Systems Specialist

Office of Environment, Safety, and Health

U.S. Department of Energy

(EH-61) Room 4059 / 270 CC 

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 301-903-6398

Fax: 301-903-5072

E-mail: kenmatthews@doe.eh.gov
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 79

Mr. R.D. Maynard

President

Idaho Building and Construction Trades

P.O. Box 1284

Pocatello, ID 83204

Phone: 202-232-8492

Fax: 202-232-8493

Mr. Michael M. McCann

Attorney-Advisor

Rocky Flats Field Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P O Box 928 

Golden, CO 80402-0928

Phone: 303-966-5660

Fax: 303-966-3717

E-mail: michael.mccann@rfets.gov

Dr. Eileen McNeely

Research Assistant Professor

Boston University

School of Public Health

80 East Concord Street/Talbot 3C 

Boston, MA 02118-2394

Phone: 617-638-5071

Fax: 617-638-4857

E-mail: emcneely@bu.edu

Mr. John F. Meese

President

Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO

815 Sixteenth Street N W 

Washington, DC 20006-4189

Phone: 202-347-7255

Fax: 202-347-0181

Mr. J.M. Meredith

Vice President, Human Resources

Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc.

P O Box 2009, MS-8004

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8004

Phone: 423-574-1612

Fax: 423-576-8697

Mr. John T. Merwin

Manager, Human Resources

Fluor Daniel Fernald

175 Tri County Parkway 

Cincinnatti, OH 45246

Phone: 513-648-6442

Fax: 513-648-6905

E-mail: john_merwin@fernald.gov

Mr. Mike Mescher

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

WT-1 Room 6G-041/ FORS

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-3924

Fax: 202-586-1540

Ms. Miriam Messinger

Project Manager

Boston University

School of Public Health

715 Albany Street/Talbot 2E

Boston, MA 02118

Phone: 617-638-5835

Fax: 617-638-4857

E-mail: mmessing@bu.edu

Ms. Karen Meyer-Cain

Director of Human Resources

TRW Environmental Safety System, Inc.

2650 Park Tower Drive

Suite 800

Vienna, VA 22180

Phone: 703-204-8986

Fax: 703-204-8979

E-mail: karen.meyer-cain@rw.doe.gov

Ms. Natalie Mills

Economic Development Specialist

Economic Development Administration
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 80

HCHB-Room 7327

14th & Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20032

Phone: 202-482-5813

Fax: 202-482-3742

Mr. Michael Milnes

Senior Public Relations Specialist

Westinghouse Savannah River Company

Building 742-A 

Aiken, SC 29808

Phone: 803-725-2854

E-mail: michael.milnes@srs.gov

Mr. Ken Mireles

Special Assistant

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Room 6F-029

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-0303

Fax: 202-586-1540

Ms. Jane Monhart

Deputy Director

Contract Reform and Privatization 

 Project Office

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20585

Phone: 202-586-0800

Fax: 202-586-1025

Mr. Jack Monrean

Manager, Labor Relations

Bechtel Hanford, Inc.

3350 George Washington Way 

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-375-4683

Fax: 509-372-9417

E-mail: jrmonrea@bhi-erc.com

Mr. Randy Morgan

Senior Labor Relations Specialist

Johnson Controls Northern New Mexico

Post Office Box 50 

Los Alamos, NM 87544

Phone: 505-667-4266

Fax: 505-667-9224

Mr. David M. Navarro

Grievance Negotiating Committee

United Steelworkers of America

Local 8031

7850 Yates Street 

Westminster, CO 80030

Phone: 303-427-6134

Fax: 303-427-3382

E-mail: davnavarro@aol.com

Mr. Mike Neal

Vice President

OCAW 3-689

1442 Timberlake Drive

Portsmouth, OH 45662

Phone: 740-289-2405

Fax: 740-289-2126

Mr. William Neff

Community Reuse Program Manager

Rocky Flats Local Impacts Initiative

5460 Ward Road 

Suite 205

Arvada, CO 80002

Phone: 303-940-6090

Fax: 303-940-6088

E-mail: will@rflii.org

Mr. Doug Nelson

Financial Secretary-Treasurer

United Plant Guard Workers of America

Local 109

112 Concord Road

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Phone: 423-483-8098
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 81

Mr. Gary Nolley

President

Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International

Union,

Local 7-4200

1026 Sundance Drive 

Miamisburg, OH 45343

Phone: 937-865-3389

Fax: 937-865-3679

Ms. Melanie Norton

Account Executive

Merit Behaviorial Care

320 North Cedar Bluff Road 

Suite 230 

Knoxville, TN 37923

Phone: 423-690-0068

Fax: 423-690-0257

E-mail: msnorton@compuserve.com

Ms. Emily P. Nunn

Career Center Manager

Lockheed Martin Energy Systems

P.O. Box 2009, MS8078

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8078

Phone: 423-576-4269

Fax: 423-241-2056

E-mail: epn@ornl.gov

Mr. David O’Connell

Boston University

School of Management

96 Common Street 

Belmont, MA 02178

Phone: 617-484-7948

Mr. Felix Ortiz, Jr.

Chief, Contractor Human Resources Branch

Albuquerque Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P O Box 5400

Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400

Phone: 505-845-4207

Fax: 505-845-4715

E-mail: fortiz@doeal.gov

Mr. Archie Owens

Senior HR Representative

Westinghouse Savannah River Company

Building 703-A-A129 Road 1A

Aiken, SC 29801

Phone: 803-725-7774

Fax: 803-725-7731

E-mail: archie.owens@srs.gov

Mr. John Pantaleo

Financial and Business Manager

Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology

U.S. Department of Energy

19901 Germantown Road 

Germantown, MD 20874

Phone: 301-903-2525

Fax: 301-903-5434

E-mail: john.pantaleo@hq.doe.gov

Mr. Craig S. Parker

Labor Relations Manager

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Post Office Box 999, P7-64 

Richand, WA 99352

Phone: 509-376-8267

Fax: 509-372-1563

E-mail: cs-parker@pnl.gov

Mr. Joseph Pastel

Program Manager

Science Applications International Corporation

(SAIC)

901 D Street, S.W., Suite 201 

Washington, DC 20024

Phone: 202-488-6603

Fax: 202-488-3776

E-mail: joseph.a.pastel@cpmx.saic.com

The Honorable Jerry Peltier

Mayor
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 82

City of West Richland

4301 Laurel Drive

West Richland, WA

Phone: 509-373-5352

Fax: 509-372-1498

Mr. Robert Perko

Labor Relations Manager

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

P.O. Box 808

L-708

Livermore, California

Phone: 925-422-9501

Ms. Beverly Peterson

Human Resource Manager

Babcox & Wilcox of Ohio

P.O. Box 3030 

Miamisburg, OH 45343-3030

Phone: 937-865-4448

Fax: 937-847-5261

E-mail: peteba@doe.mo.gov

Ms. Christine A. Phoebe

Assistant Manager for Business Services

Golden Field Office

U.S. Department of Energy

1617 Cole Boulevard 

Golden, CO 80401-3305

Phone: 303-275-4752

Fax: 303-275-4790

E-mail: chris_phoebe@tnrel.gov

Ms. Sandi Pike

Contractor Industrial Relations Specialist

Savannah River Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P O Box A

Aiken, SC 29802

Phone: 803-725-5904

Fax: 805-725-8573

E-mail: sandra.pike@srs.gov

Mr. Clayton L. Plemmons

International Representative

LIUNA

5845 Live Oak Parkway

Norcross, GA 30093

Phone: 703-263-7662

Mr. Jim Powers

Acting President & Site Project Manager

Babcock & Wilcox of Ohio

P.O. Box 3030 

Miamisburg, OH 45343-3030

Phone: 937-865-3865

Fax: 937-865-3114

Mr. 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

Mr. Kristin Reese

Executive Committee

Paducah Area Community Reuse Organization

Post Office Box 588 

Mayfield, KY 42055

Phone: 502-547-7171

Fax: 502-547-6110

E-mail: puradd@apex.net

Ms. Ann L. Rigell

Director, Human Resources Development &

Performance

Oak Ridge Associated Universities

P.O. Box 117

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117

Phone: 423-576-3274

Fax: 423-576-7463

E-mail: rigella@orau.gov
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 83

Ms. Lavonne C. Ritter

Commissioner

Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service

2881 Business Park Court 

Suite 200

Las Vegas, NV 89128

Phone: 702-363-5957

Fax: 702-363-6019

Mr. Mike Robinson

Manager, Employee Relations

Wackenhut Services, Inc.

Savannah River Site

P.O. Drawer W

Aiken, SC 29802

Phone: 803-952-7600

Fax: 803-952-9042

Mr. Bob M. Rosselli

Assistant Manager

Office of Science and Technology

U.S. Department of Energy

825 Jadwin Avenue 

P.O. Box 550, K-50

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-372-4005

Fax: 509-372-4532

E-mail: robert_m_rosselli@rl.gov

Mr. Joseph Roybal

Business Agent

International Guards Union of America

Local 69

P O Box 1400

Los Alamos, NM 87545

Phone: 505-665-1926

Fax: 505-665-7759

Mr. Randy Runyon

Chairperson

Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative

941 Market Street 

P.O. Box 799

Piketon, OH 45661

Phone: 614-289-2371

Fax: 614-289-4291

E-mail: rrunyon@bright.net

Mr. Dom Sansotta

Contractor Workforce Program Manager

Richland Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P O Box 550, A6-36

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-376-7221

Fax: 509-376-8142

E-mail: dominic_j_sansotta@rl.gov

Ms. Toni M. Sawyer

Sr. Human Resources Representative

West Valley Nuclear Services Co., Inc.

10282 Rock Springs Road PO Box 191

West Valley, NY 14171-0191

Phone: 716-942-4949

Fax: 716-942-4096

E-mail: sawyer@wv.doe.gov

Mr. 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

Mr. Tom Schaffer

Secretary/Treasurer

Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council

(HAMTC)

3100 George Washington Way 

Richland, WA 99352-3407

Phone: 509-373-6093

Ms. Laura L. Scott

Education Training Specialist
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 84

Scott Engineering & Resources, Inc.

53518 Hannett, NE 

Albuquerque, NM 87106

Phone: 505-845-5240

Fax: 505-845-4883

E-mail: scott@doeal.gov

Mr. Dave Shelton

General President

International Guards Union of America

Route 8, Box 3214

Amarillo, TX 79118

Phone: 806-622-2424

Fax: 806-622-3500

E-mail: igua@amaonline.com

Mr. Roger Shomers

Organizer/Field Representative

Rocky Mountain Regional Council of Carpenters

5155 E 39th Avenue 

Denver, CO 80207-1108

Phone: 303-355-8774

Fax: 303-355-1092

Mr. Winfred E. Shoopman

Anderson County Commissioner

Anderson County Government

100 N. Main Street

Clinton, TN 37716

Phone: 423-457-3673

E-mail: commish@aol.com

Mr. John C. Simon

Executive Board

Independent Guard Association of Nevada

P.O. Box 41

Mercury, NV 89023

Phone: 702-259-6245

Fax: 702-259-0010

Mr. Robert G. Sisterman

Manager, Human Resources/Labor Relations

Wackenhut Services, Inc.

P.O. Box 96027 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-6027

Phone: 702-295-0811

Fax: 702-295-1838

Ms. Mary Skriba

Fluor Daniel Hanford

P.O. Box 1000 / MS H8-64

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-376-8140

Fax: 509-372-2454

E-mail: mary_skriba@rl.gov

Mr. Matt Slavin

Business & Economic Development Manager

City of Richland

Post Office Box 190 

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-942-7582

Fax: 509-942-7771

E-mail: matts@ci.richland.wa.us

Mr. Gary A. Slaydon

Field Coordinator

LIUNA Tri-funds

P O Box 1686 

DeRidder, LA 70634

Phone: 318-463-3864

Fax: 318-463-6423

E-mail: trifund@worldnetla.net

Mr. Duane Smith

Garage Mechanic/Co-Chair VPP

Mason & Hanager Corp.

Pantex Plant

Post Office Box 30020, Building 16-1 

Amarillo, TX 79120-0020

Phone: 806-477-3441

Fax: 806-477-3419

Ms. Cherie Smith

HR Specialist

Richland Operations Office
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 85

U.S. Department of Energy

Post Office Box 1000, HG2-16 

Richland, WA 99336

Phone: 509-372-8231

Fax: 509-372-1010

E-mail: cherie_h_smith@rl.gov

Mr. Larry Smith

OCAW-Division I Committeeperson

Wakefield Mound Road

Piketon, Ohio 45661

Phone: 740-289-2405

Fax: 740-289-2126

Ms. Laurel Smith

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

(WT-1) Room 6G-051/ FORS 

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-4091

Fax: 202-586-1540

Mr. Mike Smith

State of Oklahoma

1140 N.W. 63rd Street

Oklahoma City, OK 73116

Phone: 405-840-9228

Fax: 405-840-2638

Mr. Daniel Sours

Program Manager

Science Applications International Corporation 

3250 Port of Benton Blvd 

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-372-7714

Fax: 509-372-7701

E-mail: daniel_l_sours@cpmx.saic.com

Mr. Kenneth A. Sprankle

Program Manager

Ohio Field Office

P.O. Box 3020

Miamisburg, OH 45343-3020

Phone: 937-865-3649

Fax: 937-865-3843

E-mail: kenneth.sprankle@em.doe.gov

Ms. Kristine Stanger

Privatization Project Officer, Program Manager

Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company

P.O. Box 1625 

Idaho Falls, ID 83415

Phone: 208-526-0909

Fax: 208-526-4563

E-mail: sck@inel.gov

Mr. Sandy Stiffman

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

(WT-1), Room 6F-029/FORS

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202/586-4107

Fax: 202/586-1737

Mr. Sean Stockard

Economic Transition Program Director

Tri-City Industrial Development Council

901 North Colorado Street 

Kennewick, WA 99336

Phone: 509-735-1000 225

Fax: 509-735-6609

E-mail: sstock@owt.com

Mr. David Stoeckle

Senior Human Relations Specialist

Johnson Controls Northern New Mexico

1350 Central 

Los Alamos, NM 37544

Phone: 505-667-42656

Fax: 505-667-9224

Ms. Linda H. Strickland

Labor Relations Manager

Bechtel Savannah River, Inc.

Building 719-5N, Room 154 

Aiken, SC 29808
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 86

Phone: 803-557-5395

Fax: 803-557-4707

E-mail: linda.strickland@srs.gov

Ms. Jean Stucky

Attorney-Advisor

Office of General Counsel

U.S. Department of Energy

(GC-51) Room 6A-113/ FORS 

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-7532

Fax: 202-586-7373

Ms. 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

Ms. Sandra White Summey

Human Resources/Diversity Manager

MK-Ferguson of Oak Ridge Company

Post Office Box 2011 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-2011

Phone: 423-576-1618

Fax: 423-574-2843

E-mail: summeysw@mkf.ornl.gov

Ms. Deborah H. Sumner

Manufacturing Education and Training Manager

Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc

P.O. Box 2009, MS - 8091 Bld. 9737

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8084

Phone: 423-241-3111

Fax: 423-574-2000

E-mail: sumnerdn@ornl.gov

Ms. Deborah Swichkow

Deputy Director

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

(WT-1) Room 6G-030/ FORS 

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-0876

Fax: 202-586-8403

Mr. Robert G. Tabor

Trustee

Fernald Community Reuse Organization

214 Citation Circle 

Harrison, OH 45093

Phone: 513-648-5077

Fax: 513-648-5527

E-mail: robert.tabor@fernald.gov

Ms. Margo Triassi

Acting Team Leader, Industrial Relations

Oakland Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

1301 Clay Street

Oakland, CA 94612

Phone: 510-637-1843

Fax: 510-637-2008

E-mail: margo.triassi@oak.doe.gov

Ms. Judy Trimble

Staffing and Employment Manager

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

P.O. Box 2008

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6212

Phone: 423-574-4429

Fax: 423-574-4441

E-mail: jui@ornl.gov

Mr. David Trojnar

President & CEO

PerforMax

7887 Bryan Dairy Road 

Suite 130

Largo, FL 33777

Phone: 813-548-2905

Fax: 813-548-0087

Mr. Bill A. Truex
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 87

Chief Industrial Personnel

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

Mr. Ram Y. Uppuluri

Senior Advisor

Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental

Affairs

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20585

Phone: 202-586-0153

Fax: 202-586-4891

E-mail: ram.uppuluri@hq.doe.gov

Ms. Cris Van Horn

Business Development Manager

Savannah River Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

AMSTBD PO Box A

Aiken, SC 29802

Phone: 803-725-5313

Fax: 803-725-5968

E-mail: cris.vanhorn@srs.gov

Mr. Don Vaverka

Human Resources Manager

BDM Oklahoma, Inc.

P.O. Box 2565

Bartlesville, OK 74005-2565

Phone: 918-337-4223

Fax: 918-337-4363

E-mail: dvaverka@bdmok.com

Ms. Donna L. Vigil

Administrative Specialist

Los Alamos National Laboratory

U.S. Department of Energy

528 35th Street 

Los Alamos, NM 87544

Phone: 505-667-5105

Fax: 505-665-1718

E-mail: dvigil@doe.lanl.gov

Mr. Jay Vivari

Congressional & Intergovernmental Affairs

U.S. Department of Energy

(CI-10) Room 8G-048/ FORS

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-5143

Fax: 202-586-0539

E-mail: jay.vivari@hq.doe.gov

Mr. Charles A Washington

Environmental Engineer

Oak Ridge Reservation Environmental Management

118 Decatur Road 

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Phone: 423-576-6015

Fax: 423-574-1880

E-mail: wac@ornl.gov

Mr. 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

Mr. Edgar West

Business Manager

Ironworkers, Local 709

409 Grange Road 

Port Wentworth, GA 31407

Phone: 912-964-6931

Fax: 912-964-8801

Mr. Earl Whiteman
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 88

Albuquerque Operations Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box 5400

Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400

Phone: 505-845-6038

Fax: 505-845-4837

Ms. Dotti J. Whitt

Director, Human Resources & Organization 

 Management Division

Rocky Flats Field Office

U.S. Department of Energy

Post Office Box 928 

Golden, CO 80402

Phone: 303-966-8240

Fax: 303-966-7040

E-mail: dotti.whitt@rfets.gov

Ms. Janice Wiedemann

Vice President, Administration

NIS Development Corporation

2340 Paseo del Brado, Suite D-108 

Las Vegas, NV 89102

Phone: 702-257-7900

Fax: 702-257-7999

E-mail: jwiedemann@ntsdev.com

Ms. Natasha Wieschenberg

Office of Worker and Community Transition

U.S. Department of Energy

(WT-1) Room 6G-051/ FORS 

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-586-5830

Fax: 202-586-8403

E-mail: natasha.wieschenberg@hq.doe.gov

Mr. Douglas E. Wilfon

President

Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO

Sandia National Laboratories

1030 San Pedro NE 

Albuquerque, NM 87110

Phone: 505-268-3242

Fax: 505-266-4430

Mr. 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

Mr. Charles F. Williams

President

Local 146 United Plant Guard Workers of America

P.O. Box 3000

Mound Road

Miamisburg, OH 45435

Phone: 937-865-3118

Ms. Carol J. Wilson

Contractor Industrial Relations Specialist

Ohio Field Office

U.S. Department of Energy

1 Mound Road

Miamisburg, OH 45342

Phone: 937-865-3871

Fax: 937-865-3843

E-mail: carolwilson@doe.gov

Ms. 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

Mr. Theodore A. Wolff

Senior Member of Technical Staff

Sandia National Laboratories
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 89

Post Office Box 5808 

Albuquerque, NM 87185-1313

Phone: 505-284-5204

Fax: 505-284-5210

E-mail: tawolff@sandia.gov

Mr. Jim Woolford

Director

Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202-260-1606

Fax: 202-260-5646

Mr. Jim Worthington

Nuclear and Hazardous Materials Specialist

Sheet Metal Workers International Union

30330 80th Avenue, N.W. 

Stanwood, WA 98292

Phone: 360-629-4348

Fax: 360-629-4086

Mr. Rusty Wright

Recording Secretary

OPEIU Local 251

Sandia National Laboratories

P.O. Box 5800 - MS0603 

Albuquerque, NM 87185-0603

Phone: 505-844-6635

Fax: 505-844-8985

E-mail: mrwrigh@sandia.gov

Mr. Michael (Mike) Wright

Vice President

UPGWA, Local 251

Allied Signal Federal Manufacturing & 

Technologies

P.O. Box 419159 

Kansas, MO 64141-6159

Phone: 816-997-3601

Fax: 816-997-2664

E-mail: wright@kcp.com

Mr. 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@croet.com
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 90

APPENDIX B

WORKSHOP AGENDA

TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1998

10:00 - 5:00 p.m. Exhibit Registration and Set-up Washington-Lee

Ballroom

2:00 - 5:00 p.m. Workshop Registration Washington-Lee

Ballroom

Related Meetings

8:30 - 11:30 a.m. Contractor HR Council - Working Group Meeting Fairfax Room North 

(Sponsored by John Edmondson, DOE/HR)

1:00 - 5:00 p.m. DOE Employee Session Washington Ballroom

9:00 - 5:00 p.m. Community Reuse Organizations Fairfax Room South

1:00 - 5:00 p.m. Labor Organizations Cameron Room 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1998

7:00 - 8:00 a.m. Exhibit Registration and Set-up Washington-Lee

Ballroom

7:30 - 8:30 a.m. Workshop Registration Washington-Lee

Ballroom

8:30 - 12:00 noon Opening Plenary Session Washington-Lee

Ballroom

 8:30 - 9:15 a.m. Opening Remarks

Speaker: Robert W. DeGrasse, Director, Office of Worker 

 and Community Transition

9:15-10:30 a.m. Featured Speaker

Speaker: Ms. Lavonne Ritter, Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service

10:30-11:00 a.m. Break

11:00-11:30 a.m. Keynote Speaker

Speaker: Federico Peña, Secretary of Energy

11:30-12 noon Questions and Answers
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 91

12:00 - 1:30 p.m. Lunch (on your own)

1:30 - 3:00 p.m. Small Group Discussions - Concurrent Session 1

1A. Impact of Work Force Restructuring on Washington Ballroom

Remaining and Transitioning Employees

Moderator: Marilyn Balcombe, ORISE

Speakers: Eileen McNeely, Boston University School of Public Health

 David O’Connell, Boston University School of Management

 Gail Fairhurst, University of Cincinnati

 Susan Holliday-Cox, Star Access, Inc.

This session will provide an overview of the impact of work force restructuring on

remaining and transitioning employees. Topics will include effective ways to mitigate

the impact of work force restructuring on the remaining work force, effective

communication and leadership styles for transition, and how to best help individuals

who leave DOE contractor sites.

1B. Integrated Safety Management Program Lee Ballroom

Moderator: Barry Lawson, Lawson and Associates

Speakers: Juan Alvarez, Mason & Hanger Corporation, Pantex Plant

 Duane Smith, Metal Trades Council, Pantex Plant

 Skip Maas, Mason & Hanger Corporation, Pantex Plant

 Dennis Kelly, Amarillo Area Office, U.S. Department of Energy

Representatives from the DOE Pantex Plant will discuss their safety program and

efforts made by both labor and management to make this initiative a success.

3:00 - 3:30 p.m. Break

3:30 - 5:00 p.m.Small Group Discussions - Concurrent Session 2

2A. Department’s Privatization Program: Current Status Washington Ballroom

Moderator: Barry Lawson, Lawson and Associates

Speakers: Walter Howes, Contract Reform and Privatization Project Office, 

 U.S. Department of Energy

This session will look at Department of Energy’s perspectives on privatization and

related work force transition issues. There will be an open discussion on the draft DOE

Privatization Principles and Checklist. 

2B. Lessons Learned in Community Transition Activities Lee Ballroom
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 92

Moderator: Bob Baney, Office of Worker and 

Community Transition

Speakers: David Trojnar, PerforMax

 Tim Carlson, NTS Development Corporation

 Jeff Finkle, National Council for Urban Economic Development

This session will discuss a retrospective and futuristic look at site closure, business

development, and the cost per job performance measures vs. other performance

measures which indicates grant funds are being well spent.

3:30 - 5:00 p.m. Small Group Discussions - Concurrent Session 2 Con’t Fairfax Room

2C. Consolidated Contract for the Nuclear Weapons 

Industrial Complex

Moderator: Marilyn Balcombe, ORISE

Speakers: Earl Whiteman, Albuquerque Operations Office, 

U.S. Department of Energy

 Felix Ortiz, Albuquerque Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy

The U.S. Department of Energy is actively considering the consolidation of its nuclear

weapons industrial activities into a single contract. This would include the existing

contracts at the Kansas City Plant, the Y-12 Plant in Tennessee, and the Pantex Plant in

Texas; and potentially, the weapons production responsibilities at Sandia and Los

Alamos National Laboratories in New Mexico and tritium operations at the Savannah

River Site in South Carolina. This session will provide representatives from the

Albuquerque Operations Office to explain the consolidation concept and to answer

questions.

5:30 - 8:00 p.m. Reception Chequers Lounge

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1998

8:00 - 8:30 a.m. Workshop Registration Washington-Lee

Ballroom

8:30 - 10:00 a.m. Plenary Session

Meeting Tomorrow’s Challenges (Early Site Closures) Washington-Lee

Moderator: John Merwin, Fluor Daniel Fernald Ballroom

Speakers: G. Leah Dever, Ohio Field Office, U.S. Department of Energy

 Jim Powers, Babcock & Wilcox of Ohio

 Gary Nolley, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers 

 Int’l Union (OCAW), Local 7-4200

 Richard Church, Mayor, City of Miamisburg
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 93

Representatives from the Mound Plant will share their on-going experiences in the

accelerated closure of the site. This 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, contractor

management, 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 Small Group Discussions - Concurrent Session 3

3A. Planning Guidance for Contractor Work Force Washington Ballroom

Restructuring

Moderator: Barry Lawson, Lawson and Associates

Speakers: Terry Freese, Office of Worker and Community Transition

 Bob Card, Kaiser-Hill Rocky Flats

This open discussion session will cover issues raised in draft revisions to the Planning

Guidance for Contractor Work Force Restructuring.

10:30 - 12:00 noon Small Group Discussions - Concurrent Session 3 Con’t

3B. Asset Disposition Pilot Projects Lee Ballroom

Moderator: Rich Aiken, Office of Worker and Community Transition

Speakers: Stuart Fribush, Coopers and Lybrand

 Lawrence Young, Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee

 Tom Lukow, Rocky Flats Field Office, U.S. Department of Energy

 

This session will discuss opportunities and case studies on current asset disposition

projects. The goal of these projects are to reduce the cost of decommissioning and

decontaminating facilities and related clean-up through leveraging unneeded DOE

assets. Topics will include the results of an independent management firm’s

recommendations in this area; the potential role of Community Reuse Organizations in

asset dispositions; and the benefits of new legislation designed to help defray the cost of

dispositions.

12 noon - 12:30 p.m. Lunch (on your own)

12:30 - 1:15 p.m. Lunch Plenary Presentation Cameron Room

Topic: Harnessing the Contracting Process to Encourage 

Local Growth

Speaker: Tom Garcia, Los Alamos National Laboratory

1:30 - 3:00 p.m. Small Group Discussions - Concurrent Session 4
Sixth National Stakeholder Workshop Summary Report

Alexandria, Virginia - June 17-18, 1998 94

4A. Labor-Management Forum Washington Ballroom

Moderator: Barry Lawson, Lawson and Associates

Speakers: John Meese, Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO

 John Bradburne, Fluor Daniel Fernald

 Gene Branham, Fernald Atomic Trades and Labor Council

 

 Greg Glynn, Bechtel Nevada Corporation

 Dave Garbarino, International Union of Operating 

 Engineers, Local 12 

 Lavonne Ritter, Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service

Two panels will share their recent experiences with “Labor-Management

Partnerships;” innovative collective bargaining approaches and on-going efforts.

4B. Community Transition: Property Policy Lee Ballroom

Moderator: Debby Swichkow, Office of Worker and Community Transition

Speakers: Jim Woolford, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

 Bob Rosselli, Richland Operations Office, U.S. Department 

 of Energy

 Ben Bennett, Port of Benton, Richland, WA

 Robert Brown, Oak Ridge Operations Office, U.S. Department 

 of Energy

This session will discuss recent property transfer and leasing initiatives underway,

including joint EPA/DOE policy on leasing of real property under the Hall Amendment

and draft departmental guidance on property transfer. Highlighted in the session will

be facility reuse successes at Port of Benton and reindustrialization activities in Oak

Ridge.

3:00 - 3:30 p.m. Break

3:30 - 4:00 p.m. Featured Speaker Washington Ballroom

Title: British Experience in Economic Conversion

Speaker: Tim Knowles, International Research & Graduate Centre, Westlakes

Science & Technology Park, Great Britain

4:00 - 5:00 p.m. Final Plenary Session Washington Ballroom

Identification of action items and resolution of commitments