[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 104 (Friday, September 8, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8277-S8283]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S8277]]
ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS
national ignition facility
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the National Ignition Facility (NIF) is a
major part of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which is a set of
programs and facilities that are designed to allow the United States to
maintain the safety and reliability of our nation's vital nuclear
deterrent.
It is hoped that at some point in 10 to 20 years that the stockpile
Stewardship Program can be a replacement for actual nuclear testing.
The jury is still out on whether it can in fact eventually accomplish
this goal. I support the Stockpile Stewardship Program because it will
improve our knowledge about our nuclear weapons. The fact is that,
despite our technical expertise, there is much we still do not
understand about our own nuclear weapons. As C. Paul Robinson, Director
of the Sandia National Laboratory has said, ``Some aspects of nuclear
explosive design are still not understood at the level of physical
principles.''
America's nuclear weapons are the most sophisticated in the world.
Each one typically has thousands of parts, and over time the nuclear
materials and high explosive triggers in our weapons deteriorate and we
lack experience predicting the effects of these changes. Some of the
materials used in our weapons, like plutonium, enriched uranium, and
tritium, are radioactive materials that decay, and as they decay they
also change the properties of other materials within the weapon. We
lack experience predicting the effects of such aging on the safety and
reliability of our weapons. We did not design our weapons to last
forever. The shelf life of our weapons was expected to be about 20
years. In the past, we did not encounter problems with aging weapons,
because we were fielding new designs and older designs were retired.
As the Department of Energy said in its review of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program completed on November 23, 1999, ``The NIF is one of
the most vital facilities in the stockpile stewardship program.'' This
facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California is
roughly the same size as a stadium, and is designed to produce the
intense pressures and temperatures needed to simulate in a laboratory
the thermonuclear conditions achieved in nuclear explosions. The NIF
will accomplish this goal by focusing 192 laser beams on a ``dime-
sized'' piece of plutonium. When completed, the NIF will be the world's
most powerful laser facility, about 60 times more powerful than the
next largest DOE laser facility, the NOVA laser.
As a review conducted in 1994 by the so-called, JASON panel, a
Defense Department panel of nuclear experts said ``The NIF is without
question the most scientifically valuable of the programs proposed for
the Science Based Stockpile Stewardship program, particularly in regard
to research and `proof-of-principle' for ignition, but also more
generally for fundamental science. As such, it will promote the goal of
sustaining a high-quality group of scientists with expertise related to
the nuclear weapons program.''
There is a consensus among the three national laboratories and at the
National Nuclear Security Administration that additional funding above
the level in the current version of the Energy and Water Appropriations
bill for the NIF program needs to be increased. In a joint statement
dated September 6, 2000, Dr. Bruce Tarter, the Director of the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Dr. John Browne, the Director of the Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Dr. Paul Robinson, the Director of Sandia
National Laboratory, and Madelyn Creedon, the Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration
stated.
NIF supports the SSP, and is a vital element of the SSP in
three important ways: (1) the experimental study of issues of
aging or refurbishment; (2) weapons science and code
development; and (3) attracting and training the exceptional
scientific and technical talent required to sustain the SSP
over the long term. NIF is an integral part of the SSP
providing unique experimental capabilities that complement
other SSP facilities including hydrotests, pulsed power, and
advanced radiography. NIF addresses aspects of the relevant
science of materials that cannot be reached in other
facilities.
We concur that the NIF offers a unique, critical capability
within a ``balanced'' SSP. As with other elements of the SSP,
its long-term role must be integrated within the overall
requirements of the Program. Options should not be foreclosed
or limited but should be maintained to allow for its further
development. At this critical juncture, we agree that in
order to maintain the NIF within a balanced program, an
additional $95 million [above the President's original budget
request] is necessary in FY 2001 for the NIF Project.
The NIF program has recently experienced delays and cost overruns.
But new management for the program is in place. The facility has
undergone and passed intensive scientific and programmatic reviews that
were recently conducted. And the management problems and lack of
oversight that led to the earlier delays and cost overruns are
understood and should therefore be preventable.
We are well along toward completion of the NIF facility. Construction
of the facility to house the laser beams, a $260 million project
itself, is about 90% complete. 80% of the large components for the
infrastructure for the laser beams has been procured and is either on
site or on the way. The NIF program at Lawrence Livermore Lab has 800
scientists and technicians on the project. Delaying the program, which
would result in a standing army of technicians, or canceling it, which
would prevent the achievement of the goals of the Stockpile Stewardship
Program simply makes no sense.
There is bipartisan support for this program and the Administration
supports the program. Undersecretary of State John Holum said in a
letter on June 12, 2000 that, ``I strongly support this essential
national security program. We must avoid the complacency of not doing
enough in stewardship. We need to make a long-term commitment to use
our scientific prowess to maintain a safe and reliable stockpile of
nuclear weapons. . . . The problems with NIF are not scientific. . . .
I urge you to support the program.''
The NIF is essential to our Stockpile Stewardship Program, which
itself is an essential to maintain our nuclear weapons.
dredging of the delaware river
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with
the distinguished Senators from our neighboring state of Delaware,
Senators Roth and Biden. Each of us has communicated with members of
the Appropriations Committee on a matter of deep concern to us and our
constituents that has been included in the FY 2001 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill. The Army Corps of Engineers' Delaware
River Deepening Project seeks to deepen over 100 miles of the Delaware
River channel from the current authorized 40-foot depth to 45 feet. The
project would dredge 33 million cubic yards of bottom sediments,
placing some 23 million cubic yards in dredge disposal areas in New
Jersey, and 10 million cubic yards along Delaware shores.
This project continues to be highly controversial in our states for a
number of reasons. First, there remain significant environmental
concerns regarding the material to be dredged and its ultimate disposal
and impacts on the environment of the Delaware Bay. The Corps of
engineers has been criticized for its method of evaluating toxic and
polluted sediments--using an averaging method, which many believe can
mask the potential impact of dredging toxic hot spots and more
concentrated polluted material. Our citizens continue to have strong
concerns about the impacts of dredging and disposal on water quality,
on drinking water supplies, on important recovering shellfish areas,
and on the environment in the vicinity of proposed disposal areas.
A number of members of the New Jersey and Delaware congressional
delegations and state agencies have made requests to the Corps of
engineers to address a number of these issues. Earlier this year,
Representative Andrews and I made a request to the General Accounting
Office to conduct a review of the cost-benefit and environmental
analyses in light of many of the concerns that have been raised about
this project. In addition, Representatives Saxton and LoBiondo also
sent a similar request to the GAO regarding the economic and
environmental issues regarding the Delaware Deepening project. The GAO
responded that it could not conduct and complete the study as quickly
as would be necessary for conclusions to assist in the consideration of
the FY 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriation.
[[Page S8278]]
I want to state here that I intend to continue to pursue these issues
and over the course of the next several months to engage the General
Accounting Office, the Army Inspector General, the Army Corps of
engineers, and any other appropriate agencies to get answers to the
questions that I believe are critical to my constituents. For the
record, Mr. President, I would like to enter into the record copies of
study requests made by members of the New Jersey delegation to the
General Accounting regarding the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening
project.
If I may address the distinguished senior Senator from Delaware, have
you not also made known your concerns to the Committee on
Appropriations and to the Army Corps of Engineers?
Mr. ROTH. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and I would answer
his question, indeed we have.
In May of this year, Senator Biden and I wrote to the Chairman of the
energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, the
distinguished Senator from New Mexico, indicating that the response of
the Corps of Engineers to the list of concerns raised by the State of
Delaware's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
regarding necessary permitting, environmental studies, and
environmental protection has been entirely inadequate. In our letter,
we indicated that this project must not proceed until environmental
information and permitting concerns raised by Delaware's Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control are satisfactorily
addressed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
As a strong supporter of the Coastal Zone Management Plan, I am
concerned about the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
channel deepening. I strongly urge the Corps to continue negotiating in
good faith with the State of Delaware to resolve outstanding
informational and permitting issues through a legally enforceable
agreement that will safeguard Delaware's natural resources. If an
agreement cannot be reached through good faith negotiations, then the
State of Delaware should pursue this matter in court.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator for that clarification. Does that
also describe the concerns and sentiments of the Senator from Delaware,
Senator Biden?
Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator from New Jersey and the senior Senator
from Delaware for their remarks, and wish to indicate my concurrence
with the points that they have made. I have had questions about this
project, the planning process, its economic justification, and the
potential for environmental harm for a number of years. I further
understand that the State of Delaware's capital bond bill committee in
July indicated in writing its intention to withhold all state money for
the Deepening project until the State's Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control is satisfied and necessary permits obtained.
I believe we need to continue to pursue a resolution to these
environmental issues and that the Corps should not move forward to
construction unless and until appropriate permits have been issued, and
the Congress has before it the information needed to determine that the
project is safe and truly justified.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record, several letters from
the Delaware DNREC which discuss the State's concerns.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 2, 2000.
Mr. David Walker,
Controller General, General Accounting Office, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Walker: We are writing to request that a cost-
benefit and environmental analysis be conducted as soon as
possible on plans by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to
bring the depth of the Delaware River to 45 feet. This
channel deepening project was authorized as part of the Water
Resource Development Acts of 1992 (section 101(6)) and 1999
(section 308).
The Plan is estimated to cost $311 million, two-thirds of
which would be provided by the federal government. Proponents
of the Plan argue that the channel needs to be deepened to
accommodate the next generation of cargo ships and that cost
saving benefits will be realized by area oil refineries.
However, many of our constituents have called into question
these benefits and the necessity of channel deepening in
keeping the port competitive. Therefore, we are eager to
identify the benefits of this project to the nation, and
whether these justify the taxpayer cost.
In addition to this central and legally mandated issue of
national benefit, we would like to request an analysis of
three additional issues by the General Accounting Office
(GAO).
First, there is a question as to whether the project
sponsors have complied with all of the provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Environmental
Impact Statement associated with this project appears to be
deficient in five ways: (a) there was no assessment of the
ecological issues pertaining to the disposal sites for
dredged materials because the sites were not identified when
the EIS was done: (b) there was no assessment of the impact
of any dredging of the private berths of the oil refinery (if
any takes place) which is functionally a part of this
project; (c) the habitat assessment part of the EIS may not
adequately assess the impact of the project on essential fish
and oyster habitats; (d) ``used mean values'' (averages) were
improperly used to assess the level of toxins in River
sediment and in so doing masked the existence of toxic ``hot
spots''; and (e) threats to drinking water supplies and water
quality have yet to be adequately analyzed and addressed.
Second, the Delaware dredging project reportedly will
produce 33 million cubic yards of dredged materials. Ten
million yards are scheduled to be used for beach restoration
in the State of Delaware. The remaining 23 million cubic
yards will simply be dumped on the New Jersey side of the
river.
With little effort, the planners of this project were able
to find a beneficial use for 10 million cubic yards of this
material. We are concerned that insufficient efforts has been
made to find more beneficial uses for the remaining 23
million cubic yards and that New Jersey has been asked to
bear too great a burden in its disposal. Thus, we request
that the GAO look at both the environmental and economic
impacts of placing 23 million cubic yards of dredged
materials on the riverfront of these New Jersey communities.
Third, we also ask the GAO to investigate why almost no
commitments have yet been received from the businesses who
stand to benefit from this dredging. The argument has been
made that this project is necessary to keep shipping commerce
on the Delaware River. Yet few of these businesses have made
commitments to dredge their ports on the Delaware River to
match the depth of the main channel. If these businesses
truly need this project, we are curious as to why they are
not also working to make room for the larger ships this
project is meant to accommodate.
As you can see, there are still many questions to be
answered regarding this project. Time is of the essence.
Congress will consider as part of its FY 2001 Appropriations
cycle future funding for this project. It is imperative that
this project receive objective scrutiny by the GAO
immediately. We offer our assistance in any way possible to
facilitate a cost-benefit analysis and evaluation of
environmental impacts in a timely manner. Thank you in
advance for your efforts and we look forward to your report.
Sincerely,
Robert G. Torricelli,
United States Senator.
Robert E. Andrews,
Member of Congress.
____
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 2,
New York, NY, June 30, 1999.
Mr. Robert Callegeri,
Director, Planning Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/
Philadelphia District, Wanamaker Building, Philadelphia
PA.
Dear Mr. Callegeri: I am writing in reference to the
proposed Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project. In
particular, we have recently become aware of potential issues
associated with the project through letters from the Delaware
River keeper, and discussions stemming from the April 16,
1999 forum facilitated by the Delaware River Basin
Commission, as well as the June 11, 1999 meeting convened by
Congressman Castle's office.
We have carefully considered these issues. For the most
part, we do not believe that they necessitate revising the
conclusions reached in the previous environmental impact
statement (EIS) process for the project. However, we believe
that the following two issues require further consideration
and effort prior to the project proceeding: the project's
benefit/cost (B/C) ratio and environmental issues raised
which may not have been fully evaluated or resolved during
the prior planning process.
With regard to the project's B/C ratio, the original
project scope included six petroleum facilities as project
beneficiaries. Consequently, the benefits to these facilities
were included in the project's B/C ratio. However, we have
seen no documentation that any of these facilities plan to
dredge their private channels. To the contrary, the limited
documentation we have indicates that one or more of the
petroleum companies believe that it is not in their best
economic interest to participate. Accordingly, we would like
to see additional documentation showing any commitments made
by the companies involved and more explanation of how their
participation (or lack thereof) affects the B/C ratio
calculations. Moreover, if these
[[Page S8279]]
facilities are not committed to participate, we would argue
that the scope of the project would be modified, which would
require the Corps' to recalculate the B/C ratio.
In addition to the economic questions, numerous
environmental concerns about the project continue to be
raised. While we believe that many of these concerns have
been adequately addressed through the prior EIS process,
there may be a need for additional environmental analyses for
certain issues not fully covered in the prior EIS
documentation. For example, impacts related to the dredging
of the private facilities discussed above and several port
facilities owned or operated by the local sponsors, and
potential impacts associated with the development of new
sites for dredged material disposal were not fully evaluated
in the original EIS. Accordingly, these activities will have
to be evaluated under NEPA.
Our final concern about the project relates to the
potential impacts associated with the dredging and disposal
operations. EPA, however, believes that these impacts can,
and should, be addressed through the development of specific
monitoring/management plans for the various dredging and
disposal phases of the project. The plans should be developed
to address specific goals and objectives designed to detect
and prevent adverse impacts from the proposed dredging and
disposal operations. At a minimum, monitoring for turbidity
changes using in situ recording devices during dredging and
disposal operations, bathymetry and sediment profiling
imagery at the aquatic disposal locations, and ground water
monitoring should be included. Additionally, the monitoring/
management plans should provide for appropriate contingency
actions in the event that unforeseen circumstances (e.g.,
high levels of contaminants) are encountered during the
dredging and disposal operations. We are available to assist
as necessary in the development of monitoring/management
plans. At the very least, we request the opportunity to
review such plans as they are being developed. Furthermore,
the monitoring/management plans must be in place prior to the
start of any dredging activity.
We look forward to working with you as this project
progresses. Should you have any questions concerning this
letter, please contact Mark Westrate of my staff at (212)
637-3789.
Sincerely yours,
Robert W. Hargrove,
Chief, Strategic Planning and Multi-Media Programs Branch.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 5, 2000.
Mr. David Walker,
Comptroller General of the United States, General Accounting
Office, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Walker: On May 2, 2000, Representative Robert
Andrews and Senator Robert Torricelli wrote to you requesting
the General Accounting Office (GAO) review the cost-benefit
and environmental analysis of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer's (USACE) project to dredge the Delaware River to 45
feet. In addition, they asked you to evaluate whether the
Corps of Engineers has complied with all provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act, the environmental and
economic impacts of placing 23 million cubic yards of dredged
materials on the New Jersey riverfront, and why almost no
commitments to deepen their side channels have been received
from the oil refineries who are identified as receiving 80%
of the projects benefits. We support the request by
Representative Andrews and Senator Torricelli, and ask that
you address several other critical issues dealing with the
accuracy of the USACE's study of this project.
Throughout this project, oil facilities located along the
Delaware have been identified as the major beneficiaries.
However, five of the six facilities have made no commitment
to invest the funds necessary to deepen their side-channels
and have indicated they are unlikely to do so. Therefore, we
request the GAO to recalculate the cost-benefit ratio of this
project if the oil facilities do not deepen their side-
channels.
The USACE has identified other potential beneficiaries of
the deepening project to include the Port of Philadelphia and
Camden. We ask that the GAO utilize its expertise in port
infrastructure and competitiveness and conduct a study
focusing on shipping trends in the North Atlantic Region. In
particular, we request the GAO to evaluate the viability of
the Port of Philadelphia and Camden becoming a major regional
hub port for deep draft container ships if the Delaware River
were deepened from 40 to 45 feet. There is no guarantee that
the new generation of container ships will ever call at the
Port of Philadelphia and Camden at a depth of 45 feet.
In addition, studies prepared by the USACE Waterways
Experiment Station (WES) to determine the potential for
saltwater flow into the C&D Canal and the Delaware River may
have reached inappropriate conclusions to minimize potential
environmental impacts of the project. The studies have since
been sent back to the WES for reanalysis. We ask that the GAO
investigate discrepancies between the studies and determine
how they came about. We would also like the GAO to examine
all current Corps studies on the Delaware River Deepening
Project to determine if similar discrepancies exist.
This information will be critical in helping Congress
determine whether the project's national economic benefits
are sufficient enough to invest over $200 million. Since
Congress will consider future funding for this project in the
FY2001 appropriations cycle, it is essential this project
receive objective scrutiny by the GAO immediately. We offer
our assistance in any way possible to facilitate a cost-
benefit analysis, evaluate of environmental impacts, and a
review of the accuracy of the USACE studies of this project
in a timely manner. Thank you for your efforts and we look
forward to your report.
Sincerely,
Jim Saxton,
Member of Congress,
Frank A. LoBiondo,
Member of Congress.
____
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control,
Dover, DE, March 31, 2000.
LTC Debra M. Lewis,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wanamaker Building,
Philadelphia, PA.
Dear Lieutenant Colonel Lewis: I am writing to follow up on
our numerous conversations and correspondence regarding the
proposed deepening of the Delaware River Main Channel. I
appreciate your willingness to address these issues and to
work constructively with the State of Delaware to ensure that
this project will not go forward unless it complies with our
environmental laws and that any environmental impacts from
this project will be minimal.
This letter summarizes the remaining environmental issues
that the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control (DNREC) believes need resolution. In particular, it
is essential that the Corps demonstrate conclusively that the
project will comply with State of Delaware Surface Water
Quality Standards, the Wetlands Act, and the requirements of
the Subaqueous Lands Act. We also are beginning to formulate
the requirements for testing and monitoring that would apply
before, during, and after completion of the project should it
move forward.
As you are aware, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration regulations (15 CFR 930) require that this
project be consistent with the Delaware Coastal Management
Program (DCMP) policies. That program issued a conditional
Federal Consistency determination to the Corps on 1 May 1997.
The extensive scope of this project necessitated that DCMP
review the project in phases. Now that the final design and
specification phase is underway, it is an appropriate time to
address remaining issues regarding the project. The
conditional approvals did not obviate the need to meet the
substantive requirements of other state permits.
The outstanding issues include construction of material
placement facilities, placement of sandy dredged material on
beaches, the wetland creation project at Kelly Island,
various monitoring and reporting requirements, fisheries
concerns, and future maintenance burdens for the project.
I. Construction of Confined Disposal Facilities
Prior to any construction, it will be necessary to identify
and describe in detail the functions of all confined disposal
facilities (CDFs) to be used for the project--whether located
within the land area of the State of Delaware or discharging
into Delaware waters. It is our understanding that the only
Delaware-land sites slated for use are Reedy Point North and
South, both currently in existence. This list identifying the
disposal sites must include a description of the current
status of each site, expected future capacity, amount of
material to be deposited during the initial dredging cycle,
and ability to accept material for future maintenance cycles.
Additionally, there must be reasonable assurance that the
site is designed and operated in a manner which can ensure
compliance with Delaware State Water Quality Standards. The
rationale and justification supporting this assurance must be
provided in detail.
In addition, an Erosion and Sediment Control plan is
required from the Division of Soil & Water for any landward
disturbance of 5000 square feet or more. Several of the
principles regarding erosion and sediment control are
included for general reference:
An approved erosion and sediment control plan must be
followed. Any modifications to the plan must be approved as
revisions to the approved plan.
Any site or portion thereof on which a land-disturbing
activity is completed or stopped for a period of fourteen
days must be stabilized either permanently or temporarily
following the specifications and standards in the Erosion and
Sediment Control Handbook.
Unless an exception is approved, not more than 20 acres may
be cleared at any one time in order to minimize areas of
exposed ground cover and reduce erosion rates.
A land-disturbing activity shall not cause increased
sedimentation or accelerated erosion off-site. Off-site means
neighboring properties, drainageways, public facilities,
public rights-of-ways or streets, and water courses including
streams, lakes, wetlands, etc.
More specific criteria for vegetation and berm
stabilization can be found in the Delaware Erosion and
Sediment Control Handbook for Development.
The Corps must also comply with any additional requirements
of the State NPDES program. A permit regulating the discharge
of effluent from the CDFs is likely. Additional
[[Page S8280]]
NPDES Storm Water Regulations apply, since a NPDES
certification is required for land disturbing activities.
The ``Regulations Governing Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Industrial Activity, Part 2--Special
Conditions for Storm Water Associated with Land Disturbing
Activities'' (1998) states that ``Land disturbing
activities shall not commence and coverage under this Part
shall not apply until the Sediment and Stormwater
Management Plan for a site has been approved, stamped,
signed and dated . . .''.
2. Placement of sandy dredged material on beaches
To date, DNREC has not received official word of which
beaches have been chosen to receive sand from the southern
portion of the project. This information should be made
available as soon as it is determined so that we can evaluate
the permits and requirements needed. Please be advised that
DNREC expects that consideration be given to a number of
shoreline locations previously unnourished. A Section 401
Water Quality Certification and State Subaqueous Lands permit
will be necessary for beach nourishment activities. Our
intent is to ensure that state Water Quality Standards are
met. DNREC also wants to ensure that beach replenishment
activities will not take place during critical horseshoe crab
spawning periods (April 15-June 30). Also, sand placement
activities should not use barriers (i.e. silt fences,
bulkheads, rocks, etc.) that would interfere with spawning.
3. Wetland creation/enhancement project at Kelly Island
DNREC anticipates coordinating with the Corps on the final
design and monitoring plan for Kelly Island at a meeting on 5
April 2000. However, the following describes general
principles which would be applicable regardless of the
specific design criteria.
An Erosion and Sediment Control plan is required from the
Division of Soil & Water Conservation. The general
requirements are listed above under item 1.
The Corps must also comply with any additional requirements
of the State NPDES program. This includes the NPDES Storm
Water Regulations as well as the State Sediment and
Stormwater Regulations, since a NPDES certification is
required for land disturbing activities.
Because the beneficial use project at Kelly Island will
take place in an existing wetland area, a Wetlands Permit
will be required from the Division of Water Resources. In
addition, a Subaqueous Lands Lease will also be necessary.
There are several standard conditions for mitigation projects
which should apply to the wetland creation/enhancement taking
place at that site. For example, standard mitigation projects
must demonstrate 85% survival of the planted vegetation after
the second growing season. If 85% is not achieved then a
report outlining corrective action must be submitted. Other
parameters for stabilization and flow should be developed by
Corps engineers and submitted to DNREC for final review and
approval.
The Corps must also commit to maintaining the integrity of
the created site at Kelly Island and to do what is necessary
to evaluate and ensure the function of the new/enhanced
wetland area. In addition, the beach constructed at the
perimeter must be able to withstand a significant storm
event. The project should be examined and monitored annually
in order to ensure berm stability, vegetation viability,
flushing, and general ``success'' of revitalizing the wetland
habitat at that site. A monitoring report to this effect will
be required annually.
The DNREC, Division of Fish and Wildlife, has concerns
about increased silt load and sedimentation of adjacent
oyster habitat during construction of the perimeter sand sill
at Kelly Island and while the confined disposal area is being
filled. Seed beds of concern include ``Drum Bed,'' ``Silver
Bed,'' and ``Pleasanton's Rock,'' as these are the closest
seed beds to Kelly Island. Should an impact be noted on these
beds, it would indicate a need to monitor ``Ridge Bed'' which
is farther from the project area but has historically been
very productive.
Monitoring of oyster population conditions and habitat
quality should begin prior to construction and continue
throughout. Checking for changes in sedimentation patterns
should be extensive and focused at broad areas of each bed
rather than be limited to discrete sections. In addition, it
may be necessary to monitor oyster habitat on leased grounds
south of the Mahon River mouth as they may be impacted by
sediments moved south by ebb tide currents.
4. Monitoring and reporting
Monitoring at confined disposal facilities
Monitoring of confined disposal facilities (CDFs) must be
performed to determine whether return flows from the CDFs
cause or contribute to violations of Delaware Surface Water
Quality Standards. This is an issue of concern for the
Department because CDFs often discharge return flows into
ecologically sensitive, shallow water habitats which have
limited dilution and dispersion capacity. To evaluate whether
return flows are causing or contributing to violations of the
Standards, the Corps will need to collect data on flow rate,
duration, concentration, and toxicity of CDF discharges and
then determine the resulting concentration and toxicity in
the receiving water through a combination of fate and
transport modeling and in-stream sampling. Both near-field
(i.e., mixing zone) and far-field (i.e., complete mix)
concentrations and toxicity resulting from the discharges
must be determined and compared to applicable Standards.
Sampling and analysis for the CDF should follow the general
approach taken by the Corps in evaluating the Pedricktown CDF
(i.e., ``Pedricktown Confined Disposal Facility Contaminant
Loading and Water Quality Analysis,'' June 1999). The Corps
will need to submit a sampling plan/scope of work to the
Department for review and approval prior to proceeding with
this work and prior to discharging from the CDFs. Close out
reports detailing the findings of the sampling and analysis
will also need to be submitted to the Department for review
and approval. If violations of applicable Standards are
identified, then the close out report should identify the
steps the Corps intends to take in order to eliminate future
violations. Based upon the findings of the initial studies,
the Department will determine the nature and extent of
subsequent testing that will need to be performed at the CDFs
in order to assess compliance with Delaware Surface Water
Quality Standards.
In addition to the testing described above, the Corps will
also need to collect contaminant data for surface sediments
in the CDFs and assess potential impacts to terrestrial and
avian species that may use the disposal areas. A plan to
accomplish this work should be submitted to the Department
for review and approval, as should a close out report. If
unacceptable risks are identified as a result of this
assessment, then the Corps will need to develop a plan to
limit access to the site.
Finally, the Corps will need to submit an annual letter to
the Department which summarizes the operational history and
structural integrity of any CDF used over the previous year.
The letter should address the following factors:
Condition of containment berms, dewatering and stormwater
weirs, and other structures.
Summary of disposal operations at the CDF over the past
year, including volumes of material placed into the CDF, as
well as volumes, mass loading, duration, and timing of return
flows.
Summary of maintenance and management activities conducted
at the CDF.
Summary of any material removed from the site.
Analysis of available remaining disposal capacity at the
site.
Summary of surface and groundwater monitoring programs not
otherwise covered in the study identified above.
Monitoring during dredging operation
It will be necessary to monitor during dredging operations
in order to ensure that the predictions of ``no significant
impacts'' are fulfilled. Therefore, the Corps should submit a
sampling plan to the Department for review and approval.
Measuring the exact position of the dredge at all times is
essential to ensuring that the channel and bends are deepened
based upon the footprint of the original project. Sampling in
the water column surrounding the excavation will require, at
a minimum, collection of data on total suspended solids
concentrations, dissolved oxygen, ammonia, and any
contaminants of concern identified in the pre-dredge
evaluation. Suspended solids must be maintained between 25
and 250 mg/l at the edge of a two-hundred foot regulatory
mixing zone in order to meet water quality standards,
according to the report Metal Contamination of Sediments in
the Delaware River Navigation Channel (Greene, 1999). The
results from all sampling data must be compared to applicable
Delaware Surface Water Quality Standards, and any exceedances
must be reported immediately.
The Corps must also work with DNREC to develop a protocol
that will come into effect if water quality violations are
identified. This would include events where total suspended
solids are higher than those determined to be sustainable
around the point of excavation.
Additionally, the Corps must follow established protocol if
turtles, sturgeon, or other species of concern are identified
in the dredge slurry or if there is indication that these
species are excessively impacted.
Standard best management practices should be used to the
extent practicable during the dredging operation in order to
minimize sediment suspension, impacts to aquatic organisms,
and water quality exceedances.
If the Corps intends to use the practice of economic
loading during the Main Channel Deepening project, this must
be discussed with the DNREC. Permission must be granted for
economic loading and will be limited by geographical location
and material characteristics. Additional monitoring will also
be required.
Bi-Annual Reporting
In addition to the annual reporting information stated
above, I request that the Secretary of DNREC receive a bi-
annual report detailing the progress of the Main Channel
Deepening project, including the locations dredged in the
previous twelve months, the status and capacity of CDFs, and
any unforeseen consequences and their remedies. I would
expect members of my staff to be in regular contact with
their peers at the Corps in order to ensure that the project
satisfies the requirements of the State of Delaware's
laws, regulations, and standards.
5. Fisheries and living resource concerns
Aquatic species of concern include sea turtles, several
species of whales, and shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, along
with several others. The Corps must follow the recommended
dredging windows as established
[[Page S8281]]
by the Delaware River Basin Fish and Wildlife Cooperative and
as reported in the 1997 Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement.
In addition, the following concerns from the Division of
Fish and Wildlife must be addressed:
Striped bass spawning is a concern from the Delaware
Memorial Bridge to Philadelphia April 15 to June 15. The
Delaware Basin Fish and Wildlife Cooperative May 1997 policy
entitled ``Seasonal restrictions for dredging, blasting and
overboard disposal in the mainstream of the Delaware River''
should be followed in order to protect anadromous spawners
such as striped bass.
Atlantic sturgeon spawning sites are located over rocky
bottom in the deepest portion of the river. Spawning season
is April 15 to June 15. Because the eggs adhere to the hard
surfaces, rock should not be blasted or removed from the
river through the end of June to protect sturgeon eggs and
larvae.
Atlantic sturgeon wintering areas are located from
Artificial Island to Chester, Pennsylvania.
An observer should be placed on hopper dredges to monitor
for sturgeon impacts on overwintering fish in the wintering
areas.
The Corps will need an ``incidental take statement'' from
NMFS as required under the Endangered Species Act for sea
turtles and shortnose sturgeon. The Corps should ensure that
their agreement with NMFS reflects the most up-to-date
requirements. A copy of this statement should be provided to
the Division of Fish and Wildlife.
In addition, a turtle observer should be on board the
dredge during the period of the year when sea turtles are
known to be present in our area. The report from this
observer, as well as any identified turtle parts, should be
forwarded to the Division of Fish and Wildlife as well.
6. Future Maintenance
If the Main Channel is deepened, there will be increased
volumes of material removed during each maintenance cycle in
order to achieve the project depth. This material will place
additional burden on existing disposal areas, causing them to
fill at a more rapid rate than with the forty-foot project
depth. As a result, new disposal facilities must be sited or
beneficial uses must be developed for the material currently
contained in the facilities. The Corps must be prepared to
address dredged material placement needs in the context of
future maintenance related to the proposed deepening.
We look forward to continuing our dialogue and working to
resolve the above issues before any plans for actual
construction take place. As the Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control, it is our mission to
ensure that projects are designed to avoid or minimize
adverse impacts on air and water quality, habitat, and living
resources. The above requests and requirements are in keeping
with this charge as it applies to the proposed deepening of
the Delaware River Main Channel.
Sincerely,
Nicholas A. DiPasquale,
Secretary.
____
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control,
Dover, DE, July 14, 2000.
LTC Debra M. Lewis,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wanamaker Building,
Philadelphia, PA.
Re: Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project
Dear Lieutenant Colonel Lewis: The Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) has reviewed your
letter of June 9, 2000 and the updated matrix entitled
``Assessment of Environmental Issues'' that you provided in
response to my March 31, 2000 letter regarding the deepening
of the Delaware River Main Channel. This letter also
addresses issues raised in your most recent correspondence to
me of July 9, 2000. Let me begin by thanking you and your
staff for meeting with me and members of my staff, discussing
our concerns and providing the organized response. Overall,
we appear to be in agreement on the means to resolve many
issues. Clarifications of DNREC requirements for specific
issues are outlined below. We still have several remaining
concerns.
The following are comments from the Department regarding
the matrix ``Assessment of Environmental Issues.'' Comments
are organized by section.
1.0 CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITIES
1.1 & 1.2 The Corps will need to follow the
requirements for Delaware permit processing,
regardless of the eventual enforcement mechanism.
DNREC uses EPA Application Form 1--General
Information; EPA Application Form 2D--New Sources and
New Discharges and EPA Application Form 2E--
Facilities Which Do Not Discharge Process Wastewater
to collect information to control discharges such as
those from CDFs. These forms must be filled out and
submitted to the Division of Water Resources for all
discharges that could impact Delaware waters. Copies
are attached.
1.3 Procedures for effluent monitoring must be
submitted to DNREC for review and comment. This
should be sent along with the information required
for permit processing (above). State of Delaware
water quality standards attached.
1.4 It appears that DNREC's concern for contaminants
might be deferred until post project. DNREC's
original comment reflected two concerns: potential
contaminant discharge during de-watering and
potential longer term impacts after de-watering.
These concerns need by addressed by the Corps before
the project commences.
2.0 SAND PLACEMENT ON DELAWARE BEACHES
2.1 See Attachment A for a list of Delaware's
preferred locations for sand placement.
The FEIS does not address the impacts of placing
material on Delaware beaches. The EIS will not be
complete until it is amended to address this issue.
2.2 It is unclear from your response whether you
intend to apply for Subaqueous Lands permits. Does
your acknowledgement of 401 Water Quality
Certification requirements include agreement on
Subaqueous Lands permits? A Subaqueous Lands permit
or its enforceable equivalent is needed.
2.3 DNREC is satisfied with the agreement regarding
horseshoe crab protection measures.
3.0 WETLAND CREATION/ENHANCEMENT
3.1 If tidal wetlands are to be impacted during the
construction of Kelly Island, the substantive
requirements of a State of Delaware wetlands permit
must be obtained before any work can commence.
If the de-watering of Kelly Island necessitates a
discharge into surface waters, the Crops will be
required to complete the same application forms
required for CDFs.
3.2 DNREC will continue working with the Corps until a
final wetland design plan can be approved. Work
cannot commence until this plan is finalized.
Regardless of what the Kelly Island project is
referred to, we are targeting the survival rates
outlined in the March 31, 2000 letter as measures of
success.
3.3 A post-construction monitoring plan to ensure
protection of water quality standards must be
developed by the Corps and submitted to DNREC for
review and approval before the project can commence.
In addition, the Corps must clarify how long it
intends to maintain the beach constructed in front of
the wetland area.
3.4 A Subaqueous Lands permit or its enforceable
equivalent is required.
4.0 OYSTER HABITAT MONITORING
DNREC is awaiting the final oyster-monitoring plan from
the Corps for review and comment. The monitoring plan
should include widespread measures of sediment
coverage.
5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING
DNREC requires that a sampling plan at the point of
dredging be submitted for review and comment. This
plan is to include steps to be taken if TSS exceeds
250 mg/l.
Corps regulations require that an EIS address water
quality impacts in states adjoining areas where side
channels and berthing areas are to be dredged. The
Corps is to assist the states where this dredging is
to occur in obtaining Section 401 Water Quality
Certification from the State where there could be
adverse impacts on water quality. The Corps has not
done this for the dredging that will occur at Marcus
Hook.
6.0 ENDANGERED SPECIES
6.1 DNREC requires the submission of protocols for
monitoring potential impacts to sea turtles and
short-nose sturgeon for review and comment before the
project commences.
6.2 DNREC is satisfied with agreements regarding
protections of sea turtles.
7.0 DREDGING
7.1 DNREC is satisfied regarding adherence to dredging
windows.
7.2 DNREC is satisfied regarding adherence to dredging
windows for striped bass.
7.3 DNREC is satisfied regarding adherence to dredging
windows for Atlantic sturgeon.
7.4 DNREC is satisfied regarding adherence to dredging
windows for Atlantic sturgeon.
7.5 DNREC is satisfied regarding Atlantic sturgeon
overwintering monitoring for hopper dredge
activities.
7.6 The extent of economic loading needs to be
finalized and approved by DNREC before the project
can commence.
* Please note final comments regarding female
overwintering blue crabs.
8.0 REPORTING
[[Page S8282]]
8.1. An outline for the CDF Annual Operational Report
must be submitted to DNREC for review and comment
before the project may commence.
A description of current CDF site conditions must also
be submitted.
8.2 DNREC is satisfied with agreements for bi-annual
progress reporting.
8.3 DNREC is satisfied with agreements for CDF
capacity for maintenance.
Please share with us as soon as possible the Corps'
proposed dredging schedule and dredging techniques. Over the
past years, we have discussed many dredging closure windows
and investigated the impacts of economic loading. If the
Corps plans to dredge the lower Delaware Bay during the
winter, we need to know what measures will be put in place to
avoid and reduce impacts to overwintering female blue crabs.
During cold winters female blue crabs hibernate in the
channel, particularly on the channel sides. They may be
torpid and unable to move away from the dredge as stated in
the Supplemental EIS. This, combined with the possibility of
economic loading depositing a burdensome amount of sediment
on top of them, should be accounted for and avoided. This
most important fishery must be protected.
Also, we have gotten conflicting information regarding the
final quality of rock available after blasting. As you may be
aware, our conditional consistency determination required the
Corps to make this rock available to Delaware for habitat
improvement. This rock is a resource that belongs to
Delaware. Placement of rock in Delaware's eleven permitted
reef sites could serve as partial mitigation for unavoidable
fisheries impacts sustained during the dredging process.
Additionally, a preliminary DNREC review of berthing area
sediment toxicity data has shown contamination levels of
concern. We are just now bringing this issue up because of
the length of time it took the Corps to provide the requested
data and the time it took our staff to convert the raw data
to an electronic format to facilitate analysis. I trust you
have shared this information with the state environmental
agencies of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. It is our
understanding that Corps regulations and Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act require that an EIS address water quality
impacts in states adjoining areas where side channel berthing
areas are to be dredged and that the Corps is to assist
states to obtain Section 401 Water Quality Certification from
the affected state. DNREC requests that you document
potential effects to waters of the State of Delaware from
dredging activities in side channel/berthing areas in
adjoining states.
Finally, as previously discussed on numerous occasions and
as we have maintained over the past decade, the State of
Delaware continues to assert that the Corps is subject to
state permitting requirements for this project. We have
provided your legal and technical staff with appropriate
statutory and regulatory requirements and permit application
forms. Before we will entertain any further discussion about
alternative mechanisms for satisfying these remaining
environmental and regulatory requirements, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers must provide to the Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control a written legal
justification that articulates why the Corps should be exempt
from applying for required State of Delaware permits.
Sincerely,
Nicholas A. DiPasquale,
Secretary.
Solar and Renewable Energy Activities
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Subcommittee for including $43.617 million for Solar and
Renewable Energy activities, and to discuss briefly a renewable energy
project in my home state of North Dakota.
One of the most abundant sources of energy in the Upper Great Plains
region is wind. My State of North Dakota ranks first in wind power
production potential, and the Department of Energy has said that North
Dakota alone could capture enough wind energy to supply 36 percent of
the power needs of the lower 48 States. Not only does wind offer a
clean and inexpensive form of energy, it also could provide our rural
residents with an important source of income. DOE estimates that a
1,000-acre farm could earn as much as $80,000 per year in wind
royalties.
One wind energy initiative of particular interest to me is being
conducted on the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Reservation by the Center for
New Growth and Economic Development at the Turtle Mountain Community
College. I had hoped that the Committee would have designated $1
million for this project, but the Subcommittee's current allocation was
not at a level to accommodate funding for new start-up projects in the
renewable energy accounts.
I recognize that it is difficult to speculate about what the final
budget allocation for this bill might allow, but I would ask the
chairman and the ranking minority member to consider designating $1
million for this project in conference should additional funds for the
programs under the Subcommittee's jurisdiction become available.
Mr. REID. I recognize the importance of wind energy development not
only for North Dakota but also for the other states that might benefit
from North Dakota's ability to harness this great resource. This
project discussed by the Senator from North Dakota is particularly
unique since it is being conducted by Native Americans in an effort to
reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and to become more financially
self-sufficient. Although we do not know, as the Senator points out,
what our final allocation may be, the Senator can be assured that I
will do my best to see that this initiative is funded, should the
Subcommittee's allocation allow additional projects.
Mr. DOMENICI. It is my understanding that the funds being requested
by the Senator would be used for a wind turbine and for educational
purposes such as teaching others on the reservation and in the region
how to establish and maintain ``wind farms''.
Mr. DORGAN. Yes, the Senator's understanding is correct. The Center
for New Growth and Economic Development will work with Turtle Mountain
Community College to develop a curriculum on ``windsmithing'' so that
others can learn the trade of wind energy. The Turtle Mountain Chippewa
Reservation is located in the middle of a natural wind tunnel so this
is a natural place to develop expertise relating to wind energy.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for this
explanation, and agree that this Center has potential to provide an
innovative approach to an old technology--the windmill.
energy and water development appropriations bill, fy 2001
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with
Senator Reid, the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Water
Appropriations Committee.
I want to raise an issue and briefly discuss an amendment that I
filed regarding the University of Connecticut. The amendment requests
that the Department of Energy release $7.9 million that was originally
appropriate in 1993 for the construction of an Advanced Technologies
Institute at the University of Connecticut. Because of initial problems
with the siting of the facility, the University was granted no-cost
extensions for the award. The problems have since been resolved and the
University is ready to break ground. I believe that the University of
Connecticut, like other institutions, may, without Congressional
action, lose out on the receipt of money that was already set aside for
them. It is my understanding that the Senate, in its wisdom, has
resolved similar situations in recent months. I would ask the chairman
and ranking member to continue to work with me to try and rectify the
situation with the University of Connecticut.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from
Connecticut has said. I would like to work with him on this issue as we
move to Conference on this bill. Several of our colleagues have had
similar problems with other projects and I will continue to work with
the Senator from Connecticut as we move to Conference.
great lakes sediment tributary transport models
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as co-chairs of the Senate Great Lakes
Task Force, the distinguished Senator from Michigan and myself want to
take this opportunity to reiterate our support for a program of great
interest to our colleagues from the Great Lakes states.
Section 516(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers to construct sediment transport
models for major tributaries of the Great Lakes. This is a project
aimed at the prevention end of a complex of sediment-related problems
in the Great Lakes region--problems which are costing this country
millions of dollars each year to remediate. The potential benefits of
these models are such that they will pay for themselves in terms of
reduced dredging and disposal costs. The benefits of
[[Page S8283]]
the program are well-recognized nationally; the program is being used
as a template for a similar authorization for the Upper Mississippi
river system. In addition to their uses to the Corps of Engineers in
planning for dredging needs of the region and development of cost-
effective alternatives to dredging, the tributary transport models are
made available to local, state and federal partners involved in
nonpoint source pollution control to help target their efforts to
prevent erosion which results in sedimentation of harbors and channels.
A total of approximately sixty Great Lakes tributaries qualify under
the authorization guidelines, 25 of which are considered high priority
based on their current dredging needs.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in each of fiscal 1998 and fiscal 1999 the
Congress was able to provide $500,000 for this project--funds which
were spent to begin construction of models for six priority
tributaries. Models of the Nemadji River, and Saginaw River have been
completed, but lack of funding in fiscal 2000 has delayed completion of
models of the Maumee River, Menominee River, Buffalo River, and Grand
Calumet River. Plans to begin development of additional models for
priority tributaries in Mill & Cascade Creeks, PA and Grand River, MI
have also been delayed. With the first models just finishing
completion, we are already seeing the benefits of the program. In the
case of the Nemadji River model, the county government is starting to
use the model to explore potential effects of changes to forestry
practices in the Nemadji River watershed to reduce bank erosion and
soil loss to Lake Superior. Preliminary analysis carried out on the
Maumee model indicate that soil conservation can reduce future dredging
and disposal costs.
We note that the House Committee has provided $500,000 in fiscal 2001
funding for the modeling program and ask the distinguished ranking
member to make funding for this program a high priority in conference
with the House.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to thank our colleagues from the
Great Lakes states for highlighting the importance of this program and
its potential for long-term cost. And to the extent that resources are
available, I will do my best to address the funding needs of this
program in Conference.
Mr. DeWINE. I thank the chairman for his consideration and
congratulate the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee for presenting the Senate with an Energy and Water
Development appropriations bill which addresses so many of this
nation's water resources infrastructure needs.
low lake levels
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to ask my distinguished
colleague from New Mexico and Chairman of the Energy and Water
Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Domenici, if he is aware of a serious
problem facing Ohio and the entire Great Lakes region. For the last 2
years, water levels in the Great Lakes have been declining rapidly.
This year, the water level fell below low water datum for the first
time in nearly 35 years.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am aware of the extreme low water
level problem and understand the difficulties that the Great Lakes
region is facing as a result.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, dredging in Great Lakes harbors and
navigation channels is authorized by reference to low water datum.
During periods of extremely low water, like those today, lake levels
drop below low water datum. These low water levels not only threaten to
cripple Great Lakes industries that depend on waterborne
transportation, but they also create a serious threat to the safety of
the thousands of recreational and commercial boaters on the Lakes.
Would my colleague from New Mexico agree that the Corps should ensure
minimal operation depths consistent with the original authorized depths
and current use of the channels and harbors when Great Lakes water
levels are below the International Great Lakes Datum of 1985?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe that the corps should work
toward this goal recognizing the constrained nature of the operation
and maintenance budget recommended for fiscal year 2001 and existing
traffic using the system.
great lakes remedial action planning assistance and sediment
remediation technology demonstrations
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Fiscal Year
2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations, we would like to
bring to the attention of the distinguished chairman and ranking member
the critical problem which the Great Lakes region faces in dealing with
a legacy of sediment contamination.
In 1987, the International Joint Commission designated 43 Areas of
Concern on the Great Lakes where human use of the aquatic resources is
severely impaired. Of the 31 U.S. sites, none have been cleaned up to
the point of de-listing in the 13 years which have passed since
listing. In most cases, the remaining recalcitrant problem is sediments
which are contaminated with persistent toxic substances.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the Army Corps of Engineers plays a key
role in addressing the contaminated sediments problem in the Great
Lakes region. Section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 authorized the Corps of Engineers to provide technical assistance
to the Remedial Action Planning Committees for each of the Areas of
Concern. This technical assistance is critical to developing a cost-
effective and scientifically sound approach to cleanup. One of the
largest obstacles to cleanup of contaminated sediments in the Great
Lakes region is the lack of availability of alternative technologies
for remediation of contaminated sediments. The Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 amended Section 401 allowing technical
assistance funds to be used for the development and demonstration of
promising new remediation technologies.
Since 1990, Congress has provided a total of just $3.25 million for
the Section 401 program. Funding has never exceeded $500,000 in any
fiscal year, a level far too low to support even a single technology
demonstration while maintaining key technical assistance capabilities.
We note that the House Committee has provided $600,000 in fiscal 2001
funding for the Section 401 Program. While we welcome the prospect of
this increase, even at this level funding remains woefully short of the
amount needed for this key component of our regional battle to address
the problem of sediment contamination in the Great Lakes. We ask the
distinguished chairman and ranking member to make funding for this
program a high priority in conference with the House and within any
additional funding which may become available.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to thank our colleagues from the
Great Lakes States for highlighting the importance of this program. To
the extent that resources are available, I will do my best to address
the funding needs of this program in conference.
____________________