10

11

12

=

14

16

17

18

19

22

23

24

25

248

us -- to us in one month with a proposal. You are
reflecting some thoughts about that right now --

THE COURT REPORTER: Okay, he's off-mike.

DR. ZIEMER: (O££ microphone) - about the
nature of what that will look like. I don't think
that we can, in any definitive --

Oh, I lost the contact. I don't think, in
any definitive way, that we can comment beyond
some sort of general reactions and so on.
Certainly the plan, if it’s to be a plan that
covers, conceptually, the whole gamut of site
profiles, has to be a generic umbrella thing. And
IT think we understand that there may be specifics
that would apply to one facility that might not
apply to other facilities. And I presume the plan
would spell out how you would get at what those
would be for a Savannah River versus a Bethlehem
Steel or something like that.

DR. MAURO: Well, that’s -- that brings me --
in order for us to take the approach that I’d like
to take, namely have an over-arching plan but have
an addendum to it that explicitly addresses our
plan for a particular facility, it would mean that
very shortly you would need to provide us with

direction on which ones you'd like us to begin

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



I'm ng And | I k, based on i'n
ba and it uy t in it at 4
a e and move tt 1 e
+h w write a plan we w 1 f
1 I'd like to pre se thi +
ailored the files t
411; ka be 4 ; at tt
: t k jul that 5
at rhe int atior ing o it’s going
e freedom £1 bility Yt é

ASSOC



writ 1 th f a gener iat a
2 a ambr t t Cc »
t w 4d sr ifi e f st
rren : k t t tegies for
t joa f L the i f ef
Sa 1 e aus t I sertair
na w ie | Ka hat says T
t ar - nes a t a based on
e - i] ost mport inf a
o at and - sca k e
a i an ¢ a = cf ever aspe
that might ‘ £ importance
1ow t i j for reaction to this I
w I e t idi e Ss
h € e a0
wor i} t ='sa ive
Y ess 11q You tep ba ‘ at



DR. MAURO: I much would like
DR. ZIEMER: questions -- okay Let's
DR. also me s

ng as of yesterday, I wholeheartedl

he numbers f have filed
es 1 that
ti Y e r ag 1 € at
this par ular fr nt i t T be t
or, would haps feel be er yettin

DR.



BOARD DISCUSSION/WORKING SESSION FOR

SANFORD COHEN AND ASSOCIATES

ring if it ik yu i
24 Ss tl t t anc 1
that able } You t ne 1

DR. MAURO: ff microphor I 11d é

DR. ZIEMER: You'r welcome t ise the

if wist 6 that easier



Mark, ommen

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah,

Sat that the si ific p -- end
agree wit that th sit speci
there 3 3 t be some itera y k w
act thro pz so I

t e yuess wha s
hours sf t tho e-spe f lans
espe 4 t sg gt k

rat c fo c Ss you move along thro

adar | e s Ss as it
now, as + t

my

0)
a



©

0

with,

potent

I realize we have

and two to f£¢

my tt

list «
you'd
w :

inique

DR.

nking r

of the t

If th

tt

m, but
ide
mn beca

highly

wwe apply our r

is many as

al

sur AWESs. s

10ow, the sooner

rwo, three four
to begin with,

our n

o address

that’s whe

at's possible
ierwise wt
to be, quit
, but
fF how we’ re

effic

®

ist

oone

we have an initial
’ five that woulda
the -- t wil

will give you a

ing to come at t



13

14

15

16

17

18

pe |

20

22

as

24

25

246

certainly keep you apprised cf it. And if at any
point in the precess you feel that it’s -- we’re
taking a dath that perhaps the Board is
uncomfortable with, you think that maybe it's not
the best path te take or you’re (sic) ignering a
path that you feel might be important -- kere’s
where a collegial relationship is important to us,
but I also realize thaz we have a very formal
precess here whereby approvals need to go through
a process. So I‘m at a little bit of a -- a2
little bit off-balance here kecause I like the
idea of the interactive, but I also don’t want to
have hold points unnecessarily.

So I think I‘d like -- I guess my first poirt
to be made is that we have te learn together where
the hold points are important, where we have to
stop until you folks have a chance =o deliberate,
but where we’re allowed to ccntinue based on our
jucgment. We will always inform you of ary
direction we're taking that might be substantively
different than what we originally laid out in the
plan that you'll receive a mecnth from now. I
guess that’s the first point I wanted to make.

DR. ZIEMER: John, do you want the Board to

comment or react as you proceed here?

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



aay

“

o

hav

€ gone through my head -- spinning thro
head, but I -- I’m going to sort of unload

little bit.

talk about our first

irst l

which a report that’s going to be due t

month from th

r really two reports --

before yesterday. The first deliverable i

to be our proposed plan or procedure for

performing our review of the site profiles.

is going to be a descrip

rela database for tracking informati

querying to support you in evaluating the

° your stratified
needs. i'11 talk about both of those brie

With regard to the first deliverable,
is this procedure, in our proposal we laid

approach for performing site profile revie

, we identified in about seven o

- our plan for doing that we ; An

plan. It identifies

effe

that we’re going to explore. It’s almost

sub-tasks on the things that we plan to do.

sure you've all had a chance to look them
What dawned on me yesterday or day

yesterday is I read through the --

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

ampling is meeting

ugh my

them a

iverable,

o you --

e day

on and

degree

fly.

wh

out

ws. And
r eight

adit's a

like

over.

b

efore







DR.

DR.

DR.

MAURO: ff

ZIEMER: Yeah, we'll

ZIEMER: Jo

and

a mi lave
take the ad here at tt

THE COURT REPORTER: I

DR.

UNIDENTIFIED: Off mic

DR.

DR.

DR.

MAURO: ff cr

MAURO: (O£fE m

ZIEMER:

MAURO: We got it

thank

oser



10
Lk.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

251

profiles, particular sites, it probably would be a

good idea for us to -- when we have our internal
meetings, to lay out -- to draw upon our
resources, our people. How we’re going to break
it up -- I could -- right now I have a very clear

idea in my mind, for example, on Savannah River,
how would I come -- how I would do that. When we
get to that point, we‘d probably want to inform
you of that and may-- and how -- and we will
deliver something to you to say this is our plan.
Now whether that would be considered a deliverable
as part of our initial plan procedure or just
something that’s part of a monthly progress report
or -- or some interim reports, just to keep you
apprised -- perhaps that’s the best way to go. It
keeps it simpler. Anyway, those are some
thoughts.

I move on to my second thought. When we ~--
and I’m not too sure of the extent that we should
talk about budget here, and when I say “budget", I
mean work hour allocation and the way we do our
work. We have gone through a negotiation process
as -- and we’re at a point where that process is
fairly mature. And one of the things is the

relationship between the four tasks. Though we

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



pr es, a i pez iona fr
that i draw pon that in an effici ,
value eve i y er e gets t at v
Similarly, th gh t 1 10 t eer
approved -- task three, is the x 2
: rocedu 1 and tw and al the

O proce that Ss de ped Now,
again, there’ joing be a fj ess w we're