[Senate Hearing 109-127]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-127
HILL, RISPOLI AND SIGAL NOMINATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
THE NOMINATIONS OF JILL L. SIGAL TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY
FOR CONGRESSIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS; DAVID R. HILL TO BE
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; AND JAMES A. RISPOLI TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
__________
JULY 12, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
23-405 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Bob Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 3
Bunning, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from Kentucky.................... 4
Burr, Hon. Richard M., U.S. Senator from North Carolina..........
3
Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from Idaho........................ 1
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 1
Hill, David R., Nominee to be General Counsel of the Department
of Energy...................................................... 6
Rispoli, James A., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management of the Department of Energy........... 7
Sigal, Jill Lea, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary, Congressional
and Intergovernmental Affairs, Department of Energy............ 9
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 4
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 27
HILL, RISPOLI AND SIGAL NOMINATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. The hearing will please come to order. We're
a couple of minutes late and for that I apologize.
We're here this morning to consider the following
nominations for positions within the Department of Energy:
David R. Hill to be General Counsel, James A. Rispoli to be
Assistant Secretary for Environment and Management, and Jill
Sigal to be Assistant Secretary for Congressional and
Intergovernmental Affairs.
Before we begin, our colleague, Senator Crapo, has asked to
say a few words. Welcome to the committee, Senator, and we'd be
glad to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Ranking Member Bingaman and other members of the committee.
It's my pleasure to be here today to introduce Jill Sigal
to the committee as the nominee for Assistant Secretary of
Energy for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. I've
known Jill since my first day in Congress, as a new member of
the House of Representatives in 1993. I've come to know her
both professionally and personally, and I can tell you that she
is a gifted attorney, a devoted mother, and a dedicated public
servant. She's an upstanding woman of high character, who I'm
honored to call my friend.
Jill has been a respected authority on energy policy and
environmental management issues for over 20 years, and has
extensive experience as a liaison to Congress for the
Department of Energy. Throughout her time at the Department,
Jill has been an indispensable partner in highlighting and
championing the important work of the Idaho National Laboratory
in my home State. As president of her own firm, Jill served as
a successful advocate and counsel to several private company
clients, and specialized in developing and implementing
legislative strategies on environmental issues.
I had the opportunity to work with her on many issues
before Congress of direct import to Idaho's natural resource
community. In this role, Jill consistently demonstrated herself
to be a thoughtful and impassioned supporter of reasonable
environmental policies. Upon her return to public service, I
have once again found her to be a committed and knowledgeable
promoter of our Nation's energy priorities.
I know many of you have worked with Jill as this committee
has developed the energy bill, and I'm confident that you've
found her to be an articulate advocate for the administration.
Jill knows that her role is to be responsive to Members of
Congress, and on this point, I hope that you would all agree
that Jill has been aggressive in bringing our concerns to the
leadership at DOE.
As a successful businesswoman, lawyer and public servant
who will now work, following confirmation, to promote the
administration's policies and legislative initiatives to
Congress and other Federal agencies, Jill will need to call on
all her skills as we proceed toward completion of the
comprehensive energy bill this month.
Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly support Jill Sigal's
nomination as Assistant Secretary of Energy for Congressional
and Intergovernmental Affairs. I believe she is a committed
individual who will do her very best to serve the United States
and further our commitment to a thoughtful national energy
policy and a cleaner environment. She's a take-charge, decisive
and effective advocate for the Department on Capitol Hill. I
urge you and the committee to swiftly and favorably report her
nomination to the Senate for full confirmation.
And on a personal note, I'd like to say--this is a little
bit of a tender note--Jill lost her mother just recently. And
her mother was also a special friend to me. She provided
tremendous support to me when I faced a battle with prostate
cancer--as I indicated, we have strong family ties and
friendships. And I know that she wanted to be here today, and
Jill wanted her to be here today, and I'm confident that she
is. And I just wanted to let Jill and her family know of my
deep support and thoughts about her mother as we go forward
with this very important hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for providing me the
opportunity to speak on behalf of Jill Sigal's nomination, I
look forward to working with you, Jill, and others in Congress
to resolve the pressing energy and environmental issues facing
our Nation today. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Sigal, we will proceed. We won't start with you, but we
do want to share this time of grief with you. And you could
have asked us to delay, but I understand it was your choice to
proceed today, so----
Ms. Sigal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Now, I'm going to ask--there are a lot of
people present. That must mean that you have some family in
attendance. Before I ask you to present to us your families, I
want to note the presence of Secretary Bodman. Mr. Secretary,
we thank you for coming. It shows that you care, and that you
stand behind and support your nominees, and we're very hopeful
that we can proceed with dispatch with the job we have to do.
Much of it's already been done, but we will do that in due
course.
Having said that, we would like now to start with Mr. Hill,
and ask you if you would please introduce any relatives that
you would like us to know are here. And then, Mr. Rispoli, and
then, Jill, we will ask you to do the same.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to introduce my wife, Kristina Hill, and our three
beautiful daughters, Anna, Margaret and Julia. I also would
like to introduce other family members that are here today: my
sister, Carolyn J. Hill, and her husband, Andreas Lehnert; my
sister-in-law, Laura J. Hagg; and my niece, Katherine Hagg.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Did one of them disappear?
Mr. Hill. I think maybe the baby had to make a quick exit
to the hallway, yes.
The Chairman. We don't mind the noise if you want to bring
the baby back.
Mr. Hill. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Rispoli.
Mr. Rispoli. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, members of the
committee, I would like to introduce my wife, Carol, who is
here today, and also my daughter Christina, and her husband,
Kevin Thomasson, who drove up from North Carolina to meet with
us, from Raleigh, North Carolina to be with us today. They
have, within the last year, delivered to us our first
grandchild, who is not here with us today. Our son Joseph would
be here, except in 4 days in Austin, Texas, he will be marrying
Mandy Jenkins, so the family will be heading out shortly for
that event later this week. Thank you for the opportunity.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Jill, would you now, if you care to, introduce any of your
relatives who are here?
Ms. Sigal. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I'm here with my
husband, Bob Muth, and our wonderful 4 year old son, Harrison.
And sitting behind them is my sister, Pam, and her husband Paul
Kraszewski. And I think I have other relatives who are
listening in on the live webcast.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you very much, thank you very
much. Welcome to all of you. And now I might ask if there are
any Senators who would like to make a comment or two before we
proceed?
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to welcome the
nominees. I think they're all well-qualified. I compliment the
President on his nominations, and also Secretary Bodman, and
appreciate him being here to lend moral support to them this
morning. Thank you.
The Chairman. I also would note the presence of Deputy
Secretary Clay Sell. Thank you very much for coming, it's
always a pleasure to have you here.
Senator from Wyoming.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to go to
another meeting, but I did want to welcome all of you here, and
thank you for your willingness to serve. And just generally,
because I won't be able to be here, I just want to make the
comment for all of you that in order to have the kind of energy
development that we need and certainly want to continue to have
over the country, I urge you all to take a hard look at the
ways in which we must do this to protect the environment, and
we must continue to do that. On the other hand, if we could go
through those processes in a little more efficient way, it just
seems to me that often that's what's holding us up, that's
what's being so expensive, that we can do that job efficiently,
but we could do it much better than we do it, by working with
other agencies and other parts of government to go through this
task without reducing the efficiency or the effectiveness of it
and make it more efficient, and all you could do in that area,
I would appreciate it. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Senator Bunning.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM BUNNING, U.S. SENATOR
FROM KENTUCKY
Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to
welcome our nominees here before us today. Their nominations
are very important, given the issues--particularly that
Kentucky has in Paducah. As you know, my legislation moved the
Energy Employees Compensation Program to the Department of
Labor. Although the program is already operating, I expect each
of you to take responsibility to continue a smooth transition
of this program. The DOE has taken over 2 years to award the
small business cleanup contract at the Paducah Plant. As a
result of inadequate procurement procedures and protests,
members of my community continue to be in the state of
uncertainty. I expect you all to ensure a timely and accurate
resolution of this contract, and ensure future procurement is
handled expeditiously and correctly. If the Senate confirms
you, I expect you to work hard to make sure that the DOE
effectively manages a Paducah Plant. Thank you very much for
being here.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senators, anything further?
I would just make a general observation to all three of
you. I note with some degree of past involvement that you've
all taken tough jobs--we'll go through that as we inquire of
you individually--and I want to say that it's particularly
pleasing to me to see people take these jobs who seem to be
excited about them. I mean, one evidence of being excited is to
bring your family to a hearing. Some people seem to get kind of
staid in their way and sort of seem like they're being shoved
into these jobs, but you seem to have some smiling faces. We
hope that will be the case a year from now when we call you up
here and you try to implement some of the jobs you have to do.
Now, let's move on. The rules of the committee, which apply
to all nominees, require that they be sworn in, in connection
with their testimony, so would all of you please rise and raise
your right hands?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Rispoli. I do.
Mr. Hill. I do.
Ms. Sigal. I do.
The Chairman. Please be seated.
Now, before you begin your statements, I'll ask three
questions that are addressed to each nominee before this
committee. Each of you will please respond separately to each
question. We'll start on this side with you, Mr. Rispoli.
Would you be available to appear before this committee and
other congressional committees to represent departmental
positions and respond to issues of concern to the Congress?
Mr. Rispoli. I will, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hill. I will.
Ms. Sigal. I will.
The Chairman. All right. Each of you, are you aware of any
personal holdings, investments or interests that could
constitute a conflict, or create the appearance of such a
conflict, should you be confirmed and assume the office for
which you have been nominated by the President?
Mr. Rispoli. Mr. Chairman, my investments, personal
holdings and other interests have been reviewed both by myself
and the appropriate ethics counselors within the Federal
Government. I have taken appropriate action to avoid any
conflicts of interest. There are no conflicts of interest, or
appearances thereof, to my knowledge.
The Chairman. Mr. Hill.
Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, my investments, personal holdings
and other interests have been reviewed both by myself and the
appropriate ethics counselors within the Federal Government. I
have taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of
interest. There are no conflicts of interest, or appearances
thereof, to my knowledge.
Ms. Sigal. Mr. Chairman, my investments, personal holdings
and other interests have been reviewed both by myself and the
appropriate ethics counselors within the Federal Government. I
have taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of
interest. There are no conflicts of interest, or appearances
thereof, to my knowledge.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Now, each of you have to
answer one additional question. Are you involved with, or do
you have any assets held in blind trust?
Mr. Rispoli. Mr. Chairman, no, I do not.
The Chairman. Mr. Hill?
Mr. Hill. No, sir.
The Chairman. Ms. Sigal?
Ms. Sigal. No, sir.
The Chairman. All right. Now, we're going to proceed in the
following manner. Each of you are now going to make brief
statements. I encourage you to summarize your statements that
you've presented for filing in the record so that we'll have
plenty of time for Senators to ask questions. We're going to
start with Mr. Hill, followed by Mr. Rispoli, and then by Ms.
Sigal. Would you proceed in that order with your statements,
following the admonition about being brief, not just because of
us, it's better for you if you're brief.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID R. HILL, NOMINEE TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members of the
committee, it's a great honor for me to appear before you today
as the President's nominee to be General Counsel at the U.S.
Department of Energy. I appreciate the committee holding this
hearing and for considering my nomination. I also want to thank
Secretary Bodman and Deputy Secretary Sell for being here this
morning, and for recommending me to the President for this
position.
If confirmed and appointed as the Department's next General
Counsel, it would be my privilege to work with this committee,
as well as my colleagues within the Bush administration, to
carry out the Department of Energy's many important
responsibilities in the energy, defense, science and
environmental areas.
If confirmed, I commit that I will do everything I can to
help the Department accomplish its missions, which are so
critical to the Nation's safety and security. Thank you, again,
for holding this hearing and for considering my nomination. It
would be an honor and a privilege for me to serve the American
people as General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Energy.
Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. So far, David's ahead.
[Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:]
Prepared Statement of David R. Hill, Nominee to be
General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Energy
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members of the Committee, I am
deeply honored to appear before you today as the President's nominee to
be General Counsel of the United States Department of Energy.
I want to express my thanks to President Bush for nominating me to
serve in this position, and to Secretary Bodman for recommending me to
the President. If I am confirmed, it would indeed be a privilege to
serve as the Department's General Counsel under the leadership of
President Bush, Secretary Bodman and Deputy Secretary Clay Sell.
I would like to introduce my wife Kristina Hill, who is here with
me today, along with our three beautiful daughters, Anna, Margaret and
Julia. I want to publicly thank Kristina for her constant support and
encouragement, which have allowed me to serve in my present position at
the Department of Energy, and will allow me to continue to serve.
I also would like to introduce my sister Carolyn J. Hill. My
parents Ronald and Shirley Hill, who still live in Smithville, Missouri
where I grew up, and my brother Roger W. Hill, could not be here today.
I do want to express my thanks to my parents, to whom I am forever
grateful for everything they have done for me.
I currently serve as Deputy General Counsel for Energy Policy at
the Department of Energy. In that position, which I have held since
March 2002, I have had the opportunity to work with many of the
Department's programs and with senior officials at the Department and
throughout the Administration. I also have worked with the staff of
this Committee and of some of the Committee's Members on a variety of
matters. I look forward to continuing to work with the Committee, in my
present position and in the position of General Counsel should I be
confirmed, toward the goal of completing work on the pending
comprehensive energy bill, and then in carrying out its many important
provisions.
In my current position at DOE, I have provided legal advice and
analysis on a variety of statutory, legislative, regulatory,
administrative and policy issues. In performing those duties, I have
worked with many of the career lawyers at the Department. If confirmed
as DOE's General Counsel, I would have the honor of leading an
organization with very high professional standards and a strong
commitment to public service.
Most of my legal career prior to joining DOE was spent in private
practice. I was a partner at the law firm of Wiley, Rein & Fielding
here in Washington, D.C., and subsequently was a partner at Blackwell
Sanders Peper Martin in Kansas City, Missouri. Early in my career I was
an associate at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering in Washington, DC. My work
in private practice spanned a broad range of regulatory, litigation and
corporate work.
I also served as associate counsel on the staff of the U.S. House
of Representatives Committee on Agriculture from 1991 to 1993, and
began my legal career as a clerk for Judge James K. Logan of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. I received my law degree from
the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois, and my
bachelor's degree from the College of Agriculture at the University of
Missouri at Columbia.
I have a deep respect for both the importance and the difficulty of
the missions that Congress and the American people have entrusted to
the Department of Energy. Each of the Department's four strategic
goals--which focus on defense, energy, science and the environment--
involve activities and responsibilities that present difficult and
interesting legal challenges. While the solutions to these challenges
are rarely easy or uncomplicated, I believe that our success in
addressing them is critical not only to the safety and security of the
American people, but indeed to the safety and security of people
throughout the world. If confirmed and appointed as DOE's General
Counsel, I am committed to doing everything I can to work both within
the Administration, with this Committee and with the Congress to help
the Department succeed in carrying out its missions.
In closing, I want to again thank President Bush and Secretary
Bodman for the trust they have placed in me. I also want to thank the
Committee for holding this hearing and considering my nomination to be
the Department of Energy's next General Counsel. It would be an honor
and a privilege for me to serve the American people in this position.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I would be glad
to answer the Committee's questions at this time.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES A. RISPOLI, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
Mr. Rispoli. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, members of the
committee, it is a privilege for me to appear before you today
as the President's nominee to be Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management in the Department of Energy. I thank
the President and Secretary Bodman for their support, and I am
honored to have been asked by them to serve in this position. I
especially thank the Secretary and Deputy Secretary Sell for
being here to support us today.
I pledge to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the members of this
committee that if confirmed, I will work closely with you and
all of the Congress in addressing the many issues that we face
in the environmental management program.
I do have just a few highlights from my statement for the
record to underscore. I understand that the environmental
management challenges of the Department of Energy are great,
and I welcome the opportunity to begin working to address them,
if I am confirmed. It's my view that the proper leadership and
management of the professionals who work in this program can
deliver success. I want you to know that I'm committed to
safety, and I believe that safety and environmental cleanup are
inextricably joined because the whole purpose of the cleanup is
for the safety and security of our citizens, our communities
and our Nation.
I commit to you, the members of the committee and other
congressional committees, that if I am confirmed, I will
communicate openly with you, with the States, and with other
stakeholders. I fully expect to bring an open and forthright
approach to my dealings with my constituents and stakeholders
of the program. I will devote my full energies and my
leadership and management experience to deliver results to the
American people, if I am confirmed.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you. I'm
willing to take your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rispoli follows:]
Prepared Statement of James A. Rispoli, Nominee to be Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Management of the Department of Energy
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, Members of the
Committee.
It is a privilege for me to appear before you today as the
President's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Management at the U.S. Department of Energy. I would like to introduce
my wife, Carol, who is here with me today. Since our marriage some 36
years ago, she and our two children have supported me in my service to
our country, as I was for 26 years a career military officer, mostly as
a Civil Engineer Corps officer in the United States Navy. Without the
support of Carol and our two children throughout those years, I am
convinced I would not be here before you today. I thank the President
and Secretary Bodman for their support, and I am honored to have been
asked by them to serve in this position. I pledge to you, Mr. Chairman,
and to the members of this Committee, that if confirmed to this
position, I will work closely with you and all of the Congress in
addressing the many issues that we face in the environmental management
program.
My formal education is as a civil engineer, educated as such to the
Master's degree level. I also earned an advanced degree in business,
and from my earliest days of practice I have had a special interest in
environmental issues as related to engineering and construction. I have
managed facilities as the public works officer and environmental
officer at naval installations. Additionally, I have served as the
Navy's manager of environmental cleanup for all its ashore
installations, a position similar to the one for which I have been
nominated at the Department of Energy. I have first hand experience in
the Federal sector as an engineer in leadership positions , a manager
of environmental programs, and as a contracting officer. Complementing
that Governmental experience, I have served as a senior officer in two
engineering firms that specialized in environmental cleanup.
I understand that the environmental management challenges of the
Department of Energy are formidable, as I have been involved over the
past several years with the capital projects in the Environmental
Management portfolio. I welcome the opportunity to begin working to
address these challenges if I am confirmed. With that said, it is my
view that with proper leadership and management, the professionals who
work in this program, both Federal and contractor, can deliver success.
We can do this with the use of industry standard practices for project
management such as defining projects, with achievable targeted
schedules, milestones and costs. I believe that by reinforcing the
application of industry standard practices for these projects, we can
manage them with better effectiveness and reliability. For example, we
will be able to project future resource needs across the planning
horizon with greater credibility. And we will be able to better manage
to improve success in delivering on our commitments. I look forward, if
confirmed, to leading this organization I hope the Committee will find
that my background qualifies me for this position, and has given me the
leadership and management tools for the task at hand.
I am committed to safety, and in my view, safety and environmental
cleanup are inexorably joined. I believe that the cleanup of our sites
can not be accomplished without superior safety performance in our
daily work. Only by operating safely can we achieve the goals and
schedules we have set. This is paramount, because the whole purpose of
the cleanup of these sites is for the safety and security of our
citizens, communities and nation. At the same time, I know that I need
to learn and understand the strengths and weaknesses of this
environmental cleanup program. I know that we have had successes and we
have had setbacks, and that the setbacks have resulted in public
disappointment and disappointment in the Congress. If confirmed to the
position of Assistant Secretary, I will take this mantle of
responsibility; I will do so with a clear motivation to improve our
performance, to succeed, to deliver, and to be honest with you and all
the stakeholders in the development of expectations and the execution
of plans for this program.
I know a number of people throughout the Environmental Management
organization. I have great respect for them and the challenges they
face, and overcome, every day. I look forward, if confirmed, to meeting
the many more Federal and contractor employees who are engaged in these
efforts, to understand fully how they have set their targets, and how
they are managing their projects so that they will meet these targets.
I commit to you, the Members of this Committee, and the other
Congressional Committees, that if I am confirmed I will communicate
openly with you, the States, and other stakeholders. My entire career
has been built on honesty and integrity, and I fully expect to bring an
open and forthright approach to all my dealings with the constituents
and stakeholders of this program. I intend to devote my full energies
and my leadership and management experience to deliver results for the
American people.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I will be pleased to
answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
The Chairman. Ms. Sigal.
TESTIMONY OF JILL LEA SIGAL, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
CONGRESSIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
Ms. Sigal. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, members of the
committee, I am honored to appear before you today as President
George W. Bush's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of
Energy for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. I'd
like to thank the President for nominating me, and the
committee for holding this hearing.
I've already introduced my family, but I would like to
thank them for their tremendous love and support which I have
depended upon while serving at the Department. As Senator Crapo
mentioned, there's one member of my family who is not present
today, and that's my mother, Nancy Sigal. She passed away last
week. My mother taught me many things--excuse me, Mr.
Chairman--including compassion, inner strength, and to never
give up in the face of adversity. She embodied these qualities
throughout her life, and I will strive to maintain her high
level of integrity and compassion in my life's endeavors.
I'd like to give a special thanks and appreciation to
Secretary Samuel Bodman for his support and his confidence in
me. It is a tremendous privilege for me to work on a daily
basis with someone of Secretary Bodman's character, integrity
and intellect, and I thank him and Deputy Secretary Sell for
being here today.
In my work and in my life, I am guided by several
principles. Among them are honesty, integrity and loyalty. If I
am confirmed, these are the principles by which the Office of
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs will be guided. If
confirmed, I commit to you to always provide information in a
frank and timely manner, to always be responsive to Members of
Congress and their staff, and to always be willing to meet with
this committee, other Members of Congress and congressional
staff.
During my tenure at the Department of Energy, and in my
previous experience in the private sector, I have worked with
members of this committee, as well as other members of the
House and Senate, on a wide array of energy and environmental
issues. Should I be confirmed, I look forward to continuing the
working relationship with this committee, and Congress. If I am
confirmed, I will draw upon the experiences both in my 20 year
career, as well as in life, to do my very best to meet your
highest expectations. It is indeed an honor and a privilege to
testify before you today. I am happy to answer any questions
that you may have.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sigal follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jill Lea Sigal, Nominee to be Assistant
Secretary, Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, Department of
Energy
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members of the Committee, I am
honored to appear before you today as President George W. Bush's
nominee to serve as the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Congressional
and Intergovernmental Affairs. I would like to thank the President for
nominating me and the Committee for considering my nomination.
I am here today with several members of my family--my husband Bob
Muth, our wonderful four-year old son Harrison, my sister Pam and my
brother-in-law Paul Kraszewski. I would like to thank them for their
tremendous love and support which I have depended upon while serving at
the Department of Energy.
There is one member of my family who is not here today--my mother,
Nancy Sigal. She passed away last week. My mother taught me many things
including compassion, inner strength and to never give up in the face
of adversity. She embodied these qualities throughout her life. I will
strive to maintain her high level of integrity and compassion in my
life's endeavors.
I would like to express my deep appreciation to Secretary Samuel
Bodman for his support and his confidence in me. I have worked closely
with the Secretary since mid-December through his nomination process
and for the last five months at the Department. It is a tremendous
privilege for me to work on a daily basis with someone of Secretary
Bodman's character, integrity and intellect.
I have had the privilege of serving in the Department of Energy's
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs since July 2003.
I started in the office as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Environment and Science, then became the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary and I was named Acting Assistant Secretary in January of this
year.
In my work, and in my life, I am guided by several principles.
Among them are: honesty, integrity and loyalty. If I am confirmed,
these are the principles by which the Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Affairs will be guided.
If confirmed, I commit to you to----
always provide information in a frank and timely manner;
always be responsive to Members of Congress and their staff;
and
always be willing to meet with this Committee, other Members
of Congress and Congressional staff.
During my tenure at the Department of Energy, and in my previous
experience in the private sector, I have worked with members of this
Committee, as well as other members in both the Senate and the House,
on a wide array of energy and environmental issues. Should I be
confirmed, I look forward to continuing the working relationship with
this committee and Congress
In addition to our work with members of Congress and congressional
committees, the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
works on a daily basis with Governors, state legislatures, tribal
governments and other stakeholders. With major facilities in many
States across the nation, employing thousands of federal and contractor
employees, it is also critically important that our office maintain
open communications with these stakeholders.
If confirmed, I will draw upon my experiences, both in my 20-year
career, as well as well as in life, to do my very best to meet your
highest expectations. It is indeed an honor and a privilege to testify
before you today. This concludes my statement and I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Now, we're going to proceed. From my standpoint, I want all
of you to know that I'm on a very short timeframe in terms of
how much I can spend here, because I have another meeting in
the House. But if we have to go beyond the time that I can be
here, Senator Craig will stay a few extra minutes. Is that
correct?
So let me just move to Senator Bingaman to see if he has
any observations or questions.
Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. Mr. Chairman, I have some questions for
Mr. Rispoli, solely, which I will just submit for the record. I
think that, rather than getting into some of the details of his
various responsibilities, which are enormous, I'll just follow
up with him after he's had a chance to review these questions
in more detail. But thank you very much. And as I said before,
I support each of these nominees. I think they're good choices,
and they're well-qualified for the positions that they will
hold.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bunning.
Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to be
short. I will also submit some questions, but I have a couple
of things that I'd like to ask about the Paducah plant.
The Workers' Compensation bill was recently put into law--
this is a question for all three--will you all work to ensure a
smooth transition of the program from DOE to DOL?
Mr. Hill. Yes I will, Mr. Chairman--I mean, Senator
Bunning.
Senator Bunning. That's all right. I like the promotion.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, I will, Senator Bunning.
Ms. Sigal. Yes, sir, if confirmed, I would be happy to do
so.
Senator Bunning. The DUF-6 project in Paducah broke ground
in July of last year. Earlier this year, there were problems
with DOE not timely approving phases of construction of the
facility. It is my understanding that DOE must sign off on the
final design plan called Critical Decision 3 in about a month.
Will DOE timely evaluate and approve critical phases of this
construction?
Mr. Rispoli. Senator Bunning, I am familiar with the issues
with that particular project. I can tell you that the
Department has been working with the contractor and with the
site manager to resolve those issues so that we can, in fact,
approve that Critical Decision in a timely fashion to go
forward with the work.
Senator Bunning. Can you give me a timeline of any sort?
Mr. Rispoli. Senator, at this point, I do not know. But if
I'm confirmed, I will explore that schedule in more detail. As
I indicate, however, I am familiar with the issue. I know that
the Department is working the issue with the site and with the
contractor.
Senator Bunning. In December--this is for anyone--in
December 2002, Congress required the DOE to convert its
industrial and construction workers' health and safety orders
into enforceable regulations by December 2003, and begin
enforcing these by December 2004. Since this was my legislation
that became law, as of July 2005, DOE has yet to finalize these
rules, and is currently working on a third draft. Previously
drafts of rules did not follow Congressional intent.
When do you expect DOE to begin implementing a workers'
safety rule that follows Congressional intent?
Mr. Hill. As I understand it, Senator Bunning, the
Department is working on that rule right now, and considering
comments and working on a final rule. And we'll have that
approved as soon as possible, although I don't know a
particular timeframe for that.
Senator Bunning. Well, my biggest problem is it's been over
3 years. And I know there's been changes in the Department, but
3 years is long enough to get a rule done. And I would think
the sooner the better, because it's holding up the process of
those claims.
Last, the Paducah diffusion plant remediation contract
continues to be delayed by protests over DOE's handling of the
procurement procedures. As a result, the current contract had
to be extended until January 2006, leaving the community in a
state of uncertainty. Will you work to ensure DOE moves forward
in a diligent and thorough manner in its decision on the
remediation contract?
Mr. Rispoli. Senator, it is my understanding that that re-
procurement, as a result of the issues that arose from the
first procurement, is being accomplished right now, that the
proposals will be due in, and that the Department will be
evaluating those proposals. I also understand that the existing
contract has been extended to provide the continuity that you
are concerned about. And if I am confirmed, I will certainly
look into that, because as you know, the timing for resolution
is between now and the end of the year.
Senator Bunning. We don't want Bechtel Jacobs to continue
to be extended when their contract has expired and been
extended. We want the local contractors, the small
contractors--those are your rules, not mine--to have the
changes made. And I'm looking forward to talking with you, in
case we have a problem.
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, I understand the issue, and I do look
forward to working with you going forward, if I'm confirmed.
Thank you.
Senator Bunning. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Bunning, might I just, on your
behalf, with your permission, say I think it's important on the
questions that the Senator asked that when you're confirmed and
take the job that you try to get him and the committee some
answers as soon as possible. Show that whether you can meet
what he's talking about in terms of the expectations. I think
that we should get the problem on the table in writing by
giving the Senator some information. That's really a sore spot
for him on both of those issues, and I think some of us share
his concern.
Senators Thomas, Burr, Craig, White and Salazar, in that
order.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hill, one of the difficulties, time-wise at least, it
seems is an overabundance of legislation litigation with regard
to moving forward. Do you have any thoughts about that? What
could be done to efficiently move along with that?
Mr. Hill. You're referring to the contractual matters, or
permitting matters, or both?
Senator Thomas. Permitting matters, primarily.
Mr. Hill. Yes, I understand, Senator. Oftentimes,
permitting of both energy projects as well as departmental
projects can be quite time-consuming and complicated. I think
in terms of trying to expedite those in a way that does protect
the taxpayers, protect the environment is a difficult thing. I
think it does benefit from working on the front end as much as
possible with affected interests, to try to identify those
interests and try to work with them on the front end, rather
than just proceed without understanding what all of the
interests are, and then litigating once a decision has already
been made. So we certainly are going to, within the General
Counsel's office, do everything we can and work as hard as we
can to make sure that the interests are understood and the
problems are identified as early as possible.
Senator Thomas. I hope so. It seems like litigation,
regardless of the merits legally, is sort of the land
management technique that's getting overbalanced a bit.
With regard to the environmental questions, I met yesterday
with the uranium folks, and obviously nuclear power and
electricity is one of our potentials for service. What can we
do to move along with the waste storage in Nevada? How long are
we going to go along on that before we move forward and get
that thing completed?
Mr. Hill. Senator, as you know, the Department and the
administration are fully committed to the completion of the
development of the repository at Nevada, at Yucca Mountain. As
you also know, many of the plans for the disposition of waste
at the sites throughout the Department are dependent upon the
development of a geologic repository. I can tell you that that
commitment remains strong.
Senator Thomas. Why is it taking so long?
Mr. Rispoli. Senator, I am unfortunately not in a position
to answer that. I have not been involved with that program, but
I do know that there's a strong interrelationship between the
job for which I've been nominated, which is environmental
management, and where those wastes go. So I would commit to you
that if I'm confirmed, I'll work with the people in that
program to ensure that all of those interrelationships are
understood and progress forward.
Senator Thomas. Good. Well, congratulations. I hope you
succeed, because you know, the issues are really resolved, and
we need to just move forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Burr.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD M. BURR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NORTH CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions,
I just want to make two general comments. One, it's refreshing
to see a group of nominees with the qualifications that these
three have. It is refreshing to see a Secretary who takes
enough interest to come up and see his team as they go through
the confirmation process.
Mr. Chairman, if there's one criticism that I have and that
I constantly hear of the Department of Energy--and this is not
reflective of the individuals that are here, necessarily, or of
the Secretary, but it's very much a broad-based criticism of
the Agency--it's the speed with which the Agency acts. And I've
listened to the questions of Senator Bunning and Senator
Thomas, and both of them dealt with either lack of
responsiveness or the timeline of responsiveness. And I would
only say to these nominees--and it's good that I'm within
shouting distance of the Secretary at the same time--we don't
expect everything to always be right, but we do expect the
Agency to act. And I think the frustration that I bring from
the House side, now to the Senate side, and that I hear
expressed on the Senate side, is of an Agency that doesn't act.
And I would only encourage the three nominees and the
Department of Energy--let's act. Let's be an Agency that gets
things done. We can all look back and figure out if we need to
tweak it because we didn't do everything exactly right, but
there's no substitute for action, and I would encourage you to
come into these jobs with the intent of action.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Jim, David and Jill, welcome to the committee and
congratulations to the three of you, and I mean that most
sincerely. I've had the privilege of getting to know some of
you a bit, and of course, I've worked with Jill a good many
years in a variety of capacities. And, Jill, you're certainly
well-qualified for the position the President has nominated you
to.
Ms. Sigal. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Craig. This morning on NBC news, the ``Pump
Patrol'' was letting our country know where they could buy gas
the cheapest. On the average, regular unleaded is $2.33 a
gallon as of this morning, crude is falling in the world
market, slightly, today. But there is a general perception out
there that something's wrong. These costs are going ever
higher, and the American public grows restless.
We all know that the Department of Energy is not in the
business of producing oil, or energy for that matter, but
perceptually, you have become the bull's eye of a very
important target in the minds, I think, of the American people.
This Senate acted responsibly in the production of a
National Energy Policy a few weeks ago. The reason the chairman
is rushing off is to sit down with the chairman in the House to
begin a conference that we hope will produce a policy that will
get it to the President's desk sooner rather than later. We've
been waiting a long time for this. We've sorted out our
differences, but we think we've got something that's workable.
And from that, a great deal of it will be turned over to your
Department for a variety of reasons, but largely because a
certain amount of it will be under your jurisdiction. And we
would hope--and I think Senator Burr said it well--that you
would act expeditiously in a variety of areas to move
initiatives forward, to think out of the box, to suggest to OMB
that they're 10 years behind the times, they've got to think
differently, to do a lot of things inside the institution of
government that, at best, moves slowly, and sometimes poorly.
Now, the reason I'm on this committee--and it isn't by
accident that the Senator, who's my colleague from Idaho,
introduced Jill Sigal this morning, and is very much
interested--is the same reason Senator Bunning's on the
committee or Senator Bingaman, or Senator Domenici. We have
national energy laboratories within our States that we have,
over the years, protected, pushed, judged, but believe them to
be incredibly valuable national assets, from which a great deal
of the policy we're talking about can be implemented, or should
be implemented, at least as relates to the research side and
the development side, not necessarily the market side.
Jim, one of the decisions that Senator Crapo and I made
several years ago in working with DOE was to divide the
contracts at our national lab for a future. You happen to be
involved in an area of our national lab and that is terminal,
we hope. Successfully terminal--by that, I mean, it's cleanup,
to be done efficiently, responsibly and as quickly as possible.
You're watched very closely. The State and a lot of interests
watch you. And I hope that your commitment, as Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Management, is the same as the past
Assistant Secretary, and that is the cleanup will move on on a
timely schedule, and that as the cleanup goes, the agreement of
this administration to that laboratory is, as those resources
ramp down, those resources move across, to sustain and to move
up the area of the laboratory's nuclear science and engineering
missions. Do you hold the same commitment?
Mr. Rispoli. Senator, I do, yes. As you know, if I am
confirmed, as we discussed, I am fully committed to the
efficient and effective cleanup. And obviously, as we progress
with that, and the needs of the cleanup become less and less
over time, what you are speaking of is certainly attainable. I
would certainly cooperate with my colleagues at the Department
going forward in that process, if confirmed.
Senator Burr. David, one of the things that I think DOE has
to become involved in that we tend not to is budget. It is a
consequence of where we need to get with energy and research
and development versus the budget realities we face here. There
are a great many energy interests all over the world who want
to be partners and participants in the work that goes on in our
national labs. We've looked, in the past, at certain kinds of
legal relationships called CREDA's. I think we need to think
way out of the box once again, of how we bring national and
world partners--not governments--some might be--to work
cooperatively and collectively with us in certain projects and
missions that serve, not only the national interest, but the
world interest as it relates to energy production. Have you
given that any thought, and are there examples that you might
bring to us over time as to how we might get there? And I'm
talking, specifically of, in this new policy that we're working
on a final conference report on, Generation 4 nuclear. There
are a host of countries and a host of multinational companies
that want to be players, with billions of dollars worth of
investment money into a government program. How do we do that?
To sustain the national interest and the national security, but
have a world-class research and development center?
Mr. Hill. What you say, Senator, is certainly true. The
technologies that are being developed in the laboratories,
there's nothing specific to the United States, or the United
States' interests, about a lot of those technologies and
developments. Gen-4 is an example. The clean coal work that's
being done, a lot of the nanotechnology work that's being done
at the laboratories, a lot of the work at the national labs can
benefit the entire world, not just the United States.
I certainly think that we should work as hard as we can to
explore what the opportunities are to make use of international
involvement and interest in pushing those forward. Certainly
with the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, for example,
we're working with a number of other countries that are
interested in the ideas behind carbon sequestration, and the
regional partnerships that are working as a part of that are
working on strides with respect to carbon sequestration with a
number of countries around the world, and I'll certainly commit
to doing what I can to work on that and to work with your staff
on those issues.
Senator Craig. Well, I thank you for that. I really believe
that the needs are so demanding and the resources so limited
that we've got to get beyond the normal configuration of how we
approach these things. There seems to be a good deal of
resources, both governmental and private, out there in the
world that would be a player and a participant.
Mr. Hill. Yes, sir.
Senator Craig. Jill, in your capacity--governmental
relations, congressional relations, is a key of importance to
us--you're, without question, a bit of a touchstone for us to
the Department and to our laboratories. At the same time, I
think it's important for you to understand that sometimes we
develop close working relationships with our laboratories and
the people within our laboratories, and it is an interesting
relationship, because our laboratories are managed--responsibly
and rightfully so--by the executive branch of government, that
which you are a part of. What I'm suggesting to you, and I
think you clearly understand this, is that as you work on our
behalf, whether it's legislative issues or being the
connectivity or the conduit to our laboratories, that we do
have those relationships. And it's a bit of a--I don't want to
call it convoluted, I think it is a relationship that works
well. There's no question the New Mexican Senators are
advocates of their laboratories, Mike Crapo and I are advocates
of our laboratory, here is an advocate of a critical laboratory
here, on and on and on. They are valuable employers, they are
valuable community members, and we develop those kinds of
working relationships, and I would hope that in your capacity,
you work to keep those doors open and those lines of
communications always at hand.
Ms. Sigal. Yes, Senator, I clearly understand the
importance of the INL to you, and the various labs in New
Mexico to the chairman, and Paducah to Senator Bunning, and
Hanford to Senator Wyden, and NREL and the other labs and DOE
facilities to most of the Senators on this committee. And I do
think it is very important to have open lines of communication,
not only between DOE headquarters and the Congress, but also
between the field offices and the Congress, and if confirmed, I
would be delighted to facilitate that in any way possible.
Senator Craig. Great. Thank you. Congratulations to all of
you.
Ms. Sigal. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Senator Wyden is going to
go next, but I'm going to step in now and take 2 minutes, and
then yield to you.
I'm just going to ask three questions. First, Ms. Sigal,
over the past several years there's been a very significant
amount of staff turnover within the Congressional Affairs
Office of the Department. I think you know that. Consequently,
long-term working relationships with the staff and members have
been difficult for the Department to establish. I would hope
that you have a vision of an Intergovernmental Affairs Office
for being a consistent, a long-term relationship so that
everybody understands precisely what your role is and that you
assume a more significant role in the exchange between the
members of the Senate and the committee and the Department.
Could you just comment on that? I don't expect you to know all
of the ins and outs, but what I've just said is a reality.
Ms. Sigal. Yes, sir. If confirmed, it would definitely be
my objective to play an important role in the Office of
Congressional Affairs, and to lead the office, and to have open
lines of communications with this committee and Members of
Congress, because our purpose for existing is to--as Senator
Craig stated--to be the conduit between the Department, between
the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary and Congress. And if I
am confirmed, that would be my highest priority.
The Chairman. I have two other things that are kind of
bothering me. And I don't know, but if I had the Secretary
there, the ones I'm going to ask you about, Mr. Hill, two of
them would be more appropriate for him. The Unical v. China
situation is very bothersome. One thing that I noted is that
there is a committee that's been formed to work on this issue,
and I looked down the list and it has a number of prominent
individuals in prominent positions, like the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Office of Science and Technology, but I note the
absence of the Secretary of Energy. I don't know what that
means. I was going to ask you if you had any thoughts about how
we might rectify that, but that's more appropriate to be asked
of the Secretary in private. I may be wrong in my assessment--
--
Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, are you referring to the committee
on Foreign Investment in the United States?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Hill. I understand that the Secretary of Energy is not
an official member of that, although I would anticipate the
Department of Energy would be, and the Secretary would be
involved in the processes of any work by the committee in
connection with the proposed transaction.
The Chairman. Well, Mr. Hill, the office that you have is
not so defined that it is limiting on you, it's defined in such
a way that you ought to use your talents to the maximum extent
possible. We have had people in your position--it's not
difficult for this Senator to say--that have been less than
adroit at what the office ought to do. And in that regard, I
would hope that you would become totally familiar with the
issues involved, energy-wise, in terms of such a situation as
I've described. Am I fair and safe in assuming that that's your
vision of the office?
Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly anticipate being
involved with the Secretary and the other principal officers of
the Department in all manner of important decisions. Prior to
coming to the Department in March 2002, in my current position,
I had been in private practice for a number of years, and had
worked in connection, particularly with electricity and natural
gas matters, so I came to the Department with a fair amount of
knowledge in connection with energy matters. So I would look
forward to working both with the committee and of course
closely with my administration colleagues and would hope to
improve the office's performance in these areas.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Now, my last one, I'm
going to kind of put two together and both of you--Mr. Rispoli,
let me say that the job you have undertaken is so difficult
that I've frequently asked, each time that we have had an
excited nominee to take the job, I ask ``why?'' But I'm not
going to ask you that, because I think you've already explained
it. But let me tell you, I think in the last 4 years, there has
been more success in many, many years, and I would hope that
you would look back on how the success has occurred. Rocky
Flats is a great success. It might be that it's unique, but I
firmly believe that in this cleanup matter, we are just wasting
time and money. And I don't mean the problem isn't big, but
sooner or later, we have to understand why, instead of just
continuing to write checks. We have become a check-writing mill
for these communities. We are the big-time employer, and I
understand. So the lobbying is almost equivalent to having an
air base there, a permanent laboratory. But that's not the
case, and that's not what it should be. And I would hope that
you would expand the horizon, continue down the path of getting
the job done, but also address basic issues of are we just
being--just continuing down the path of doing what we've been
doing to no end. That's just my own thought and observation,
and I would just ask you if you would give me your own quick
thought on that subject.
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. The Department
very recently--as you know, and as you've stated--did in fact,
restructure the entire Environmental Management Program. I
believe that the program is organized in a much better way that
gives greater visibility to the individual components. I fully
support going forward with that incentivized method of getting
these sites cleaned up properly, effectively and safely. So,
yes, Mr. Chairman, I give you my commitment. If confirmed, I
will go forward from this point.
The Chairman. Mr. Hill, there's one giant matter that's
pending over there in that Department that you're going to be
involved in and that's the--what we're going to do about the
bid with reference to Los Alamos National Laboratory's new
management contract. Now, you're aware that that's pending, are
you not?
Mr. Hill. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am.
The Chairman. Are you aware that that's a very major issue
for the United States of America, to get that thing resolved?
Mr. Hill. Yes, sir, I do.
The Chairman. And I want to say to you and ask you, in your
capacity as legal counsel, will you see to it that that
proceeds as expeditiously as possible? I'm not asking that we
interject ourselves in that process, but delay is not in the
interest of the thousands of scientists who are there, and it's
not in the interest in maintaining what has heretofore been one
of the greatest scientific laboratories in the world. And I
would ask if you have any observations along those lines, and
do you concur, and would you commit to us that as far as your
role is concerned, you do not have in mind anything but getting
this job done as soon as possible?
Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, I can commit to you that I will do
everything I can to see that the process moves as expeditiously
as possible. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And frankly, I just want to close this by
saying that there will be a lot of excuses that people give for
studying this, studying that, look at this, but you know, this
thing has been going on a long time. No blame on the Secretary,
but the longer we delay, the worse the morale and more
difficult it is to get the great scientists to stay, and to get
the great young talent to come there. And this is of great
concern in the labs in my State. But I tell you, if it was not,
and I were looking at it, I'd be very worried, and I would
hope--I know the Secretary is, but you have a big
responsibility there.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand, from both
your comments and the comments of other members of the
committee, and we certainly understand at the Department, as
well, the importance of resolving uncertainty, making a
decision. And I can say I know the Secretary has expressed that
many times, internally, so we certainly understand the
importance of making a decision.
The Chairman. I'm going to yield the panel to the
distinguished Senator Craig. And I wonder if, Secretary, you
could meet me for a few moments as I leave, and then you can
return. I'd just like to ask you a couple of questions that are
not appropriate in public. Thank you, Senator Craig.
Senator Craig [presiding]. Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Senator Craig, Senator Salazar has to leave.
I have a number of questions, but I'd like to yield to him.
Senator Craig. Great.
Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Senator Craig.
Let me just, first of all, say congratulations to all of
you. Jill, I know that your mother's legacy lives on with you,
and we very much sympathize. You have our condolences.
Ms. Sigal. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Salazar. I have a number of questions that I'm
going to submit for the record, and I look forward to your
responses. Let me just say three things here, very quickly.
One is, for me, it's important that all three of you work
with this Senate in bipartisan fashion. You saw this committee
pull out a bill in a bipartisan fashion that was accepted by
the Senate on an 85 to 12 vote. That's the kind of spirit that
we need to see in Washington, DC. and I look at you working
with a Republican administration, and I'm a Democrat, but I
want to work with you in a way that we're working for the
benefit of our Nation, and the bipartisanship is very
secondary. So I want to have a parity of equality and a parity
of treatment for both Democrats and Republicans in our working
relationship on whatever those issues might be, whether it's
laboratories or the energy issues. We won't always agree, but I
want to have that kind of relationship of equality.
Second, Rocky Flats is truly a model for what we can do
when we think out of the box in terms of the cleanup challenges
that face the Department of Energy. I want to work with all
three of you as we move forward in the completion of that
cleanup. I also want us to fight to resolve these natural
resource damage claims, because that's a big issue that's out
there. And I don't want us to get into the same kind of legal
conflict that we're in with Shell, which has taken 20 years of
litigation and multi-millions of dollars to try to resolve it.
I'm working closely with Senator Allard to try to see whether
we can get that done. And, David, we're going to need your help
to try to get that wrapped up in a package so we can get that
done.
Finally, on long-term stewardship issues and institutional
controls, we have legislation that we've passed in Colorado
that allows for those long-term stewardship, institutional
control issues to take place at Rocky Flats. I want you to work
with us to explore how we might be able to take that concept
and explore it here and perhaps in other places as well.
And finally, to say congratulations to all of you, and I
very much look forward to working with you as well as Secretary
Bodman.
Ms. Sigal. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Rispoli. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Well, now that we've given you Ron's time,
that means Ron has less time.
Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. The story of my life. Chairman Craig, I was
really struck with your comment to begin with about the
shellacking that our citizens are taking at the gas pump, and
you're absolutely right, there really isn't an explanation for
this. The Federal Trade Commission put out yet another report
that looks to me like a whitewash of all of the major issues.
Certainly, the Congress and the administration ought to want to
know why gasoline prices at the pump are going up much faster
than crude oil prices. This has been an issue that the
administration has been unwilling to take on. Certainly the
country ought to have an answer to why refinery margins and
refinery profits are going up so dramatically, and the
administration has been unwilling to look at that issue. So I
guess I'm an army of one at this point. My colleague is telling
me to move on, but I just want the administration to know that
I intend to pursue these issues very vigorously, and I think
the administration's persistent ducking of those issues in
particular, including a report the Federal Trade Commission put
out last week that also didn't respond to even what the General
Accounting Office said with respect to oil company mergers
being not in the public interest--the American people deserve
better. The fact of the matter is, when people pull up at a gas
pump today, because of our dependence on foreign oil, in
effect, our citizens pay a terror tax. They go up to those
pumps at those stations, pay $2.40 a gallon, or thereabouts,
and then a big chunk of that money is handed over to foreign
governments. Foreign governments back-door it to these
terrorist groups that perpetuate hate and terrorism. I just
hope the administration will get into those issues.
Let me begin with you, Mr. Rispoli, on the question of
cleanup. My sense is that the country has moved backward in
terms of cleanup just over the last few months. And I would
cite, on Secretary Bodman's watch, my concern about the
cutbacks to the budget for cleanup. I'm concerned about the
questionable contract management practices. I'm concerned that
the Department is not listening to what defense experts are
saying with regard to the cleanup of these facilities,
particularly the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. And
what's going on at Hanford, out in our part of the world, is
pretty much a case study of how I see what's going on at the
Department. So let me, if I might, begin with some questions
involving the problems at the Hanford Vitrification Facility,
which will be one of your big concerns.
Now, in your current capacity, as Director of the Energy
Department's Office of Engineering and Construction Management,
your office has the responsibility for the management of large
capital projects including the Hanford Vitrification Plant.
Given your office's oversight role over that plant, shouldn't
the seismic and other problems that the Secretary has indicated
are of concern be addressed through better contract management,
and to some extent have been anticipated by your office?
Mr. Rispoli. Senator, let me begin on your question by
noting that the Secretary is personally extremely concerned
about the ongoing situation with the Hanford Vitrification
Plant, and has been very much engaged in a path to go forward
with this project. As you know, it's a very essential
ingredient of several facets of work at the Hanford site. What
I can tell you is that the Secretary has directed that there be
an after-action review to determine how we've gotten to this
point, and that we are going to focus on the seismic issues to
which you've referred. I might mention that we've been in
dialog with the Corps of Engineers since March. They have
already been to the site and they have agreed to do a review
for the Government of all of the seismic issues going forward.
Because obviously we want to get it right, we want to build a
plant that is built right and safe for the people in the
community. So I can give you my assurance that the
Environmental Management Group is taking another look at the
path forward, under the Secretary's direction, to resolve these
issues and be sure that the path forward is correct.
Senator Wyden. I knew that you had been talking with the
Army Corps, but my understanding is that the Defense Nuclear
Facility Safety Board, which directly oversees the safety
issues at Hanford, raised concerns about the seismic activity
at the site of the vitrification plant, and as far as I can
tell, those concerns were not taken into consideration in the
site selection or the design of the plant. Why was that the
case?
Mr. Rispoli. Senator, to answer your question, it is my
understanding that back in the late 1990's, the seismic
criteria that were given to the contractor to use were, in
fact, used and endorsed by both the Army Corps of Engineers and
the Los Alamos National Laboratory. At that time, they were
believed to be correct and current seismic criteria. As you
point out, the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board expressed
further concerns. As a result of that, the Department more
recently did further seismic investigation and found that, in
fact, the conditions at the site were not what had been
presumed in the prior studies. So you are correct that the
Defense Board did raise their concerns. The Department did
consider those concerns, and is going forward with the re-
design to accommodate those concerns.
What I mentioned to you about the Army Corps today is that
we're now going to turn to them again to ensure that we don't
have a repeat of the types of problems that you raised, that
happened between the late 1990's and today.
Senator Wyden. Now, why was construction of the
vitrification plant put in motion even before it was fully
designed? That just strikes me as bizarre, even by Beltway
standards. It seems to me to be an unusual method of building
facilities. What's your take on that?
Mr. Rispoli. Well, Senator, as you know, this contract was
awarded late in the year 2000. It was awarded in an effort to
keep forward momentum. You may recall that there were literally
thousands of workers on the site when the last contract was
terminated, and the prior administration made the decision to
keep that forward momentum going. The contract was
restructured, but as you point out correctly, it was
restructured as what is commonly called a ``design/build/
operate'' contract. The advantage to that type of a contract is
that the same entity that designs it does the technical work,
then constructs it and then operates it so that the Government
has one entity to turn to for accountability throughout the
life of the project. I have seen no reason to question the
decision to use design/build. However, there have been problems
in that the contractor was doing the construction before the
design was finished in many cases, and I believe you know those
stories as well. It is my understanding that the site office
has corrected those problems going forward, and now we are
focusing on getting the seismic issues straight, as you
mentioned earlier.
Senator Wyden. I want to see if I can put this into
something resembling English. I think it's got to be designed
first, before it's built. What you all have shown with respect
to the vitrification facility is that you're willing to build
it first, and then design it. Are you telling me now that you
have made at least a constructive step to get back on track,
you're not going to allow this approach--build it first, then
design it--to happen again on your watch?
Mr. Rispoli. Senator, if I understand your question
correctly----
Senator Wyden. The question is very straightforward.
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, sir.
Senator Wyden. What you're doing now is building it before
you design it. I want to make sure that that's not going to
happen again on your watch. Very straightforward question.
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, sir. And the answer to that is that that
is not going to happen, if I'm confirmed. The path forward is
that the design on each component will be complete before
construction is undertaken on that component. Part of the
Secretary's path forward is to concentrate and focus on the
correct seismic design to ensure we have that right, and that
we will construct the components of that plant as design is
finished, and there's enough time to do a review of that design
and be sure that it's done correctly.
Senator Wyden. Now, the largest and most complicated and
most expensive problem in DOE complex is, of course, at
Hanford, and the 53 million gallons of high-level radioactive
waste stored in almost 180 aging underground tanks. Now,
construction of the treatment facility has been underway for
the past several years, but the project is still slowed while
the implications, again, of some of these issues that we have
been talking about are considered. The State of Oregon wants to
know what commitment can you give now, in terms of date
specific, to get the project back on track?
Mr. Rispoli. Senator, the Department is committed to
maintaining its commitment to have the waste treated by the
2035 date. The Department is committed to complying with its
regulatory agreements everywhere that we do business. Obviously
these technical issues that we're dealing with today are under
consideration, and I'm not--nor is the Department--in a
position to answer your question on the various interim
milestones until we complete this technical review, but we are
committed to complying with the provisions of the Tri-Party
Agreement. We know what dates are required for the completion
of the work and the treatment of the waste, and we're committed
to meeting those dates.
Senator Wyden. So the bottom line here is, you're doing
this new review of the problems at the vitrification facility,
a number of which occurred on your watch, and when the new
review is done, then you're going to announce some timetables
for various stages of the plan?
Mr. Rispoli. Yes, Senator. There is a path going forward
that includes both the review to see how we got to the point
we're at, but also some very specific steps going forward.
Again, we intend--we talked to the Corps of Engineers back in
March about doing an independent cost estimate for us, to
verify the cost and schedule, because what we don't want are
more surprises going forward. We want to make sure that we're
doing it right going forward.
Senator Wyden. One other question on this for you, Mr.
Rispoli, a related question. The Energy & Water Appropriations
bill provides funding to look at shipping commercial nuclear
waste to Hanford. The Senate bill does not allow Hanford to be
considered a storage site for waste. The legislation is now in
conference. I'd be interested in knowing your view whether
allowing more nuclear waste to be sent to Hanford would
undercut efforts to clean up the waste and contamination that's
already there.
Mr. Rispoli. Senator, I understand your question, but
unfortunately I have not been in a position to work with that
issue. If I am confirmed, obviously I need to understand that
issue, and will work with you and your staff, if confirmed, to
understand it and resolve it.
Senator Wyden. Well, I'll give you the basics. The
President's budget cut funding for the Department's cleanup,
the largest cut targeted for Hanford. In our part of the world,
we do not see how Hanford can handle more waste with less
money, when we have the problems, a number of which occurred on
your watch, with the vitrification facility. So I hope that
you'll keep that in mind as you go forward with this situation.
Just one question for you, Ms. Sigal. My condolences to you
for your loss. You've always been very responsive to us and a
pleasure to work with, and I know you will be as well.
Ms. Sigal. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Wyden. At the Department--just a quick question on
a matter we talked about at the office that I told you I would
ask about, and that's my inability to get from the
administration the information with respect to one million
barrels of petroleum products that are exported every day in
this country. Now, the history of this, as we discussed, is Guy
Caruso, with the Energy Information Administration, pledged
back on February 3 that I would be able to get this
information. Now, I think it's fairly obvious why a member of
the Energy Bill Conference Committee for the Senate would want
to have this information. We have this huge dependence on
foreign oil and imported products, and yet I think the American
people are pretty amazed to hear that one million barrels of
petroleum products are exported out of the country every single
year. And we ought to know what kind of products they are, and
who's doing it, and be able to get that information. And Guy
Caruso pledged to me back on February 3 that I would have that
information. I still haven't been able to get it. And I wonder
if you have any additional information--we talked about it in
the office--as to when that would be forthcoming, and if not,
why not?
Ms. Sigal. As we discussed in your office, we did look into
that. We talked to Mr. Caruso, who informed us that he misspoke
when he talked to you, because he thought he had the data, but
the data was not in EIA, the data was at the Census Bureau. And
it is our understanding that the Census Bureau will not release
that information, not even to us. That's what we have been able
to determine thus far.
Senator Wyden. The only other question I'd ask is, just
from a policy standpoint, do you think that information ought
to be made available to the public?
Ms. Sigal. I think, as a general rule, when a committee or
a Member of Congress asks for information that that information
should be provided. In this specific case, I don't know enough
about the specific data and whether it's proprietary
information to make a judgment in this case. But as a general
rule, I think Congress should be provided the data and the
information that they request.
Senator Wyden. The companies, I think we both know, are
going to consider it proprietary, there's no question about it.
But I think if we're serious about a policy that shakes us free
of this addiction on foreign oil--there's no other way to
characterize it--we've got to have that kind of information,
and I'm going to continue to follow up with you on it. I think
you're going to do an outstanding job, and I congratulate you
and both of your colleagues.
Mr. Rispoli, I think you get the drift that I have strong
views on this issue of cleanup and I'm not at all satisfied
with where we are. I'm going to look forward to talking to my
good friend and Chairman, Senator Craig, about issues like why
the gasoline prices at the pump are going up so much faster
than crude oil prices, because I think, Mr. Chairman, you put
your finger on the fact that there are a lot of aspects of
what's happening with the consumer at the pump that have
certainly not been adequately explained at this point, and I
look forward to working with you on it. If you want to schedule
some hearings to look at just those issues, as to why prices
are going up so much, you can count on my desire to be there,
and as always to work with you. And I thank you for the
patience in giving me this opportunity to ask these questions.
I congratulate all of you on your confirmations.
Ms. Sigal. Thank you.
Mr. Hill. Thank you.
Mr. Rispoli. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Well, I thank you all very much. We will
move as expeditiously as we can to get you out and confirmed so
that you can move ahead in your important capacities that
you've been nominated to fill. Let me also say, with Clay in
the audience this morning, that we appreciate you working with
us as we've worked our way through, we think, an important
piece of policy that now is in conference. I'll continue to
work closely with the Department, as we have on other nuclear
issues, so that we have a complete package in this Conference
Report that gets to the President's desk. I think that will be
tremendously important for the future of that industry and
technology.
With that, let me say that normally I would ask that
additional questions be filed with the committee's staff by
close of business today. However, given that we have three
nominees, coupled with the fact that we've just returned from
recess, I will extend that time to 5 p.m. tomorrow, Wednesday,
July 13, for any other members of the committee who would wish
to send written questions forth to the nominees.
With that, the committee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of David R. Hill to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. Institutional Control Laws. The Department will soon
complete the environmental cleanup of its Rocky Flats plant west of
Denver. In general, the cleanup has progressed well. But, as at many
contaminated sites being cleaned up across the country, some
contamination will remain in the ground. A part of the site will be
designated a National Wildlife Refuge. It will be necessary, therefore,
to impose certain restrictions on land use to ensure that the remedy
remains protective of human health.
Because existing legal mechanisms to restrict land use are not
adequate for this purpose, many states have adopted or are adopting
legislation to create enforceable use restrictions, or ``institutional
controls.'' In 2001, the Colorado Attorney General's office drafted and
sponsored such legislation, and, with the support of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment, the General Assembly
passed the legislation unanimously. Governor Owens signed it into law.
Colorado's institutional control legislation enjoyed strong support
from both industry and the environmental community, because it reduces
cleanup costs and it makes cleanups safer and more reliable. Colorado's
legislation served as the model for the Uniform Environmental Covenants
Act, which is now being considered in a number of states across the
country.
Federal agencies were among the most outspoken supporters of the
legislation, urging EPA and the states to rely on institutional
controls to reduce cleanup costs. Yet, now that states are moving to
create enforceable, effective institutional control laws, federal
agencies, including DOE, have refused to comply with these laws. At
Rocky Flats, for example, DOE, the State of Colorado, and EPA are in
general agreement on the use restrictions that should apply to the
site. But DOE has refused to put those restrictions in an environmental
covenant, as required under state law. DOE has refused to comply with
other states' institutional control laws as well. This refusal has
raised serious questions about the long-term reliability of the cleanup
now underway at DOE facilities across the country.
As General Counsel for the Department of Energy, will you assure me
and the people of Colorado that DOE will fully comply with state
institutional control laws?
Answer. The Department and other federal agencies support States
adopting enforceable institutional control laws. These laws can save
the taxpayers money and promote transfers of property. The Department
and other federal agencies are actively working with States to assure
that we can, to the extent legally permissible, comply with applicable
state institutional control statutes. With regard to the Colorado
statute, we have every intention of establishing institutional controls
on the Rocky Flats site that are legally enforceable, run with the
land, and are consistent with the requirements of the statute. We are
coordinating our efforts with other affected federal agencies.
Question 2. Transition from Environmental Management to Legacy
Management. The completion of the cleanup and regulatory transition at
Rocky Flats from the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy's Office
of Environmental Management to the Office of Legacy Management will
mark the first such transition in the nation at a major cleanup site.
Over the course of the cleanup, and especially as we near the
completion of the cleanup, Environmental Management has made many
promises and commitments to the State of Colorado and to the local
communities surrounding Rocky Flats. These commitments include the
procedures and standards for monitoring programs, the management of
surface water impoundments, and other long term management activities.
As General Counsel for the Department of Energy, will you assure me
and the people of Colorado that Legacy Management will fully honor all
of the commitments made by the Office of Environmental Management at
Rocky Flats?
Answer. DOE and all of its component offices, including the Office
of Legacy Management, are committed to fully honoring all of the
Department's commitments at Rocky Flats.
Question 3a. Role of State Departments of Health. The Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment has played a key role in
the successful cleanup at Rocky Flats. In past years, when prior
Department of Energy contractors at Rocky Flats created an atmosphere
of public skepticism or hostility, the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment challenged DOE to do better. As a result, the
people of Colorado relied on their state department of health to tell
them the truth and to assure them that the cleanup would be performed
properly.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment will
continue to play a key role at Rocky Flats, with significant regulatory
responsibilities, in coordination with EPA.
What is your view of the role of state health agencies in the
complex cleanups of nuclear sites?
Answer. The oversight and support of the Colorado Department of
Public Health and the Environment have been critical in DOE completing
the cleanup of Rocky Flats ahead of schedule and well under budget. The
Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement, signed by DOE, EPA, and the State of
Colorado put in place a winning combination of close regulatory
oversight at both the policy and project level and an interagency
project coordination team that allowed the agencies to constantly focus
on the ultimate goal of the project and the three agencies--the safe
cleanup and closure of the site. The expert day to day interaction
between the interagency project managers can allow DOE and other site
owners to effectively comply with the myriad of laws and regulations
governing site cleanup and closure.
Question 3b. Will you ensure that the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment has full and timely access to all public health
and environmental data regarding Rocky Flats during and after the
transition to Legacy Management?
Answer. Yes. The Department is committed to providing the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment with full and timely access
to public health and environmental data regarding Rocky Flats both
during and after the transition.
Responses of David R. Hill to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. As you probably know, the Federal District Court in
Eastern Washington recently found in favor of some of the plaintiffs in
the ``Hanford Downwinders'' civil lawsuit. It is my understanding that
the Federal Government has been paying the legal expenses relating to
defending the two indemnified DOE contractors in the case, General
Electric and Dupont.
Can you provide me with the total cost that the Federal Government
has incurred in defending the indemnified contractors (General Electric
and Dupont) in relation to the ongoing civil litigation of the
``Downwinders'' lawsuit?
Answer. DOE has reimbursed $49,757,263 from commencement of the
litigation in 1991 to date in costs associated with this litigation.
Question 2. I understand that there are another 300 Thyroid Cancer
cases and 1500 other Thyroid Illness cases to be tried. A settlement
would bring quick justice to the ``Downwinders'' and could potentially
save the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
Can you provide your analysis as to why it would not be in the
interest of basic fairness to the plaintiffs, and in the wise use of
taxpayer and federal court resources to try and devise a settlement
strategy in this case?
Answer. At the direction of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington, the parties to this litigation selected 12
``bellwether'' plaintiffs, the disposition of whose claims it was hoped
would set a template for the disposition of the claims of the other
plaintiffs. Five of the ``bellwether'' plaintiffs' claims were
dismissed by the court on the ground that there was insufficient
evidence to even submit them to a jury, and one ``bellwether''
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claim. Of the six ``bellwether''
plaintiffs whose claims ultimately were tried, the jury rejected three,
deadlocked (ten-to-two in favor of the defense) on one, and returned
verdicts for relatively modest amounts in favor of two plaintiffs. Only
about three dozen of the approximately 1800 plaintiffs whose claims
have yet to be addressed have claims comparable to the claims of the
two successful ``bellwether'' plaintiffs.
Prior to the ``bellwether'' trial, the Department authorized the
defendants to make two offers to settle this litigation, one for a lump
sum payment and one modeled on the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program. Either of those offers, which were not
accepted by the plaintiffs, would have provided more to the plaintiffs
than what an extrapolation from the ``bellwether'' process suggests
they are likely to receive through litigation. The Department continues
to support the possibility of reasonable settlements, instead of
litigation. Of course, any future settlement offers will be considered
in light of the results of the ``bellwether'' process.
Question 3. How much money has been reimbursed to contractors at
Hanford for costs related to litigation since the year 2001? Please
break those costs down by category, specifically, the amount the
Department has reimbursed contractors and/or their law firms for
downwinder litigation at Hanford, for whistleblower reprisal cases, and
for worker compensation cases.
Answer. Since the beginning of FY 2001 to date, contractor
litigation costs of $19,037,408 has been incurred and reimbursed. By
categories requested in the question, the costs are: DuPont-Hanford
Downwinder ($7,758,488), whistleblower ($2,412,555), worker
compensation ($28,811) and other litigation categories ($8,837,554).
Question 4. How much money has the Department required contractors
to repay after the contractors have lost whistleblower cases, complex-
wide? Please submit a site-by-site breakdown of those recovered costs
over the past 10 years.
Answer. The DOE complex is reviewing applicable cases for this
answer. However, most of the whistleblower cases over the past ten
years already have been reviewed and no instance of repayment by the
contractor to DOE, after the loss of a whistleblower case, has yet been
identified.
Notably, there is no requirement that contractors ``repay'' the
Department after an adverse judgment in whistleblower cases. Beginning
in the mid-1990s, the Department included in many of its M&O contracts
clauses governing the allowability of whistleblower defense costs which
limited the reimbursement of legal fees to contractors once a
contractor had been ruled against. In 1998, (63 FR 386, January 5,
1998) the Department proposed to codify a contract clause that would
make litigation, settlement, and judgment costs in whistleblower
actions unallowable if an adverse determination was issued in the case.
As the result of a number of factors, including a review of the
practices of other government agencies with respect to whistleblower
litigation costs and comments received in response to the initial
proposal, the Department, a year later (64 FR 14206, March 24, 1999)
issued an alternate proposal to adopt a cost principle that would
provide contracting officers the flexibility to make allowability
determinations on a case-by-case basis, after considering certain
specified factors. One of the main dilemmas the Department confronted
in assessing the merits of these two approaches was determining how to
minimize contractor (and, therefore, DOE) litigation costs without
sending the message that all whistleblower lawsuits, regardless of
merit, should be settled short of litigation. In October, 2000, (65 FR
62299) the Department published a final rule adopting the cost
principle approach for whistleblower cases which is consistent with the
approach used in evaluating the reimbursement of other contractor
litigation.
In January 2001, the Department also finalized a set of regulations
entitled ``Contractor Legal Management Requirements'' at 10 CFR Part
719, which was intended to facilitate control of Department and
contractor legal costs, including litigation costs. The Department's
approach enables weighing the costs of litigation against the costs and
public policy impacts of compensating nonmeritorious claims. Under the
Government-wide Federal Acquisition Regulation, reasonable and
allocable legal costs incurred by a contractor in performance of
contract work are allowable contract costs and are reimbursed by the
Government, whether as direct costs or as part of general and
administrative costs.
______
Responses of James A. Rispoli to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Hanford Vitrification Plant. It is my understanding
that the Hanford Vitrification Plant's total cost could now exceed $10
billion and take an extra four years longer to complete. Can you please
tell me what management actions you plan to implement to ensure that
the plant is reviewed in a timely manner and its costs, schedule and
baseline are regularly reported to Congress?
Answer. The Department is taking a number of steps to provide
appropriate reviews and oversight for this project. First, an
independent review will be done to better determine how we got to this
point with this contract since the time when the baseline was approved
at $5.8 billion. The Department has already conducted four reviews of
the project since this contract was awarded in 2000, including two by
the Corps of Engineers. Secondly, going forward, the Department has
arranged with the Corps to provide reviews of the seismic criteria, of
the contractor's engineering design using the seismic criteria, and of
the cost to complete the project once the engineering design to
accommodate the seismic issues is completed. Additionally a dedicated
headquarters team comprised of about six professionals in various
disciplines will provide independent oversight and assessment of
performance data from the contractor and the site. If I am confirmed, I
would intend to personally conduct quarterly performance reviews, and
review the monthly performance data and the independent assessment of
it, consistent with Departmental requirements. The Department commits
to formally advising the Congress of the new baseline once it has been
independently reviewed and validated. Additionally, if I am confirmed,
I would be willing to meet with the Committee and its members to keep
you appraised of any issues that could impact the to-be-developed
baseline.
Question 2a. Waste Incidental to Reprocessing. Will the Department
work cooperatively with the states that are not part of section 3116 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 regardless
of the outcome of prior or other studies currently underway by the
National Academies of Sciences on this subject, especially pertaining
to fractions of residual high level waste contamination that may prove
infeasible to remove from the tanks?
Answer. If confirmed I am committed to working cooperatively with
the States on all issues.
Question 2b. Under section 3116 what actions has the Department
taken to ensuring the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviews the
reclassification of high level waste?
Answer. In response to your request the following information has
been provided to me by the Environmental Management program. I have
been informed that the draft 3116 Waste Determination for Salt Waste
Disposal at the Savannah River Site (SRS) was completed and provided to
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for consultation on February 28,
2005. The Department received requests for additional information in
May and responded to those requests on July 1st and July 15th. Although
not required by section 3116, DOE made this Determination available for
public review and comment on April 1, 2005. DOE is currently preparing
draft 3116 Determinations for waste residuals for two tanks at SRS and
for the tank complex at the Idaho National Laboratory. These draft
determinations will also be provided to the NRC for consultation when
completed. Parenthetically, it should be noted that the Department has
managed tank waste as high-level waste for operational purposes; the
Department has never classified the waste in tanks as high level.
Question 2c. Under section 3116, does the Department intend to ship
to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant any reclassified waste from the INL
sodium bonded fuel tanks?
Answer. I understand that the Department's preferred disposal path
for this waste is disposal at WIPP. If confirmed I will ensure that all
appropriate regulatory approvals are sought and received.
Question 2d. A recent National Academies report recommended
independent certification, not just review, of future high level waste
reclassifications by agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Does the Department agree with the National Academies on
this recommendation?
Answer. At this time I am not personally familiar with the specific
roles of each regulatory body involved. I am informed that the
Department agrees with the approach to independent oversight of cleanup
and disposal decisions for transuranic (TRU) and high-level waste (HLW)
provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
State for TRU, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), EPA,
the States, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and the U.S.
Department of Transportation in connection with HLW.
Question 3a. Review of Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, New Mexico,
Pursuant to Competitive Contract. What is the status of section 3145 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005?
Answer. I have been informed that the procurement is ongoing to
establish an independent oversight group to replace the Environmental
Evaluation Group. A presolicitation synopsis announcement regarding the
upcoming procurement was posted in FedBizOps on June 24, 2005. The
Department is currently working to develop a Request for Proposals.
Question 3b. What has the Department done to preserve the records
of the former Environmental Evaluation Group before their contract was
terminated in fiscal year 2004?
Answer. I have been informed that in May 2004, records kept at both
the Albuquerque and Carlsbad offices of EEG were dispositioned and
placed in storage.
Question 4. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, WIPP. What is the
Department's opinion on disposing of non-defense related transuranic
waste or Greater Than Class C Waste at WIPP?
Answer. I understand that the Compliance Recertification
Application submitted by the Department to the Environmental Protection
Agency in March 2004 includes the inventory of TRU that the Department
is proposing for disposal at WIPP. That inventory does not include non-
defense generated transuranic waste or Greater Than Class C Waste.
I further understand that the Department issued a Request for
Information which seeks industry input to identify commercial
capability for the disposal of Greater-Than-Class C low-level
radioactive waste.
Question 5. TRUPAC III TRU Containers. What is the status of the
TRUPAC III container license before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
Answer. I understand that the Department has contracted to build
two test units, with planned completion and testing by summer of 2006.
After successful completion of the tests and subsequent analyses, the
Department will submit an application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Question 6. ARROW PAK TRU Containers. What is the status of the
Department's determination on the use of the Arrow Pak container to
ship TRU waste?
Answer. I understand that the ARROW-PAK Safety Analysis Review
application addendum was submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
for review on January 31, 2005. I am also informed that a permit
modification will be needed to WIPP's Hazardous Waste Permit before the
ARROW-PAK can be utilized.
Responses of James A. Rispoli to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. Are you committed to working collaboratively with
Washington State regulators, the affected communities' and worker's
representatives, and the Washington State Congressional delegation to
ensure that the cleanup is fully funded and completed as soon as
possible in a manner that ensures the protection of the workers, the
public, and the environment?
Answer. Senator Cantwell, I am absolutely committed to working
collaboratively with the regulators and the other stakeholders you
mention to complete this important work as soon as possible to protect
the workers, the public and the environment. If I am confirmed, I will
certainly be fully engaged in the budget process going forward to
address the part of your question related to funding, and I will look
forward to the opportunity to work with you, the committee, and the
Congress in this regard.
Question 2. Since the mid 1960s, Hanford has had more contractor
changes than all of the other DOE sites combined. Is there a way to
bring more stability to Hanford contracts and stop, or at least slow,
Hanford contractor changeover?
Answer. In my present position in the Department, I have been
engaged in acquisition strategies for large and critical projects.
There are many factors in the evaluation of these strategies, and
certainly stability provided by contractors whose performance is
noteworthy is an important factor. If I am confirmed, I will take a
personal interest in the development of the acquisition strategy for
all the activities at this site, and I would be happy to discuss this
issue with you and your staff at that point.
Question 3. At Hanford there is an excellent world-class facility
called The Volpentest HAMMER Training and Education Center at Hanford,
built by DOE to ensure the health and safety of Hanford cleanup workers
and emergency responders. HAMMER's unique hands-on ``Training as Real
as It Gets'' is essential to the safe, cost effective and successful
completion of Hanford cleanup. Further, as the cleanup workforce
decreases, more of HAMMER's capabilities will become available for
other DOE missions, such as energy assurance and hydrogen safety, and
for training law enforcement, security, emergency response, and other
homeland security-related personnel. Can EM maximize its utilization of
HAMMER, and help build the base for HAMMER's future use in other
necessary government programs?
Answer. I understand that DOE uses the Volpentest Hazardous
Materials Management and Emergency Response Training Center (HAMMER)
facility to provide hands-on safety training for workers involved in
the Hanford cleanup mission and considers HAMMER's role in Hanford's
safe operation to be vital. I also understand that HAMMER is already
involved in the training of fire, law enforcement, Customs and Border
Protection, security, emergency medical, and other emergency response
personnel for a wide-spectrum of regional and Federal agencies on a
full cost recovery basis. I also think it makes sense to cooperate with
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop a strategy to
ensure that HAMMER remains available to meet its growing training
needs.
Question 4. Another major concern on the part of many of my
constituents is whether DOE is implementing the President's directive
to increase government procurements with small business. What will you
do to improve and expand DOE procurements that benefit small
businesses, particularly those based in the local communities most
affected by contamination and which will suffer severe economic impacts
when cleanup is done if local, sustainable businesses are not
developed?
Answer. As you know, the Environmental Management sites have a
strong program with regard to small business. I have long supported the
advancement and development of small businesses both in my prior
Governmental positions, and in the private sector where my firm teamed
with small businesses. I would intend to bring my support of
advancement for small businesses to this position, if I am confirmed.
Question 5. I am sure we can all agree that Environmental
Management's primary responsibility is to clean up our nation's nuclear
defense legacy sites. Do you believe that DOE has any responsibility
beyond cleanup to the communities where the sites are located? In other
words, to what extent do you believe DOE should share in the
responsibility to restore the economies of the areas affected once
cleanup is finished?
Answer. The Department has a history of working with community
based redevelopment authorities. The Hanford community reuse
organization (Tri-City Industrial Development Council) has received
over $22.9 million in economic development funds. In addition, they
have a very strong personal property transfer program that utilizes
Hanford's excess property. In my present position in the Department I
have been involved with certain real estate transactions that are
designed to assist communities in this transition progress. If I am
confirmed, I would continue my strong advocacy of real and personal
property transfer programs with the managers of all EM sites, as part
of the Department's commitment to ease the transitions in the local
economies affected by site closures.
Question 6. What specific parts of the Waste Treatment Plant
project will need to be altered, reconstructed, or redesigned due to
the seismic and the other safety-related upgrades?
Answer. It is my understanding from my reviews of documents in my
present capacity that the primary impacts attributed to the seismic
issues will be in the High Level Waste plant (i.e. the vitrification
plant for High Level Waste) and in the Pre-Treatment Facility. I should
also mention that the Department has made arrangements with the Corps
of Engineers to review the seismic criteria, as well as the engineering
related to the seismic design in these facilities, to be sure that the
design and construction will provide appropriate safety for the workers
and the community.
Question 7. I understand that the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board may have corresponded with the Department of Energy about their
concerns related to the seismic stability of the Waste Treatment Plant
at the Hanford site in 2002 or earlier. Please inform me if this is
true and provide me with a copy of any correspondence to or from the
Department of Energy to the DNFSB, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
or other executive branch agencies on this matter.
Answer. I understand there is ongoing correspondence with the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) regarding Waste
Treatment Plant seismic design basis concerns. I will ensure that the
Department provides you with copies of correspondence with the DNFSB
concerning the seismic issue. This will be provided to you under
separate cover.
Question 8. It is my understanding that DOE regulates the design
and construction of the Waste Treatment Plant primarily through its
system of Orders. DOE orders are not legally binding, except as
contract clauses. What Orders or contract clauses regarding safety has
DOE changed since 2001 for the Waste Treatment Plant?
Answer. I am informed that Section J, Attachment E of the Waste
Treatment Plant contract lists the applicable DOE Standards, Directives
and Orders for Environmental, Safety and Health (ES&H) with the latest
revised dates. In most cases, DOE documents as reflected in the
contract related to ES&H have been revised since 2001 and are reviewed
and updated as needed on an ongoing basis.
Question 9. In response to questions from members of the Committee,
you said that you were committed to meeting long term milestones of the
Tri-Party Agreement. Can you please specify if you are also committed
to meeting interim milestones and working within the framework of the
Tri-Party Agreement?
Answer. I am committed to meeting legally applicable milestones the
Department has agreed to, including those in the Tri-Party Agreement.
If I am confirmed, I would be in a position to look more closely at the
specifics of the interim milestones.
Question 10. Given your previous position within the Department, I
hope you can provide me some insight on the developments with the
Hanford Waste Treatment Plant. When will the Department of Energy
release its revised cost estimate and schedule to complete the Hanford
Waste Treatment Plant?
Answer. At the present time, the contractor has been asked to
develop an estimate to complete all the work at the Hanford Waste
Treatment Plant. There are several steps the Department must undertake
to review the contractor's effort and establish a revised cost estimate
and schedule, including a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' review of
seismic criteria, the contractor's design, and cost to complete the
facility. As the Corps conducts its review, the Department will be able
to provide you with a release date.
Responses of James A. Rispoli to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. Institutional Control Laws. The Department will soon
complete the environmental cleanup of its Rocky Flats plant west of
Denver. In general, the cleanup has progressed well. But, as at many
contaminated sites being cleaned up across the country, some
contamination will remain in the ground. A part of the site will be
designated a National Wildlife Refuge. It will be necessary, therefore,
to impose certain restrictions on land use to ensure that the remedy
remains protective of human health.
Because existing legal mechanisms to restrict land use are not
adequate for this purpose, many states have adopted or are adopting
legislation to create enforceable use restrictions, or ``institutional
controls.'' In 2001, the Colorado Attorney General's office drafted and
sponsored such legislation, and, with the support of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment, the General Assembly
passed the legislation unanimously. Governor Owens signed it into law.
Colorado's institutional control legislation enjoyed strong support
from both industry and the environmental community, because it reduces
cleanup costs and it makes cleanups safer and more reliable. Colorado's
legislation served as the model for the Uniform Environmental Covenants
Act, which is now being considered in a number of states across the
country.
Federal agencies were among the most outspoken supporters of the
legislation, urging EPA and the states to rely on institutional
controls to reduce cleanup costs. Yet, now that states are moving to
create enforceable, effective institutional control laws, federal
agencies, including DOE, have refused to comply with these laws. At
Rocky Flats, for example, DOE, the State of Colorado, and EPA are in
general agreement on the use restrictions that should apply to the
site. But DOE has refused to put those restrictions in an environmental
covenant, as required under state law. DOE has refused to comply with
other states' institutional control laws as well. This refusal has
raised serious questions about the long-term reliability of the cleanup
now underway at DOE facilities across the country.
What steps will you take to ensure that the Department of Energy
will comply with state institutional control laws?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department complies
with applicable legal commitments. While I am not familiar with these
specific laws, if confirmed, I will look into their applications by
DOE.
Question 2. Acquisition of Mineral Interests at Rocky Flats.
Implementation of the statutory requirement for creation of a National
Wildlife Refuge at Rocky Flats is being complicated by privately owned
mineral interests in sand and gravel deposits at the Rocky Flats site.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is reluctant to take responsibility
for managing lands subject to such mineral interests because current or
future mining activities would be inconsistent with the management of a
National Wildlife Refuge.
I am working with the Senior Senator from Colorado, Senator Allard,
on legislation to authorize the Department of Energy to spend up to $10
million to acquire these mineral interests, in exchange for a release
of all Natural Resource Damage claims by the NRD Trustees at Rocky
Flats.
As Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, will you
formally express your official support for this legislation?
Answer. Neither I, if confirmed, nor the Department are able at
this time to take an official position on Senator Allard's legislation.
Because the legislation would affect several other agencies, in
addition to the Department of Energy, the Department is unable to take
an official position until an inter-agency review is complete. The
inter-agency review process is currently underway. That said, the
Department recognizes the importance of resolving the issue of
privately owned mineral rights at the Rocky Flats site. If confirmed, I
am committed to working with other affected agencies, OMB, you and
Senator Allard to achieve a prompt and effective resolution.
Question 3. Rocky Flats Worker Retirement Benefits. The early
completion of the cleanup at Rocky Flats is producing substantial
savings, but also may result in the loss of retirement benefits for
many long term workers. Many workers who would have qualified for
retirement benefits if the cleanup continued until the expected
completion date of December, 2006, will not reach the necessary
combination of age and years of service due to the early completion.
These include Cold War Veterans who produced the nuclear weapons that
brought the Soviet Union to its knees, who risked their own health and
safety to close down and clean up Rocky Flats, and who worked long
hours to save American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. These
dedicated and patriotic workers are now at risk of losing their own
financial and medical security.
I am working with Senator Allard on legislation to authorize DOE to
expend $15 million to provide retirement benefits to those Rocky Flats
workers who would have earned these benefits had the cleanup been
completed on December 15, 2006.
Fair treatment of the Rocky Flats workers is not only the right
thing to do, but it will send an important message to other nuclear
workers who provide essential assistance in the cleanup of other
nuclear sites around the country: We will be telling these workers,
``If you continue your dedicated service and if you work to save
American taxpayers' dollars through your expertise and hard work, then
we will take care of you.'' I urge you and the Department of Energy to
get behind this legislation. It is good policy and it will produce long
term savings many times more than the expense.
Will you, as Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management,
support this legislation to provide retirement benefits for Rocky Flats
workers?
Answer. I would like to begin by thanking, on behalf of the
Department, the employees at Rocky Flats and in particular the members
of the United Steelworkers of America who have worked diligently for
many decades to assure the nation's success with our effort during the
Cold War. Without their efforts, the Department would not have
succeeded in its important contribution to protect our country during
that important period of our history.
I understand that early closure of the site was anticipated during
the negotiation of the Steelworkers' collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) in 2000 and was a key subject of those negotiations. Because of
concerns of possible lost income, I understand the Department
negotiated an agreement with the contractor to provide very substantial
benefits in lieu of providing early retirement pension and retiree
medical benefits to employees.
If the legislation passes, my understanding is that it would
require changes to the present collective bargaining agreement which
could impact how closure activities are completed and their associated
costs. If confirmed, I will evaluate this legislation and study the CBA
from 2000 since I am personally not familiar with either at this time.
In addition, this legislation also must undergo an OMB-led review
before the Administration can take an official position.
Question 4a. Current Financial Projections for Rocky Flats Cleanup.
Please provide an analysis of the savings to the United States Treasury
as a result of the expedited cleanup of Rocky Flats.
Answer. I have requested this information from the Environmental
Management program and have addressed both (a) and (b) under (b) below.
Question 4b. Please be sure that this analysis includes a detailed
statement of the original projected cost of the Rocky Flats cleanup as
well as the current projected cost through completion of the cleanup.
Answer. The following are projections of savings to the government
at different times over the life of the Rocky Flats cleanup as to the
cost of the site cleanup and the difference between those estimates and
the current projection.
Current projection: Approximately $7 billion (1995-2005)
1995 estimate: $36 billion (1995-2065), as cited in the 1995
Baseline Environmental Management Report
Projected difference: $29 billion; 60 years earlier
Estimate at the signing of the Rocky Flats Closure Contract
(2000-2006): Approximately $4.3 billion.
Current projection for the Rocky Flats Closure Contract
(2000-2005): Approximately $3.95 billion
Projected difference: $0.350 billion; 1 year earlier
Question 4c. Please also provide me with a report on the total
amount appropriated for the cleanup of Rocky Flats for FY 2005 and the
current projection for actual expenditures (obligations) through the
end of FY 2005.
Answer. Total amount appropriated for FY2005: $662 million (this
includes safeguards and security, program direction, community and
regulatory support, rescission and other general reductions). The
Environmental Management program also expects to carry over more than
$41 million of prior year money at Rocky Flats. This results in $703
million total available funds to be costed.
Reponse of James A. Rispoli to Question From Senator Craig
Question 1. I understand that the Department recently completed a
congressionally requested analysis of the Army's experience with a
promising and innovative contract management concept, guaranteed fixed
price remediation (GFPR).
As you likely know, GFPR contracting involves a performance based
contract approach which reduces cost risk, expedited environmental
cleanup projects, and more importantly, transfers performance risk from
the government to contractors and their insurers.
The recently completed DOE analysis cited the U.S. Army's
experience with this form of contracting, noting significant cost and
time savings to the government. While the DOE appropriately concluded
that the use of GFPR would not work on all DOE sites, it did cite that
the use of GFPR may be appropriate in certain circumstances and offer
cost and remediation benefits.
My question is: Are you familiar with this analysis and/or the
Army's experience? Additionally, would you be willing to consider
implementing a pilot program similar to the one used by the Army for
DOE sites where this type of remediation contracting would be
appropriate?
Answer. I have been briefed on the Department's report on
guaranteed fixed price remediation (GFPR) contracts and the analysis of
the U.S. Army's experience with GFPR. This fits well with my own belief
in the importance of having an acquisition strategy for major projects.
To develop an acquisition strategy, approaches such as the Army's GFPR
contracts would be included as part of the evaluation of alternatives.
If confirmed, I would consider initiating a pilot program to determine
if GFPR could be cost effectively implemented.
______
Responses of Jill Lea Sigal to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. I am aware that you called my office and spoke to my
staff after the regular close of business on June 28th to outline a new
plan from the Energy Secretary regarding future steps in the
construction of the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant. My staff has asked
you for more specificity on the plan, including a full explanation of
the structure of the workforce and a better understanding of the
Department's commitment to the construction of the facility.
Can you provide me as many specifics as possible on the plan and
would you be prepared to brief me or my staff on those specifics before
your nomination is voted out of the Committee? When can I expect
answers to my office's inquiry?
Answer. On June 28 I discussed with your staff and other interested
parties Secretary Bodman's path forward concerning the Waste Treatment
Plant (WTP). I have scheduled a briefing for your staff on the WTP for
July 18, 2005. We will continue to provide updated information on the
construction of the Waste Treatment Plant as it is available. On July
13 the Environmental Management program followed-up with written
direction to the Office of River Protection (ORP) to implement the path
forward on the WTP. This memorandum has been sent to your office and is
also enclosed herein.
Question 2a. Last year, it was reported that the Department of
Energy played a role in drafting legislation that was included in the
Fiscal Year 2005 Department of Defense Authorization Bill, related to
the issue of Waste Incidental to Reprocessing. As originally drafted,
this legislation, would have included Washington state, potentially
influenced then on-going litigation, and would have had potentially
dramatic impacts on the implementation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
at sites throughout the DOE complex. All of this would have occurred
without a legislative hearing on the substance of the DOE proposal.
Are you aware that when the WIR-related provision included in last
year's Defense Authorization bill was introduced as a stand-alone piece
of legislation (S. 2457), the Senate parliamentarian referred it to the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee?
Answer. Yes, my recollection is that your legislation was referred
to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Question 2b. Based on this referral, what Committee do you believe
is the proper body to consider similar legislation in the future?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Senate Parliamentarian has
sole responsibility to determine committee referrals of proposed
legislation. I believe it is important for me to respect that process.
Question 2c. In the future, do you pledge to work cooperatively
with this Committee to consider any and all legislative proposals
related to the issue of Waste Incidental to Reprocessing?
Answer. Yes, I pledge to work cooperatively with this Committee and
any other Committee which may be determined to have jurisdiction over
this issue.
Question 3a. At a June 15, 2005 annual ``State of the Site''
meeting at Hanford, some Hanford workers criticized the Department's
handling of worker compensation claims at Hanford, particularly
singling out the CCSI, the Department's claims processing contractor,
for delays in handling their claims, or denying state workers'
compensation despite the diagnosis of a qualified medical practitioner.
Some find themselves too ill or too injured to work, and have to fight
their claims in contested hearings at great personal cost.
Will the Department of Energy investigate these claims?
Answer. I am not personally familiar with this issue, however I
have been informed that the Department of Energy is planning to
assemble an investigative team of Independent Oversight and Performance
Assurance (OA) and Environment, Safety and Health (EH) personnel to
examine these claims. The team will travel to Hanford to review written
records and conduct interviews with a sample of Hanford worker
compensation claimants to assess whether CCSI carries out its contract
obligations in an appropriate manner.
Question 3b. If problems with CCSI are found, what will the
Department due to address these issues?
Answer. It is my understanding that if the investigation finds
evidence that CCSI has been in violation of their contractual
agreement, infractions will be reported to the contracting officer in
the DOE field office at Hanford, who will take appropriate action.
Question 3c. Are you open to including other federal agencies to
sending experts to participate in your investigation, such as the
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries or the U.S.
Department of Labor?
Answer. The DOE is open to including other federal agencies such as
the U.S. Department of Labor in the investigation.