[Senate Report 110-488]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                                                      Calendar No. 1059
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     110-488

======================================================================



 
                     GREAT LAKES LEGACY ACT OF 2008

                                _______
                                

  September 24 (legislative day, September 17), 2008.--Ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

    Mrs. Boxer, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 2994]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 
referred a bill (S. 2994) to amend the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act to provide for the remediation of sediment 
contamination in areas of concern, reports favorably thereon 
and recommends that the bill do pass.

                      Purposes of the Legislation

    S. 2994 reauthorizes the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002. S. 
2994 expands the existing program to improve environmental and 
water quality in the Great Lakes by reducing contaminated 
sediments in the Lakes.

                    General Statement and Background

    The Great Lakes hold one-fifth of the world's freshwater 
and comprise 95 percent of America's fresh surface water. They 
supply drinking water to millions of people and provide a $5 
billion fishery. However, as the Midwest industrialized over 
the last two centuries, contaminated sediments accumulated in 
the Great Lakes. Over time, contaminated sediments release 
pollutants degrading water quality and harming fish and other 
wildlife.
    To help address this problem, Congress enacted the Great 
Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 to remove contaminated sediments from 
Areas of Concern--sites in the Great Lakes that fail to meet 
the water quality goals established by agreement between the 
United States and Canada in the Great Lakes Water Quality 
Agreement. Since this cleanup program was created in 2002, an 
estimated 800,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments have 
been removed from the Lakes.
    To continue tackling this considerable problem and removing 
contaminated sediments from the remaining Areas of Concern, 
this bill would expand the program. Specifically, the bill 
increases authorizations for the program from $50 million to 
$150 million for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. It 
also includes provisions to give the EPA greater flexibility to 
manage and distribute funds, and will make some projects 
eligible for habitat restoration under the program.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 provides that the Act may be cited as the ``Great 
Lakes Legacy Act of 2008''.

Sec. 2. Remediation of sediment contamination in areas of concern

    Section 2 makes certain demonstration or pilot projects 
eligible under the program; makes aquatic habitat restoration 
eligible under the program after remediation; prioritizes 
certain projects for funding; and permits advance payment by 
the non-federal sponsor in certain circumstances; authorizes 
$150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to 
carry out the program.

Sec. 3. Public information program

    Section 3 authorizes the Administrator to carry out a 
public information and participation program, including by 
providing grants to States, Indian tribes, corporations, 
nongovernmental organizations, and other appropriate entities, 
for public information and outreach activities relating to the 
remediation of contaminated sediment in areas of concern that 
are located wholly or partially in the United States.

Sec. 4. Research and development program

    Section 4 authorizes a research and development program 
through 2013.

                          Legislative History


S. 2994 was introduced by Senator Levin of Michigan. The bill was read 
        twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and 
        Public Works. The Committee met on July 31, 2008, when S. 2994 
        was ordered favorably reported without amendment by voice vote.

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

    In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the committee notes that the 
Congressional Budget Office has found that the bill ``contains 
no private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.'' In other words, its costs on private entities 
would be below the UMRA threshold.

                          Mandates Assessment

    In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Public Law 104-4), the Committee notes that the Congressional 
Budget Office has said that ``S. 2994 contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 
UMRA. The bill would benefit state, local, and tribal 
governments by extending EPA programs to clean up sediment 
contamination in the Great Lakes and by continuing an existing 
grant program to provide public information about such 
contamination. Any costs those governments might incur, 
including matching funds, would result from complying with 
conditions of federal aid.''

                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate

                                                September 17, 2008.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Madam Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2994, the Great 
Lakes Legacy 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,
                                                   Peter R. Orszag.
    Enclosure.

S. 2994--Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2008

    Summary: S. 2994 would reauthorize the Environmental 
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 
sediment 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 $15 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.
    Assuming appropriation of the specified amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing this legislation would cost $629 
million over the 2009-2013 period. Enacting S. 2994 would not 
affect direct spending or receipts.
    S. 2994 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 $629 million over the 
2009-2013 period, assuming appropriation of the amounts 
authorized for each year. Those estimated outlays are based on 
historical spending patterns for similar activities. The 
estimated budgetary impact of S. 2994 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 Clean-up Projects:
    Authorization Level......................................     150     150     150     150     150       750
    Estimated Outlays........................................      60     120     138     147     150       615
Research and Development:
    Authorization Level......................................       3       3       3       3       3        15
    Estimated Outlays........................................       2       3       3       3       3        14
Total Proposed Changes:
    Authorization Level......................................     153     153     153     153     153       765
    Estimated Outlays........................................      62     123     141     150     153       629
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 2994 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA. The bill would benefit state, local, and 
tribal governments by extending EPA programs to clean up 
sediment contamination in the Great Lakes and by continuing an 
existing grant program to provide public information about such 
contamination. Any costs those governments might incur, 
including matching funds, would result from complying with 
conditions of federal aid.
    Previous CBO estimate: On August 8, 2008, CBO transmitted a 
cost estimate for H.R. 6460 as ordered reported by the House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on July 31, 
2008. Both S. 2994 and H.R. 6460 would reauthorize EPA's grant 
program for the remediation of sediment contamination in the 
Great Lakes. However, S. 2994 would authorize the appropriation 
of a smaller amount for research and development activities. 
This difference between the two bills is reflected in the cost 
estimates.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susanne S. Mehlman. 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Burke Doherty 
and Neil Hood. Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


      Sec. 101. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 SEC. 118. GREAT LAKES.

      (a) * * *
           * * * * * * *
      (c) Great Lakes Management.--
          (1) Functions.--* * *
           * * * * * * *
          (12) Remediation of sediment contamination in areas 
        of concern.--
                  (A) In general.--In accordance with this 
                paragraph, the Administrator, acting through 
                the Program Office, may carry out projects that 
                meet the requirements of subparagraph (B).
                  (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--
                          [(ii)] (i) subject to subparagraph 
                        (D), implements a plan to remediate 
                        contaminated sediment; [or]
                          [(iii)] (ii) prevents further or 
                        renewed contamination of sediment.
                          (iii) is a demonstration or pilot 
                        project that uses innovative 
                        approaches, technologies, or techniques 
                        for the remediation of sediment 
                        contamination;
                          (iv) restores aquatic habitat after 
                        remediation; or
                          [(i)] (v) monitors or evaluates 
                        contaminated sediment;
                  [(C) Priority.--In selecting projects to 
                carry out under this paragraph, the 
                Administrator shall give priority to a project 
                that--
                          [(i) constitutes remedial action for 
                        contaminated sediment;
                          [(ii)(I) has been identified in a 
                        Remedial Action Plan submitted under 
                        paragraph (3); and
                          [(II) is ready to be implemented;
                          [(iii) will use an innovative 
                        approach, technology, or technique that 
                        may provide greater environmental 
                        benefits, or equivalent environmental 
                        benefits at a reduced cost; or
                          [(iv) includes remediation to be 
                        commenced not later than 1 year after 
                        the date of receipt of funds for the 
                        project.]
                  (C) Priority.--
                          (i) In general.--In selecting 
                        projects to carry out under this 
                        paragraph, the Administrator shall give 
                        priority to a project that--
                                  (I) constitutes remedial 
                                action for contaminated 
                                sediment;
                                  (II)(aa) has been identified 
                                in a remedial action plan 
                                submitted under paragraph (3); 
                                and
                                  (bb) is ready to be 
                                implemented;
                                  (III) will use an innovative 
                                approach, technology, or 
                                technique that may provide 
                                greater environmental benefits, 
                                or equivalent environmental 
                                benefits at a reduced cost; or
                                  (IV) includes remediation to 
                                be commenced not later than 1 
                                year after the date of receipt 
                                of funds for the project.
                          (ii) Environmental significance.--
                        Notwithstanding any regulation 
                        promulgated or guidance issued to 
                        implement this section, the 
                        Administrator may provide additional 
                        consideration to a project that is--
                                  (I) funded by a potentially 
                                responsible party; and
                                  (II) determined to be of 
                                greater environmental 
                                significance than a competing 
                                proposal.
                  (D) Limitation.--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.
                  (E) Non-federal share.--
                          (i) In general.--The non-Federal 
                        share of the cost of a project carried 
                        out under this paragraph shall be at 
                        least 35 percent.
                          (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.
                          (iii) 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 performed 
                                under, an administrative order 
                                on consent or judicial consent 
                                decree (including any in-kind 
                                services or funds provided in 
                                implementing the administrative 
                                order on consent or judicial 
                                consent decree); [but]
                                  (II) may include funds paid, 
                                or the value of any in-kind 
                                service performed, by a 
                                potentially responsible party, 
                                subject to the condition that 
                                the eligibility of the 
                                potentially responsible party 
                                to contribute to the non-
                                Federal share is evaluated on 
                                the merits on a site-specific 
                                basis, in the context of added 
                                value, such as at sites at 
                                which an orphan share exists or 
                                the remedy will be enhanced 
                                (such as where the qualitative 
                                or quantitative scope of the 
                                remediation is improved, 
                                innovative methods are 
                                employed, or the remediation 
                                will be accelerated); but
                                  [(II)] (III) may not include 
                                any funds paid pursuant to, or 
                                the value of any in-kind 
                                service performed under, a 
                                unilateral administrative order 
                                or court order.
                          (iv) 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.
                          (v) Payment and retention of non-
                        federal share.--The non-Federal sponsor 
                        for a project under this paragraph may 
                        pay to the Administrator, for retention 
                        and use by the Administrator in 
                        carrying out the project, the non-
                        Federal share of the cost of the 
                        project.
                  [(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.]
                  [(G)] (F) Coordination.--In carrying out 
                projects under this paragraph, the 
                Administrator shall coordinate with the 
                Secretary of the Army, and with the Governors 
                of States in which the projects are located, to 
                ensure that Federal and State assistance for 
                remediation in areas of concern is used as 
                efficiently as practicable.
                  (G) Advance payment and reimbursement 
                costs.--The Administrator, acting through the 
                Program Office, may enter into an agreement 
                with a non-Federal sponsor to carry out a 
                project under this paragraph under which the 
                non-Federal sponsor may, as appropriate--
                          (i) pay in advance the non-Federal 
                        share of the cost of the project; and
                          (ii) receive from the Administrator 
                        reimbursement for amounts (other than 
                        the non-Federal share) expended by the 
                        non-Federal sponsor for the project.
                  (H) Definition of potentially responsible 
                party.--In this paragraph, the term 
                ``potentially responsible party'' means an 
                individual or entity that may be liable under 
                any Federal or State environmental remediation 
                law (including regulations) with respect to a 
                project carried out under this paragraph.
                  [(H)] (I) 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] $150,000,000 for 
                        each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
                          (ii) Availability.--Funds made 
                        available under clause (i) shall remain 
                        available until expended.
          (13) Public information and participation program.--
                  [(A) In general.--The Administrator, acting 
                through the Program Office and in coordination 
                with States, Indian tribes, local governments, 
                and other entities, may carry out a public 
                information program to provide information 
                relating to the remediation of contaminated 
                sediment to the public in areas of concern that 
                are located wholly or partially in the United 
                States.]
                  (A) In general.--The Administrator, acting 
                through the Program Office and in coordination 
                with States, Indian tribes, local governments, 
                and other entities, shall carry out a public 
                information and participation program, 
                including by providing grants to States, Indian 
                tribes, corporations, nongovernmental 
                organizations, and other appropriate entities, 
                for the provision to the public of information 
                and outreach activities relating to the 
                remediation of contaminated sediment in areas 
                of concern that are located wholly or partially 
                in the United States.
                  (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] 2009 through 2013.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                          TITLE I--GREAT LAKES

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``Great Lakes Legacy Act of 
2002''.

SEC. 102. REPORT ON REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 106. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

  (a) In General.--In coordination with other Federal, State, 
and local officials, the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency may conduct research on the development and 
use of innovative approaches, technologies, and techniques for 
the remediation of sediment contamination in areas of concern 
that are located wholly or partially in the United States.
  (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] 2009 through 
        2013.
          (2) Availability.--Funds appropriated under paragraph 
        (1) shall remain available until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                  
