U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

23–405 PDF 2005

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 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

ALEX FLINT, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

BOB SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

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 .................................

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


13
(1)

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. 

2

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 

3

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. 

4

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? 

5

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, 

6

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 DepartVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:24 Sep 26, 2005 Jkt 109127 PO 23405 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\23405.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
7

ment. 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. 

8

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, 

9

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 

10

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? 

11

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. 

12

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 

13

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 exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:24 Sep 26, 2005 Jkt 109127 PO 23405 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\23405.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
14

pect 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, 

15

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 worldclass 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 inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:24 Sep 26, 2005 Jkt 109127 PO 23405 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\23405.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
16

volvement 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 reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:24 Sep 26, 2005 Jkt 109127 PO 23405 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\23405.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
17

lationships 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 

18

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? 

19

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 

20

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 SecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:24 Sep 26, 2005 Jkt 109127 PO 23405 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\23405.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
21

retary 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 

22

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 

23

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 

24

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. 

25

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.] 

(27)

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? 

28

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 

29

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. AddiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:24 Sep 26, 2005 Jkt 109127 PO 23405 Frm 00033 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\23405.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
30

tionally 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 

31

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 GreaterThan-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? 

32

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 safetyrelated 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 PreTreatment 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 EngiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:24 Sep 26, 2005 Jkt 109127 PO 23405 Frm 00036 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\23405.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
33

neers’ 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 

34

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. 

35

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? 

36

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.

Æ