H. Rept. 110-849 - GREAT LAKES LEGACY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008110th Congress (2007-2008)
Committee Report
Hide Overview| Report Type: | House Report |
|---|---|
| Accompanies: | H.R.6460 |
| Committees: |
Report text available as:
- TXT
- PDF (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
110th Congress Rept. 110-849
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1
======================================================================
GREAT LAKES LEGACY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008
_______
September 15, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Oberstar, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 6460]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 6460) to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to provide for the remediation of
sediment contamination in areas of concern, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do
pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act
of 2008''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
Section 118(a)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1268(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (I) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (J) by striking the period and inserting
a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(K) `site characterization' means a process for
monitoring and evaluating the nature and extent of
sediment contamination in accordance with the
Environmental Protection Agency's guidance for the
assessment of contaminated sediment in an area of
concern located wholly or partially within the United
States; and
``(L) `potentially responsible party' means an
individual or entity that may be liable under any
Federal or State authority that is being used or may be
used to facilitate the cleanup and protection of the
Great Lakes.''.
SEC. 3. REMEDIATION OF SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION IN AREAS OF CONCERN.
(a) Eligible Projects.--Section 118(c)(12)(B)(ii) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(B)(ii)) is amended
by striking ``sediment'' and inserting ``sediment, including activities
to restore aquatic habitat that are carried out in conjunction with a
project for the remediation of contaminated sediment''.
(b) Limitations.--Section 118(c)(12)(D) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
1268(c)(12)(D)) is amended--
(1) in the subparagraph heading by striking ``Limitation''
and inserting ``Limitations'';
(2) in clause (i) by striking ``or'' at the end;
(3) in clause (ii) by striking the period and inserting a
semicolon; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) unless each non-Federal sponsor for
the project has entered into a written project
agreement with the Administrator under which
the party agrees to carry out its
responsibilities and requirements for the
project; or
``(iv) unless the Administrator provides
assurance that the Agency has conducted a
reasonable inquiry to identify potentially
responsible parties connected with the site.''.
(c) In-Kind Contributions.--Section 118(c)(12)(E)(ii) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(E)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:
``(ii) In-kind contributions.--
``(I) In general.--The non-Federal
share of the cost of a project carried
out under this paragraph may include
the value of an in-kind contribution
provided by a non-Federal sponsor.
``(II) Credit.--A project agreement
described in subparagraph (D)(iii) may
provide, with respect to a project,
that the Administrator shall credit
toward the non-Federal share of the
cost of the project the value of an in-
kind contribution made by the non-
Federal sponsor, if the Administrator
determines that the material or service
provided as the in-kind contribution is
integral to the project.
``(III) Work performed before project
agreement.--In any case in which a non-
Federal sponsor is to receive credit
under subclause (II) for the cost of
work carried out by the non-Federal
sponsor and such work has not been
carried out by the non-Federal sponsor
as of the date of enactment of this
subclause, the Administrator and the
non-Federal sponsor shall enter into an
agreement under which the non-Federal
sponsor shall carry out such work, and
only work carried out following the
execution of the agreement shall be
eligible for credit.
``(IV) Limitation.--Credit authorized
under this clause for a project carried
out under this paragraph--
``(aa) shall not exceed the
non-Federal share of the cost
of the project; and
``(bb) shall not exceed the
actual and reasonable costs of
the materials and services
provided by the non-Federal
sponsor, as determined by the
Administrator.
``(V) Inclusion of certain
contributions.--In this subparagraph,
the term `in-kind contribution' may
include the costs of planning
(including data collection), design,
construction, and materials that are
provided by the non-Federal sponsor for
implementation of a project under this
paragraph.''.
(d) Non-Federal Share.--Section 118(c)(12)(E) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
1268(c)(12)(E)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating clauses (iii) and (iv) as clauses (iv)
and (v), respectively;
(2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
``(iii) Treatment of credit between
projects.--Any credit provided under this
subparagraph towards the non-Federal share of
the cost of a project carried out under this
paragraph may be applied towards the non-
Federal share of the cost of any other project
carried out under this paragraph by the same
non-Federal sponsor for a site within the same
area of concern.''; and
(3) in clause (iv) (as redesignated by paragraph (1) of this
subsection) by striking ``service'' each place it appears and
inserting ``contribution''.
(e) Site Characterization.--Section 118(c)(12)(F) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(F)) is amended to read as follows:
``(F) Site characterization.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator, in
consultation with any affected State or unit of
local government, shall carry out at Federal
expense the site characterization of a project
under this paragraph for the remediation of
contaminated sediment.
``(ii) Limitation.--For purposes of clause
(i), the Administrator may carry out one site
assessment per discrete site within a project
at Federal expense.''.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 118(c)(12)(H) of such
Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(H)) is amended--
(1) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
``(i) In general.--In addition to other
amounts authorized under this section, there is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
paragraph--
``(I) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2004 through 2008; and
``(II) $150,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2009 through 2013.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) Allocation of funds.--Not more than
20 percent of the funds appropriated pursuant
to clause (i)(II) for a fiscal year may be used
to carry out subparagraph (F).''.
(g) Public Information Program.--Section 118(c)(13)(B) of such Act
(33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(13)(B)) is amended by striking ``2008'' and
inserting ``2013''.
SEC. 4. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
Section 106(b)(1) of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C.
1271a(b)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--In addition to amounts authorized under
other laws, there is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
this section--
``(A) $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004
through 2008; and
``(B) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009
through 2013.''.
Purpose of the Legislation
H.R. 6460, the ``Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of
2008'', amends section 118 the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (``Clean Water Act'' or ``Act'') to reauthorize and
increase appropriations for projects to remediate contaminated
sediment in the Great Lakes areas of concern, and to make
several additional modifications to the implementation of the
program to accelerate the completion of remediation projects.
Background and Need for Legislation
The Great Lakes basin includes all of the state of
Michigan, parts of Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the Canadian provinces of
Ontario and Quebec. Approximately 40 million people live within
the Great Lakes basin. Water in the Lakes is used for a
multitude of activities including fishing, swimming, boating,
agriculture, industry, and shipping. In addition, the Lakes
contain around 84 percent of North America's and 21 percent of
the world's surface fresh water supplies.
Industrialization and development have had a significant
impact on the Great Lakes ecosystem. The region's industrial
development has included mining, steel production, and machine
tool and automobile manufacturing. Agriculture is also a
significant component of the regional economy. The Great Lakes
have historically provided convenient waterways for the
movement of goods. They also provide process and cooling water
for industrial users, and are used to generate hydroelectric
power. While industrialization, agriculture, power generation,
and other activities have produced significant economic
development in the region, water quality has also been
adversely impacted.
In its 2002 National Water Quality Inventory, the
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') reports that 91
percent of assessed Great Lakes shoreline miles were impaired--
meaning that the shoreline did not meet all of its designated
uses, including fishing, swimming, and suitability for aquatic
wildlife habitat. The leading causes of impairment include the
presence of pathogens, metals, and toxic organic compounds in
the shoreline waters of the Great Lakes. EPA notes that the
dominant cause of reported shoreline impairment is legacy, or
historical, pollution--chiefly contaminated sediment. In the
same report, EPA reports that 99 percent of the assessed Great
Lakes open waters were rated as impaired. The predominant
causes of this impairment include the presence of priority
organics, metals (primarily mercury), and pesticides in the
open waters of the Great Lakes. The primary sources of open
water impairments are atmospheric deposition, industrial
sources, agriculture, and legacy (historical) pollutants.
The impaired nature of the Great Lakes is also reflected in
the biennial assessment of EPA and Environment Canada, entitled
the ``State of the Great Lakes'' report, which is carried out
pursuant to the 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. In
2007, this report identified the status of the Great Lakes
ecosystem as ``mixed'', with the particular concern expressed
on the localized toxic contamination that continues to exist in
high levels in the Great Lakes areas of concern.
Under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the United States
and Canada created the International Joint Commission (``IJC'')
to monitor, periodically inspect, and make recommendations on
actions to be taken by the United States and Canada to protect
the Great Lakes. The IJC has six commissioners, three from each
nation. In 1972, the United States and Canada signed the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement to address mutual interests and
improve water quality. In 1987, the two nations revised the
agreement and committed to ecosystem cleanup plans for ``areas
of concern''. The IJC monitors progress toward these
commitments and issues biennial reports.
To support the commitments made in the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement, Congress added section 118 to the Clean
Water Act in 1987. Section 118 formally established the Great
Lakes National Program Office within EPA. One of the functions
of the Office is to ensure that Remedial Action Plans are
developed and implemented for the areas of concern identified
by the United States and Canada.
At present, there are 43 areas of concern within the Great
Lakes Basin, 26 areas wholly within the United States, 12 areas
located wholly within Canada, and 5 areas that are shared by
both countries. The areas of concern were defined under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as ``ecologically degraded
geographic areas requiring remediation''. An area is considered
ecologically degraded if at least one of 14 beneficial use
impairments is present as a result of contamination--
restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption; tainting of fish
and wildlife flavor; degradation of fish and wildlife
populations; fish tumors or other deformities; bird or animal
deformities or reproduction problems; degradation of benthos;
restrictions on dredging activities; eutrophication or
undesirable algae; restrictions on drinking water consumption,
or taste and odor problems; beach closings; degradation of
aesthetics; added costs to agriculture or industry; degradation
of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations; or loss of fish
and wildlife habitat.
GREAT LAKES LEGACY ACT OF 2002
In 2002, Congress enacted the Great Lakes Legacy Act of
2002 (P.L. 107-303). The Great Lakes Legacy Act, which amends
section 118 of the Clean Water Act, authorizes funding for
projects to monitor, evaluate, and remediate contaminated
sediment in the areas of concern located wholly within, or
shared by, the United States, to increase public awareness of
contaminated sediments, and to promote research and development
for innovative approaches, technologies, and techniques for the
remediation of contaminated sediments. Funding authorized
pursuant to the Great Lakes Legacy Act for remediation of
contaminated sediment is primarily focused on sites within the
areas of concern that are not Superfund sites.
Sediment remediation projects funded under the Great Lakes
Legacy Act authorization are negotiated agreements between EPA
(through the Great Lakes National Program Office) and a non-
Federal sponsor. Cleanup projects are cost-shared 65 percent
Federal and 35 percent non-Federal, with the non-Federal
sponsor being responsible for 100 percent of the operation and
maintenance costs. The non-Federal share may include in-kind
services.
The Great Lakes Legacy Act authorized appropriations of
$270 million over five years (fiscal years 2004 through 2008).
The actual appropriations for the same period totaled $126.3
million. This authorization of appropriations consists of $50
million per year for projects (contaminated sediment
remediation and monitoring); $3 million per year for research;
and $1 million per year for outreach activities.
GREAT LAKES LEGACY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008
On May 21, 2008, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure held a hearing on reauthorization of the Great
Lakes Legacy Act, at which the Subcommittee received testimony
from representatives of the EPA, the Lieutenant Governor of the
State of Michigan, and stakeholder organizations from the Great
Lakes region.
Several witnesses at this hearing expressed support for
reauthorization and recommended several improvements that could
be made to the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 to accelerate the
pace of remediation and delisting of contaminated sites within
the areas of concern.
Specific recommendations included: (1) increasing the
authorization of appropriations for the remediation of
contaminated sediments from $50 million annually to $150
million annually; (2) allowing the use of Legacy Act funds for
the restoration of aquatic habitat restoration at sites where
contaminated sediment has occurred; (3) maximizing the leverage
and use of non-Federal contributions to remediation projects
from non-Federal sponsors, including potentially responsible
parties; (4) extending the life of appropriated Legacy Act
funding beyond two years; (5) reducing the cost-share
requirement for sediment remediation projects at ``orphan
sites''--where no viable responsibility party can be
identified; and (6) striking the ``maintenance of effort''
requirement of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (see 33
U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(F)).
Summary of the Legislation
Section 1. Short title
This section designates the title of the bill as the
``Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008''.
Section 2. Definitions
This section amends section 118(a)(3) of the Clean Water
Act to add definitions to the terms ``site characterization''
and ``potentially responsible party''.
New subparagraph 118(a)(3)(K) defines the term ``site
assessment'' as ``a process for monitoring and evaluating the
nature and extent of sediment contamination in accordance with
the Environmental Protection Agency's guidance for the
assessment of contaminated sediment in an area of concern
located wholly or partially within the United States.'' In this
definition, the Committee intends for the term ``site
assessment'' to be limited to those activities, such as
sampling, monitoring and evaluating sediment, necessary to
assess the nature and extent of contaminated sediments present
at a site; however, this definition does not include activities
directly related to the design of a potential remediation
project, which would be subject to normal cost share under
section 118(c)(12)(E) of the Clean Water Act.
The Committee also intends for EPA to utilize, to the
maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, existing
authorities and guidance within its contaminated sediment
program for the conduct of site assessments, such as the EPA's
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (``ARCS'')
Assessment Guidance. However, this definition does not preclude
the development of additional approaches and guidance, where
appropriate, to conduct site assessments and characterizations.
New subparagraph 118(a)(3)(L) defines the term
``potentially responsible party'' as ``an individual or entity
that may be liable under any Federal or State authority that is
being used or may be used to facilitate the cleanup and
protection of the Great Lakes.'' This definition is consistent
with the provisions of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002,
codified at 33 U.S.C. 1268(g).
Section 3. Remediation of sediment contamination in areas of concern
Section 3 of the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of
2008 amends various paragraphs of section 118(c) of the Clean
Water Act to expand the scope of projects eligible for funding
under section 118(c)(12)(H) of the Act, provide additional
clarity and flexibility for non-Federal sponsors to meet their
statutory cost share obligation for projects, and to increase
the overall authorization of appropriations for projects
eligible under section 118(c)(12)(B) of the Act.
Subsection 3(a) amends section 118(c)(12)(B) of the Clean
Water Act to authorize activities to restore aquatic habitat
that are carried out in conjunction with a project for the
remediation of contaminated sediment. According to EPA, of the
30 remaining Great Lakes' areas of concern located wholly
within the United States or shared with Canada, 26 areas
include within the beneficial use impairments the ``loss of
fish and wildlife habitat'' for the site that must be addressed
before the site can be delisted as an area of concern. In many
instances, the continued presence of contaminated sediment has
resulted in degradation of sustainable aquatic habitat for
native fish and wildlife populations, and activities to
remediate these sediments, alone, can similarly impact the
sustainability of aquatic habitat.
During the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
hearing on reauthorization of the Great Lakes Legacy Act,
several witnesses testified in support of expanding the
existing Clean Water Act authority for the Great Lakes' areas
of concern to include restoration of degraded aquatic habitat.
In the view of many of the witnesses, oftentimes, remediation
of existing contaminated sediments alone may not be enough to
delist an area of concern, and additional aquatic habitat
restoration work would be required to address beneficial use
impairments at the site, and to move the site toward delisting
as an area of concern. In addition, the Committee expects that
carrying out restoration activities for degraded habitat at the
same time as projects for the remediation of contaminated
sediment will be more efficient and less costly than if the
same types of restoration activities were carried out
separately, and should result in the delisting of areas of
concern in a more expedited and cost-effective manner.
To address these concerns, subsection 3(a) would expand the
existing authorization for projects to remediate contaminated
sediment to include activities to restore aquatic habitat that
are carried out in conjunction with a project for the
remediation of contaminated sediment. The Committee expects
that aquatic habitat restoration activities carried out under
this new authority will be related to and carried out in
conjunction with a project for the remediation of contaminated
sediment, and will typically be smaller, both in terms of scale
and overall cost, than the corresponding projects to remediate
contaminated sediment. The Committee does not intend aquatic
habitat restoration activities to overtake the program or
change its primary focus, which is remediation of contaminated
sediment in the Great Lakes' areas of concern.
Subsection 3(b) amends section 118(c)(12)(D) of the Clean
Water Act to provide that the EPA Administrator may not carry
out a project for the remediation of contaminated sediment
unless: (1) each non-Federal sponsor has entered into a written
project agreement with the Administrator under which the non-
Federal sponsor agrees to carry out its responsibilities and
requirements for the project; and (2) the Administrator
provides assurance that the Environmental Protection Agency has
conducted a reasonable inquiry to identify potentially
responsible parties connected with the site.
The requirement of new clause 118(c)(12)(D)(iv) is
consistent with the intent of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of
2002 that funds authorized for the remediation of contaminated
sediment sites not affect ``any other Federal or State
authority that is being used to may be used to facilitate the
cleanup and protection of the Great Lakes.'' 33 U.S.C. 1268(g).
Potentially responsible parties (``PRPs'') are eligible to
participate as non-Federal sponsors for projects undertaken
pursuant to section 118(c)(12) of the Clean Water Act. As noted
in the legislative history of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of
2002, the intent of the providing Federal support for
remediation of contaminated sediment in the areas of concern is
to encourage ``greater cooperation'', ``leverage [additional]
contributions by local communities and the private sector''
toward cleanup, and ``expediting the remediation of sites with
contaminated sediment.'' However, consistent with the statutory
language of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 and the
principle of ``polluter pays'', the Committee continues to
believe that funding for the remediation of contaminated
sediments under section 118(c)(12) of the Clean Water Act
supplement (but not replace) potential contributions from
responsible parties.
The Committee is concerned with the overall level of effort
undertaken by EPA in the identification of responsible parties
related to potential projects to remediate contaminated
sediment under section 118(c)(12) of the Clean Water Act. The
Committee has reviewed the Stage 1 and Stage 2 review process
identified by EPA in its 2006 final rule for ``Implementation
of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002'' (71 Fed. Reg. 25504),
including the requirement that representatives from Great Lakes
National Program Office (``GLNPO'') and EPA enforcement and
regulatory programs coordinate with other Federal agencies to
review potential Legacy Act projects. However, the Committee is
concerned that this review is limited to avoiding duplication
with on-going enforcement or regulatory actions or other
Federal, State, local, or tribal efforts rather than an effort
to proactively identify viable responsible parties related to
the sites.
Given these concerns, new clause 118(c)(12)(D)(iv) requires
the Administrator to provide assurance that the Environmental
Protection Agency has conducted a reasonable inquiry to
identify potentially responsible parties connected with the
site. This provision builds upon the existing authorities of
section 118(c)(12) to maximize the potential for leveraging
additional funds from non-Federal sources through the
identification and encouraged participation of responsible
parties in remediation activities. The Committee does not
intend this language to require EPA to conduct an additional
inquiry to identify potentially responsible parties in
instances where EPA has already conducted a reasonable inquiry
under other Federal authorities, including the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(``CERCLA''), nor does it intend for this language to impose an
absolute responsibility on EPA to identify every responsible
party related to the site, including parties that are likely to
have contributed only de minimis amounts of contamination to
the site or parties that are no longer financially viable to
act as non-Federal sponsors of Legacy Act projects.
The Committee understands that this provision may require
EPA to take some additional time to ensure that a reasonable
inquiry has taken place, but does not expect this additional
requirement to significantly delay cleanup projects within the
areas of concern, nor to divert additional sites to other
Federal or State remediation authorities. In addition, EPA is
encouraged to coordinate this effort with State authorities,
and where appropriate, utilize existing State efforts to
identify potentially responsible parties as a basis for its
responsibilities under this Act.
Subsection 3(c) amends section 118(c)(12)(E)(ii) of the
Clean Water Act to provide additional clarification on non-
Federal, in-kind contributions for eligible projects under
section 118(c)(12) of the Clean Water Act. The requirements of
subsection 3(c) apply to all projects carried out under section
118(c)(12) of the Clean Water Act, including those projects
that may have been initiated prior to the date of enactment of
the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008.
First, this amendment retains the provisions of existing
118(c)(12)(E)(ii) that the non-Federal share of the cost of a
project may include the value of an in-kind contribution
provided by a non-Federal sponsor, but requires that, after the
date of enactment, the non-Federal sponsor identify, in a
written project agreement those potential in-kind contributions
for which the non-Federal sponsor intends to seek credit
against the non-Federal share of the cost of the project.
In addition, new subclause 118(c)(12(E)(ii)(II) requires
the EPA Administrator to make a determination that the material
or service for which the non-Federal sponsor seeks credit is
integral to the project before the material or service would be
eligible as credit against the non-Federal share of the cost of
the project.
New subclause 118(c)(12)(E)(ii)(III) requires that in-kind
work that has not been carried out prior to the date of
enactment of this new subclause and for which the non-Federal
sponsor may seek credit against its non-Federal share must be
included as part of a written agreement between EPA and the
non-Federal sponsor.
New subclause 118(c)(12)(E)(ii)(IV) provides that credit
for an in-kind contribution authorized under clause
118(c)(12)(E)(ii) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the
cost of the project and shall not exceed the actual and
reasonable costs of the material or service provided by the
non-Federal sponsor, as determined by the Administrator.
Subsection 3(d) amends section 118(c)(12)(E) of the Clean
Water Act to allow the Administrator to apply non-Federal
credit (in excess of the non-Federal share of the cost of a
project) toward the non-Federal share of any other project
carried out under section 118(c)(12) of the Clean Water Act by
the same non-Federal sponsor for a site within the same area of
concern. Consistent with the intent of the Great Lakes Legacy
Act of 2002, this provision is intended to maximize the
cooperation and financial participation of local community and
private sector non-Federal sponsors by allowing non-Federal
contributions in excess of the non-Federal share at any one
discrete site to be utilized at other impaired sites within the
same area of concern. The objective of this new provision is to
ensure that any credit in excess of the non-Federal share for
an individual project can be carried over to other remediation
projects by the same non-Federal sponsor within the same area
of concern.
Subsection 3(e) amends section 118(c)(12)(F) to authorize
the Administrator to carry out a site assessment for potential
projects eligible under section 112(c)(12) at Federal expense.
During the Subcommittee hearing on ``Reauthorization of the
Great Lakes Legacy Act'', several witnesses testified in
support of increased Federal funding for remediation projects
to accelerate the pace of cleanup and delisting of areas of
concern. New subparagraph 118(c)(12)(F) of the Clean Water Act
achieves this objective by authorizing the Administrator to
carry out the initial site assessment of a potential project at
Federal expense, rather than as a cost-shared component of an
overall project as required by current law.
A site characterization is a necessary precursor to
remediation projects by providing much needed information
regarding the project size and scope, and is critical in the
identification of potential non-Federal sponsors who may be
wiling to act as cost-sharing partners for subsequent stages of
the remediation project.
The Committee believes that increasing Federal
participation in site assessments should accelerate the
movement of Legacy Act projects from assessment to remediation
by providing needed information to EPA's technical review
committees. This new authority is modeled on similar authority
for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (``Corps'') to
carry out a reconnaissance study for a potential water
resources development project at Federal expense. It is during
the reconnaissance phase that the Corps determines the water
and related land concerns that may warrant Federal
participation, and the level of interest and support from non-
Federal sponsors for a proposed water resources project.
Similarly, the Committee expects that during the ``site
assessment'' phase of a project carried out under section
118(c)(12) of the Clean Water Act, the Administrator will
sample, monitor, and assess the nature and extent of sediment
contamination, identify potential non-Federal sponsors that may
be willing to act as cost-share partners for later remediation
projects, and provide sufficient information for the evaluation
of the proposed costs and benefits of a remediation project at
the site.
In addition, the Committee believes that EPA can utilize
this authority to be proactive in working with State and local
officials, and private sector interests, in identifying and
funding the assessment of sites the cleanup of which will
eliminate potential threats to public health and safety and
otherwise benefit the economic or ecological health of
communities neighboring the areas of concern. The information
gathered in these initial site assessments may also be helpful
in potentially ranking future remediation projects, based upon
the potential benefits of the project.
Finally, the Committee has included language (new clause
118(c)(12)(F)(ii)) to ensure that only one site assessment may
be carried out at Federal expense for each individual site
within an area of concern. The Committee does not intend for
the Administrator to utilize this new authority to carry out
multiple site assessments at Federal expense for the same site.
Once a site assessment has been completed utilizing this new
authority, the individual site would no longer be eligible for
additional site assessment work to be carried out at Federal
expense.
The amendment made by subsection 3(e) also deletes the
language of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 related to
maintenance of effort.
Subsection 3(f) amends section 118(c)(12)(H) of the Clean
Water Act to increase the overall authorization of
appropriations for section 118(c)(12) from $50 million to $150
million annually through 2013. New clause 118(c)(12)(H)(iii)
provides that not more than 20 percent of funds appropriated
under this subparagraph may be used to carry out site
assessments at Federal expense pursuant to new subparagraph
118(c)(12)(F).
Subsection 3(g) amends section 118(c)(13) of the Clean
Water Act to reauthorize appropriations for EPA's public
information program through 2013.
Section 4. Research and development program
This section amends section 106(b)(1) of the Great Lakes
Legacy Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 1271a) to reauthorize
appropriations, at increased levels, for a research and
development program within the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Committee strongly supports the establishment a
research and development program within EPA to develop
innovative approaches, technologies, and techniques for the
remediation of contaminated sediment within the Great Lakes
areas of concern. The Committee believes that this program
could be instrumental in developing new technologies for the
remediation of contaminated sediment which could substantially
reduce the overall cost of remediation activities for
contaminate sediment projects, both within the Great Lakes
areas of concern as well as nationwide. The Committee strongly
recommends that the administration include funding for this
important program in the President's budget request for fiscal
year 2010.
Consistent with House Report 107-587 (Part 1), the
Committee expects that the EPA Administrator will collaborate
with non-Federal entities, including colleges, universities,
and private entities, in carrying out the Administrator's
responsibilities under this section. In selecting non-Federal
entities to participate in research projects under this
section, the Administrator is directed to give preference to
non-Federal entities located within the Great Lakes watershed.
Additional Matters
During Committee consideration of H.R. 6460, several
stakeholder groups expressed concern about the expiration of
funds appropriated under the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002
that remain unexpended two years after appropriation. The
Committee strongly supports the continued availability of funds
appropriated under section 118(c)(12) of the Clean Water Act
until they are expended (consistent with the authority found in
section 118(c)(12)(H)(ii)).
The Committee intends to work with the Committee on
Appropriations to ensure that funds appropriated to address
contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes areas of concern may
remain available until expended.
Legislative History and Committee Consideration
On May 21, 2008, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment held a hearing, entitled ``Reauthorization of the
Great Lakes Legacy Act''.
On July 10, 2008, Representative Vernon Ehlers introduced
H.R. 6460, the ``Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of
2008''. No similar legislative proposal was introduced in
previous Congresses.
On July 31, 2008, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure met in open session to consider H.R. 6460. The
Committee adopted by voice vote an amendment in the nature of a
substitute that made several technical changes to the bill. The
Committee ordered the bill, as amended, reported favorably to
the House by voice vote with a quorum present.
Record Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report to include the total number of
votes cast for and against on each record vote on a motion to
report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter,
and the names of those members voting for and against. There
were no recorded votes taken in connection with consideration
of H.R. 6460 or ordering the bill reported. A motion to order
H.R. 6460, as amended, reported favorably to the House was
agreed to by voice vote with a quorum present.
Committee Oversight Findings
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in this report.
Cost of Legislation
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is
included in this report.
Compliance With House Rule XIII
1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee
references the report of the Congressional Budget Office
included in the report.
2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goals and objectives of this legislation are to
reauthorize appropriations for projects to remediate
contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes areas of concern and
for research on the development of sediment remediation
technologies and techniques, and to make targeted improvements
to the implementation of the program.
3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee has received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 6460
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 8, 2008.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 6460, the Great
Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S.
Mehlman.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Sunshine
(For Peter R. Orszag, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 6460--Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008
Summary: H.R. 6460 would authorize the Enviromnental
Protection Agency (EPA), in conjunction with nonfederal
sponsors, to carry out projects aimed at cleaning up certain
areas of the Great Lakes where contamination has settled into
sediments at the bottom of the lakes. The bill would authorize
the appropriation of $750 million over the 2009-2013 period to
EPA for that purpose. In addition, the bill would authorize the
appropriation of $25 million over the five-year period for EPA
to conduct research on the development and use of innovative
methods for cleaning up the Great Lakes. Under current law, the
amounts authorized for those two programs for 2008 totaled $50
million and $3 million, respectively.
Assuming appropriation of the specified amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing this legislation would cost $639
million over the 2009-20013 period. Enacting H.R. 6460 would
not affect direct spending or receipts.
H.R. 6460 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO estimates
that implementing the bill would cost $639 million over the
2009-2013 period, assuming appropriation of the amounts
authorized for each year. Those estimated outlays are based on
historical patterns for similar activities. The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 6460 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300
(natural resources and environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------------
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
EPA Funding for Cleanup Projects:
Authorization Level................................. 150 150 150 150 150 750
Estimated Outlays................................... 60 120 138 147 150 615
Research and Development:
Authorization Level................................. 5 5 5 5 5 5
Estimated Outlays................................... 4 5 5 5 5 24
Total Changes:
Authorization Level................................. 155 155 155 155 155 775
Estimate Outlays.................................... 64 125 143 152 155 639
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 6460
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. The bill would extend EPA programs to cleanup
sediment contamination in the Great Lakes. Any costs state,
local, or tribal governments might incur, including matching
funds, would result from complying with conditions of aid.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susanne S. Mehlman;
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Neil Hood;
Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director
for Budget Analysis.
Compliance With House Rule XXI
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, H.R. 6460, the Great Lakes Legacy
Reauthorization Act of 2008, does not contain any congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as
defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or
joint resolution of a public character shall include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in
the Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (Public Law 104-4).
Preemption Clarification
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local,
or tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 6460 does not
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this
legislation.
Applicability of the Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
TITLE I--RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 118. GREAT LAKES.
(a) Findings, Purpose, and Definitions.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
term--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(I) ``Lakewide Management Plan'' means a
written document which embodies a systematic
and comprehensive ecosystem approach to
restoring and protecting the beneficial uses of
the open waters of each of the Great Lakes, in
accordance with article VI and Annex 2 of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; [and]
(J) ``Remedial Action Plan'' means a written
document which embodies a systematic and
comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring
and protecting the beneficial uses of areas of
concern, in accordance with article VI and
Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement[.];
(K) ``site characterization'' means a process
for monitoring and evaluating the nature and
extent of sediment contamination in accordance
with the Environmental Protection Agency's
guidance for the assessment of contaminated
sediment in an area of concern located wholly
or partially within the United States; and
(L) ``potentially responsible party'' means
an individual or entity that may be liable
under any Federal or State authority that is
being used or may be used to facilitate the
cleanup and protection of the Great Lakes.
* * * * * * *
(c) Great Lakes Management.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(12) Remediation of sediment contamination in areas
of concern.--
(A) * * *
(B) Eligible projects.--A project meets the
requirements of this subparagraph if the
project is to be carried out in an area of
concern located wholly or partially in the
United States and the project--
(i) * * *
(ii) subject to subparagraph (D),
implements a plan to remediate
contaminated [sediment] sediment,
including activities to restore aquatic
habitat that are carried out in
conjunction with a project for the
remediation of contaminated sediment;
or
* * * * * * *
(D) [Limitation] Limitations.--The
Administrator may not carry out a project under
this paragraph for remediation of contaminated
sediments located in an area of concern--
(i) if an evaluation of remedial
alternatives for the area of concern
has not been conducted, including a
review of the short-term and long-term
effects of the alternatives on human
health and the environment; [or]
(ii) if the Administrator determines
that the area of concern is likely to
suffer significant further or renewed
contamination from existing sources of
pollutants causing sediment
contamination following completion of
the project[.];
(iii) unless each non-Federal sponsor
for the project has entered into a
written project agreement with the
Administrator under which the party
agrees to carry out its
responsibilities and requirements for
the project; or
(iv) unless the Administrator
provides assurance that the Agency has
conducted a reasonable inquiry to
identify potentially responsible
parties connected with the site.
(E) Non-federal share.--
(i) * * *
[(ii) In-kind contributions.--The
non-Federal share of the cost of a
project carried out under this
paragraph may include the value of in-
kind services contributed by a non-
Federal sponsor.]
(ii) In-kind contributions.--
(I) In general.--The non-
Federal share of the cost of a
project carried out under this
paragraph may include the value
of an in-kind contribution
provided by a non-Federal
sponsor.
(II) Credit.--A project
agreement described in
subparagraph (D)(iii) may
provide, with respect to a
project, that the Administrator
shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of
the project the value of an in-
kind contribution made by the
non-Federal sponsor, if the
Administrator determines that
the material or service
provided as the in-kind
contribution is integral to the
project.
(III) Work performed before
project agreement.--In any case
in which a non-Federal sponsor
is to receive credit under
subclause (II) for the cost of
work carried out by the non-
Federal sponsor and such work
has not been carried out by the
non-Federal sponsor as of the
date of enactment of this
subclause, the Administrator
and the non-Federal sponsor
shall enter into an agreement
under which the non-Federal
sponsor shall carry out such
work, and only work carried out
following the execution of the
agreement shall be eligible for
credit.
(IV) Limitation.--Credit
authorized under this clause
for a project carried out under
this paragraph--
(aa) shall not exceed
the non-Federal share
of the cost of the
project; and
(bb) shall not exceed
the actual and
reasonable costs of the
materials and services
provided by the non-
Federal sponsor, as
determined by the
Administrator.
(V) Inclusion of certain
contributions.--In this
subparagraph, the term ``in-
kind contribution'' may include
the costs of planning
(including data collection),
design, construction, and
materials that are provided by
the non-Federal sponsor for
implementation of a project
under this paragraph.
(iii) Treatment of credit between
projects.--Any credit provided under
this subparagraph towards the non-
Federal share of the cost of a project
carried out under this paragraph may be
applied towards the non-Federal share
of the cost of any other project
carried out under this paragraph by the
same non-Federal sponsor for a site
within the same area of concern.
[(iii)] (iv) Non-federal share.--The
non-Federal share of the cost of a
project carried out under this
paragraph--
(I) may include monies paid
pursuant to, or the value of
any in-kind [service]
contribution performed under,
an administrative order on
consent or judicial consent
decree; but
(II) may not include any
funds paid pursuant to, or the
value of any in-kind [service]
contribution performed under, a
unilateral administrative order
or court order.
[(iv)] (v) Operation and
maintenance.--The non-Federal share of
the cost of the operation and
maintenance of a project carried out
under this paragraph shall be 100
percent.
[(F) Maintenance of effort.--The
Administrator may not carry out a project under
this paragraph unless the non-Federal sponsor
enters into such agreements with the
Administrator as the Administrator may require
to ensure that the non-Federal sponsor will
maintain its aggregate expenditures from all
other sources for remediation programs in the
area of concern in which the project is located
at or above the average level of such
expenditures in the 2 fiscal years preceding
the date on which the project is initiated.]
(F) Site characterization.--
(i) In general.--The Administrator,
in consultation with any affected State
or unit of local government, shall
carry out at Federal expense the site
characterization of a project under
this paragraph for the remediation of
contaminated sediment.
(ii) Limitation.--For purposes of
clause (i), the Administrator may carry
out one site assessment per discrete
site within a project at Federal
expense.
* * * * * * *
(H) Authorization of appropriations.--
[(i) In general.--In addition to
other amounts authorized under this
section, there is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this
paragraph $50,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2004 through 2008.]
(i) In general.--In addition to other
amounts authorized under this section,
there is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this paragraph--
(I) $50,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2004 through 2008;
and
(II) $150,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
* * * * * * *
(iii) Allocation of funds.--Not more
than 20 percent of the funds
appropriated pursuant to clause (i)(II)
for a fiscal year may be used to carry
out subparagraph (F).
* * * * * * *
(13) Public information program.--
(A) * * *
(B) Authorization of appropriations.--There
is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
this paragraph $1,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2004 through [2008] 2013.
* * * * * * *
----------
GREAT LAKES LEGACY ACT OF 2002
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--GREAT LAKES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 106. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
[(1) In general.--In addition to amounts authorized
under other laws, there is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.]
(1) In general.--In addition to amounts authorized
under other laws, there is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section--
(A) $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004
through 2008; and
(B) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009
through 2013.
* * * * * * *