[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 145 (Tuesday, November 12, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10833-S10834]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       THE GREAT LAKES LEGACY ACT

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I want to thank all of my colleagues in 
the Senate, Senator DeWine, Senator Stabenow, Senator Voinovich, 
Senator Clinton, Senator Durbin, Senator Dayton, and Senator Wellstone, 
as well as Representative Vern Ehlers for their leadership in passing 
the Great Lakes Legacy Act which is now on its way to the President. I 
want to thank Chairman Jeffords and the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. I also want to thank the Lake Michigan Federation, Sierra 
Club, the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the Great Lakes Commission, and 
the Council of Great Lakes Industry for their contributions to the 
successes of this bill.
  I am particularly pleased that H.R. 1070 includes several of the 
legislative improvements contained in my companion legislation, S. 
2544. As a result of the Senate amendments, H.R. 1070 now authorizes 
the Great Lakes National Program Office to carry out a public 
information program to provide information about the contaminated 
sediments and activities to cleanup the site. The Great Lakes National 
Program Office is reauthorized and may receive up to $25 million per 
year which is $14 million higher than the expired authorization. H.R. 
1070 also responds to the GAO report released in May by requiring the 
EPA to submit a report to Congress on the actions, time periods, and 
resources which are necessary to fulfill the duties of the EPA relating 
to oversight of Remedial Action Plans at Areas of Concern. Lastly, the 
legislation has the flexibility to allow both cash and in-kind 
contributions to be used to meet the non-Federal cost-share 
requirement.
  The Great Lakes Legacy Act is needed to address a problem that has 
been plaguing the Great Lakes for many decades. The region's industrial 
past unfortunately created a legacy of contaminated sediments, PCBs, 
heavy metals and other toxic substances in the lakes and tributaries 
that feed into the Great Lakes.
  These pollutants, which are degrading the health of both humans and 
wildlife, settled at the bottom of the tributaries and harbors where 
they were dumped and contaminated the sediment or material on the 
bottom. Contaminated sediment is a major environmental problem in our 
region, and it is critical that some of these concentrated deposits of 
contaminated sediment be addressed now, because the longer we wait to 
cleanup the contamination, the longer we will see fish advisories in 
the Great Lakes. Cleanup delays also mean a greater likelihood that the 
sediment will be transported into the open waters of the Great

[[Page S10834]]

Lakes where cleanup is virtually impossible.
  We have taken steps under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to 
limit the amount of toxic pollutants entering the Great Lakes 
ecosystem, and some progress has been made in removing contaminated 
sediments from our regional waters. Based on information that was 
gathered in 1999 by the EPA, over 1.7 million cubic yards of 
contaminated sediment have been removed or treated at a cost of over 
$300 million at the 32 Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes.
  However, the General Accounting Office and others have reported that 
cleanup progress has been slow. With this legislation, EPA can 
aggressively deal with contaminants that were deposited into the 
sediments decades ago.
  This bill authorizes up to $50 million per year to EPA's Great Lakes 
National Program Office in order to cleanup contaminated Areas of 
Concern. This includes monitoring and evaluating sites, cleaning up 
contaminated sediment or preventing further contamination. Projects 
identified in a Remedial Action Plan would be given priority for this 
funding. The EPA is required to submit to Congress a report on the 
actions, time and resources necessary to fulfill the duties of the EPA 
relating to oversight of Remedial Action Plans at Areas of Concern. 
Under this legislation, funding will be made available for innovative 
research to improve our cleanup technology. Additionally, this 
legislation allows EPA to give money to local groups, States, or tribal 
groups for outreach and education efforts.
  Again, I am very pleased that the Congress has taken this critical 
step for the Great Lakes, and I look forward to the President signing 
this legislation.
  Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Michigan and fellow Great Lakes Task Force Co-Chair, Senator Levin, in 
announcing that the Great Lakes Legacy has passed Congress. This 
legislation is vital in our efforts to address the slow progress in 
restoring the Areas of Concern, AOC, throughout the Great Lakes.
  In 1987, the United States and Canada made a commitment under the 
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to cleanup AOCs, but as the General 
Accounting Office and others have reported, cleanup has been slow. The 
EPA reported in 1999 that over 1.7 million cubic yards of contaminated 
sediment have been removed or treated at 32 Areas of Concern in the 
Great Lakes, all at a cost of over $300 million. However, none of the 
26 AOCs that are entirely in the United States have been restored to 
their beneficial use, approximately half of the sites have abandoned 
the remedial action planning process agreed to under the Great Lakes 
Water Quality Agreement, and the EPA does not know how long cleanup 
will take nor how expensive cleanup will be.
  The cleanup of these Areas of Concern is important both to human 
health, as well as the health of the ecosystem. With the legislation 
Congress recently passed, the EPA can aggressively deal with 
contaminants that were deposited into the sediments decades ago. Our 
bill authorizes up to $50 million per year to the EPA's Great Lakes 
National Program Office to cleanup contaminated AOCs. This includes 
monitoring and evaluating sites, cleaning up contaminated sediment, or 
preventing further contamination.
  Under our bill, the EPA will be required to submit to Congress a 
report on the actions, time, and resources necessary to fulfill the 
duties of the EPA relating to oversight of Remedial Action Plans at 
Areas of Concern. Furthermore, funding will be made available for 
innovative research to improve our cleanup technology. Additionally, 
this legislation allows EPA to give money to local organizations, 
States, or tribal groups for outreach and education efforts.
  In closing, I want to thank Senators Levin, Voinovich, Stabenow, 
Clinton, Durbin, Dayton, and Wellstone, as well as Representative Vern 
Ehlers and the other co-sponsors in the House for their leadership. I 
also wish to thank the Lake Michigan Federation, the Sierra Club, the 
Northeast-Midwest Institute, the Great Lakes Commission, and the 
Council of Great Lakes Industry for their contributions to drafting and 
passing this bill. It will have a lasting, positive impact on the 
future of our Great Lakes.


                         Remedial Alternatives

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I want to thank my friend and chairman of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee for his leadership on 
restoring some of the Nation's great waters. H.R. 1070, the Great Lakes 
Legacy Act, will allow the TPA to fund cleanup of contaminated 
sediments at Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes. Because this 
contamination poses a significant human health risk, it is important 
that before cleanup may begin at an Area of Concern using funds under 
this act, there must be consideration of remedial alternatives and 
their short and long-term effects on human health and the environment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I agree with my colleague from Michigan, and the bill 
requires the EPA to review the short-term and long-term effects of the 
proposed cleanup strategy before the project may be carried out.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is my colleague aware that the current Remedial Action 
Plan process and the PA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy 
both consider an evaluation of the heath risks posed by contaminated 
sites and the cleanup alternatives and that many Remedial Action Plans 
already include such an evaluation of the health risks?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I am aware that the current Remedial Action Plan and 
other processes consider an evaluation of the effects of cleanup 
alternatives and that many Remedial Action Plans already include such 
an evaluation. Additional evaluation is not required when the Remedial 
Action Plan has already evaluated the short and long term effects of 
remedial alternatives on human health and the environment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Would my colleague agree that the evaluation that must be 
conducted under this bill is not meant to be a redundant task upon the 
EPA?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I agree.

                          ____________________