Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

107th Congress                                            Rept. 107-587
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                      Part 1

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



 
                     GREAT LAKES LEGACY ACT OF 2002

                                _______
                                

 July 18, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

     Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Transportation and 
                Infrastructure, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1070]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 1070) to amend the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act to authorize the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to make grants for remediation 
of sediment contamination in areas of concern and to authorize 
assistance for research and development of innovative 
technologies for such purposes, having considered the same, 
report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the 
bill as amended do pass.
  The amendments are as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. REMEDIATION OF SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION IN AREAS OF CONCERN IN 
                    THE GREAT LAKES.

  Section 118(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
1268(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(12) Remediation of sediment contamination in areas of 
        concern.--
                  ``(A) In general.--In accordance with this paragraph, 
                the Administrator, acting through the Great Lakes 
                National Program Office and in coordination with the 
                Office of Research and Development, may carry out 
                qualified projects.
                  ``(B) Qualified project.--In this paragraph, a 
                qualified project is a project to be carried out in an 
                area of concern located wholly or in part in the United 
                States that--
                          ``(i) monitors or evaluates contaminated 
                        sediment;
                          ``(ii) subject to subparagraph (D), 
                        implements a plan to remediate contaminated 
                        sediment; or
                          ``(iii) prevents further or renewed 
                        contamination of 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) has been identified in a Remedial 
                        Action Plan submitted pursuant to paragraph (3) 
                        and is ready to be implemented; or
                          ``(iii) will use an innovative approach, 
                        technology, or technique that may provide 
                        greater environmental benefits or equivalent 
                        environmental benefits at a reduced cost.
                  ``(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 matching requirement.--
                          ``(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of 
                        the cost of a project carried out under this 
                        paragraph shall be not less than 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, including any in-kind service 
                        performed under an administrative order on 
                        consent or judicial consent decree, but not 
                        including any in-kind services performed under 
                        a unilateral administrative order or court 
                        order.
                          ``(iii) Operation and maintenance.--The non-
                        Federal share of the cost of the operation and 
                        maintenance of a project carried out under this 
                        paragraph shall be 100 percent.
                  ``(F) Maintenance of effort.--The Administrator may 
                not carry out a project under this paragraph unless the 
                non-Federal sponsor enters into such agreements with 
                the Administrator as the Administrator may require to 
                ensure that the non-Federal sponsor will maintain its 
                aggregate expenditures from all other sources for 
                remediation programs in the area of concern in which 
                the project is located at or above the average level of 
                such expenditures in its 2 fiscal years preceding the 
                date on which the project is initiated.
                  ``(G) 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 possible.
                  ``(H) Authorization of appropriations.--
                          ``(i) In general.--In addition to other 
                        amounts authorized under this section, there is 
                        authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
                        paragraph $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
                        2003 through 2007.
                          ``(ii) Availability.--Funds appropriated 
                        under clause (i) shall remain available until 
                        expended.''.

SEC. 3. RELATIONSHIP TO FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITIES.

  Section 118(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
1268) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``construed to affect'' and inserting the 
        following: ``construed--
          ``(1) to affect'';
          (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; or'';
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(2) to affect any other Federal or State authority that is 
        being used or may be used to facilitate the cleanup and 
        protection of the Great Lakes.''; and
          (4) by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph (1) 
        (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with paragraph 
        (2) (as added by paragraph (3) of this section).

SEC. 4. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

  (a) In General.--In coordination with other Federal and local 
officials, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is 
authorized to conduct research on the development and use of innovative 
approaches, technologies, and techniques for the remediation of 
sediment contamination in areas of concern in the Great Lakes.
  (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 $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 
        2007.
          (2) Availability.--Funds appropriated under paragraph (1) 
        shall remain available until expended.

  Amend the title so as to read:

    A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency to carry out projects and conduct research for 
remediation of sediment contamination in areas of concern in 
the Great Lakes, and for other purposes.

                          Summary and Purpose

    H.R. 1070, the ``Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002'' amends 
Section 118 of the Clean Water Act to authorize $50 million a 
year for five years for monitoring, source control and 
remediation of sediment contamination in Great Lakes Areas of 
Concern. H.R. 1070 also authorizes $2 million a year for five 
years to conduct research on the development of sediment 
remediation technologies and techniques.

                  Background and Need For Legislation

    Over 33 million people live in the Great Lakes Basin, 
representing one tenth of the U.S. population and one quarter 
of the Canadian population. The Great Lakes constitute the 
largest system of fresh, surface water on Earth holding 18% of 
the world's fresh surface water and 95% of the U.S. fresh 
surface water.
    Over the past 200 years, the Great Lakes region has 
undergone significant industrialization. Some of the heavy 
industries include mining, steel, machine tools, and automobile 
manufacturing. Agriculture also is a significant component of 
the regional economy. The Great Lakes system provides 
convenient waterways for the movement of goods, is the source 
of drinking water for millions, supplies process and cooling 
water for industrial uses, and is used to generate 
hydroelectric power. In addition, the Great Lakes provide 
significant recreational benefits, including sightseeing, 
fishing, boating, and swimming, as well as environmental 
benefits.
    Industrialization and development have had a significant 
impact on the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Great Lakes are 
particularly vulnerable to contamination because the average 
outflow rates from most of the Lakes are very slow. Lake 
Superior retains water for 173 years. Lake Michigan for 62 
years, Lake Huron for 31 years. Lake Ontario has a water 
retention period of 6 years and Lake Erie, the shallowest of 
the Lakes, has the shortest water retention period, at 2.7 
years. Lakes with low outflow rates do not flush contaminants 
quickly. As a result, many pollutants discharged into the Great 
Lakes settle into the sediments at the bottom of the Lakes.
    According to EPA's National Water Quality Inventory 1998 
Report to Congress (based on state surveys of 90% of Great 
Lakes shoreline miles) most of the Great Lakes are safe for 
swimming and other recreational activities and can be used as a 
source of drinking water. However, only 4% of the near-shore 
waters fully support all of their designated uses. Water 
quality impairments in the Great Lakes generally involve fish 
consumption advisories and aquatic life impacts. According to 
EPA's 2001 National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories, 
100 percent of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters are 
under fish consumption advisories for persistent toxic 
substances. Exposure to these toxic substances, which include 
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and mercury, may 
pose a significant risk to human health, mainly through the 
consumption of contaminated fish. States report that the 
primary sources of pollutants causing these impairments are 
atmospheric deposition and contaminated sediment. Other sources 
include land disposal of wastes, agricultural sources, 
industrial and municipal point sources, and storm water and 
other urban runoff.
    Under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the United States 
and Canada created the International Joint Commission (IJC). 
The IJC has six commissioners, three from each nation. In 1972, 
the United States and Canada signed the Great Lakes Water 
Quality Agreement to address mutual interests and improve water 
quality. In 1987, the two nations revised the agreement and 
committed to ecosystem cleanup plans for ``Areas of Concern.'' 
The IJC monitors progress towards these commitments and issues 
biennial reports.
    To support the commitments made in the Great Lakes Water 
Quality Agreement, in 1987 Congress added section 118 to the 
Clean Water Act. Section 118 formally established the Great 
Lakes National Program Office within EPA. One of its functions 
is to ensure that Remedial Action Plans are developed and 
implemented for the Areas of Concern identified by the United 
States and Canada. At present, there are 43 Areas of Concern, 
26 located wholly within the United States, 12 located wholly 
within Canada, and 5 that are shared by both countries. 
Remediation is complete at only one Area of Concern, located in 
Canada.
    In May 2002, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a 
report on the status of implementation of Remedial Action Plans 
for the Great Lakes' Areas of Concern. This report concluded 
that the Environmental Protection Agency is not effectively 
fulfilling the nation's responsibility for developing and 
implementing the Remedial Action Plans required under the Great 
Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The report criticized the Agency 
for transferring oversight responsibility for Remedial Action 
Plans from the Great Lakes National Program Office to EPA's 
regional offices in 1992, noting that the regional offices 
provided initial support and oversight for the Remedial Action 
Plan process, but then significantly reduced the number of 
staff and the amount of federally allocated funds devoted to 
Remedial Action Plan development and implementation. The GAO 
report recommends that the EPA Administrator clarify which 
office within EPA is directly responsible for ensuring 
implementation of the Remedial Action Plans and identify the 
actions, time periods, and resources needed to help EPA to 
fulfill its responsibilities.
    Restoring beneficial uses at the Great Lakes Areas of 
Concern will require cooperative efforts of federal, state and 
local governments, as well as citizen and corporate 
involvement. Achieving this kind of cooperation has been 
elusive at many Great Lakes Areas of Concern. As noted above, 
the Great Lakes States have reported that contaminated 
sediments are one of the primary causes of impairment of the 
nearshore waters of the Great Lakes. Remediation of 
contaminated sediments has been the subject of substantial 
controversy due to the potential for high costs associated with 
sediment remediation, the large numbers of parties potentially 
liable for these cleanup costs, and limited or conflicting data 
measuring reduction of risk to human health and the environment 
following various remedial alternatives. In hearings on this 
legislation and on sediment remediation generally, the 
Subcommittee received conflicting testimony onthe benefits and 
success of some sediment remediation approaches involving dredging, 
capping, and natural attenuation.
    According to a 1997 document from the IJC ``Overcoming 
Obstacles to Sediment Remediation,'' the primary obstacles to 
sediment remediation at Great Lakes Areas of Concern fall into 
six categories: (1) limited funding and resources, (2) 
regulatory complexity, (3) lack of a decision-making framework, 
(4) limited corporate involvement, (5) insufficient research 
and technology development, and (6) limited public and local 
support.
    Since 1997, some progress has been made at removing those 
barriers. For example, decision-making frameworks have been 
developed by EPA's Office of Water, the National Research 
Council of the National Academy of Sciences, and EPA's Office 
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
    In April 1998, the EPA Office of Water released a document 
called ``EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy.'' The 
goals of EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy are: 
(1) to prevent further contamination of sediments that may 
cause unacceptable ecological or human health risks; (2) when 
practical, to clean up existing sediment contamination that 
adversely affects the nation's waterbodies or their uses, or 
that causes other significant effects on human health or the 
environment; (3) to ensure that sediment dredging and the 
disposal of dredged material continue to be managed in an 
environmentally sound manner; and (4) to develop and 
consistently apply methodologies for analyzing contaminated 
sediments.
    In March 2001, the National Research Council of the 
National Academy of Sciences released a report on ``A Risk-
Management Strategy for PCB-Contaminated Sediments.'' Although 
the report focused on PCB-contaminated sediments, its 
recommendations are relevant to all sediment remediation. In 
summary, the National Research Council recommended: (1) early, 
active, and continuous involvement of all affected parties and 
communities, (2) conducting risk assessments and risk 
management decisions on a site-specific basis, incorporating 
all available scientific information, (3) making identification 
and adequate control of sources an essential early step in site 
risk management, (4) establishment of a risk management goal 
based on overall risks to humans and the environment, including 
societal, cultural, and economic risk, as well as human health 
and ecological risk, (5) consideration of a combination of 
risk-management options, including source control, dredging and 
associated sediment treatment, storage or disposal, capping, 
bioremediation, institutional controls and natural attenuation, 
(6) thorough examination of the advantages and disadvantages of 
all risk management options, from active remediation to no 
action alternatives, including consideration of the risks posed 
by the remediation itself, (7) selection of an option based on 
site-specific factors and conditions, without presumption of a 
preferred or default risk management option, and (8) long-term 
monitoring and evaluation of contaminated sediment sites to 
evaluate the effectiveness of the management approach, and to 
ensure adequate, continuous protection of human health and the 
environment.
    In February 2002, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 
Response issued eleven principles for managing contaminated 
sediment risks at hazardous waste sites. These eleven 
principles are: (1) control sources early, (2) involve the 
community early and often, (3) coordinate with states, local 
governments, Tribes, and natural resource trustees, (4) develop 
and refine a conceptual site model that considers sediment 
stability, (5) use an iterative approach in a risk-based 
framework, (6) carefully evaluate the assumptions and 
uncertainties associated with site characterization data and 
site models, (7) select site-specific, project-specific, and 
sediment-specific risk management approaches that will achieve 
risk-based goals, (8) ensure that sediment cleanup levels are 
clearly tied to risk management goals, (9) maximize the 
effectiveness of institutional controls and recognize their 
limitations, (10) design remedies to minimize short-term risks 
while achieving long-term protection, and (11) monitor during 
and after sediment remediation to assess and document remedy 
effectiveness.
    Establishment of these decision-making frameworks for 
reducing risks associated with contaminated sediments should 
help reduce the regulatory complexity and controversy 
surrounding remediation of contaminated sediments. However, a 
framework alone will not lead to the restoration of beneficial 
uses at more Areas of Concern. The barriers of limited funding 
and resources, limited corporate involvement, insufficient 
research and technology development, and limited public and 
local support remain.
    To help address these remaining barriers, H.R. 1070, the 
Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 authorizes $50 million a year 
for five years for EPA to conduct, with local cost-sharing 
partners, monitoring, source control and remediation of 
sediment contamination in Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
    Providing federal support for remediation of Areas of 
Concern may result in greater cooperation and can leverage 
contributions by local communities and the private sector. For 
example, at the Ashtabula River Area of Concern the 
participation of the Army Corps of Engineers helped to leverage 
participation by other public and private entities in 
remediation efforts at that site.
    H.R. 1070 supports research on managing contaminated 
sediments by authorizing $2 million for each of the fiscal 
years 2003 through 2007 to conduct research and development on 
the use of innovative approaches, technologies, and techniques 
for the remediation of sediment contamination in Areas of 
Concerns.
    Finally, H.R. 1070 addresses several of the concerns raised 
by the General Accounting Office by reemphasizing the role of 
the Great Lakes National Program Office in implementing the 
Remedial Action Plans in Areas of Concern, and by authorizing 
additional federal resources for the Great Lakes National 
Program Office to address sediment contamination in the Areas 
of Concern.

      Discussion of Committee Bill and Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title

    Provides that the Act may be cited as the ``Great Lakes 
Legacy Act of 2002.''

Section 2. Remediation of sediment contamination in Areas of Concern in 
        the Great Lakes

    Section 2 of H.R. 1070 adds new paragraph (12) to section 
118(c) of the Clean Water Act. This section authorizes EPA, 
acting through the Great Lakes National Program Office, to 
carry out projects in Great Lakes Areas of Concern that (1) 
monitor or evaluate contaminated sediment, (2) implement a plan 
to remediate contaminated sediment, or (3) prevent further or 
renewed contamination of sediment. Priority is given to 
projects that constitute remedial action, have been identified 
in a Remedial Action Plan developed under section 118 and are 
ready to be implemented, or use an innovative approach, 
technology, or technique that may provide greater environmental 
benefits or equal environmental benefits at a reduced cost.
    In addition to meeting all applicable statutory 
requirements, EPA should select remedial alternatives in a 
manner consistent with the risk management frameworks discussed 
above, Agency policy and guidance, and scientific information 
available at the time the remedial alternative is selected. 
H.R. 1070 also places limitations on EPA's authority to carry 
out projects for the remediation of contaminated sediments.
    First, EPA shall not carry out a project for the 
remediation of contaminated sediments 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. The Committee does not expect EPA to proceed with 
an alternative if EPA determines, based on its review of short-
term and long-term effects of the alternative, that impacts of 
the remedial alternative are likely to cause greater adverse 
effects on human health and the environment than other remedial 
alternatives.
    Second, EPA shall not carry out a project if EPA determines 
that the Area of Concern is likely to suffer significant 
further or renewed contaimination from existing sources of 
pollutants causing sediment contamination following completion 
of the project. As discussed in the risk management frameworks 
developed by EPA and the National Research Council, the first 
goal of any sediment management activity should be assessment 
and control of the sources of contamination because without 
source control, efforts to reduce risk through other management 
options are less likely to be successful.
    In order to facilitate and encourage partnerships, 
qualified projects carried out by the Administrator must 
receive at least 35% non-Federal matching funds. The non-
Federal matching share may be provided through in-kind work 
carried out by the non-Federal interest. Additionally, non-
Federal entities must ensure to provide for all operation and 
maintenance costs associated with the project.
    Maintenance of effort language has been included in order 
to ensure that new federal appropriations for sediment 
remediation do not displace existing funding from non-Federal 
sponsors. In order to carry out qualified projects, the 
Administrator is to enter into agreements with the non-Federal 
sponsors to ensure that the non-Federal sponsors maintain 
expenditures for sediment remediation programs in the area of 
concern in which the qualified project is located.
    The Administrator is directed to coordinate with the 
Secretary of the Army and State Governors in carrying out 
qualified projects in order to ensure efficient use of 
government funds directing public resources to the most 
deserving projects.
    The bill authorizes $50,000,000 a year for fiscal years 
2003 through 2007 to be appropriated to the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency, acting through the Great 
Lakes National Program Office, to carry out qualified sediment 
remediation projects under this paragraph.

Section 3. Relationship to Federal and State authorities

    Section 118(g) of the Clean Water Act ``Relationship to 
Federal and State Authorities'' is amended to include language 
that specifies that actions taken under Section 118 shall not 
affect any other Federal or State authority that may be used to 
facilitate cleanup and protection of the Great Lakes. This 
legislation does not affect any existing statutory enforcement 
authorities relating to the remediation of contaminated 
sediments.

Section 4. Research and Development Program

    The National Research Council's 2001 Risk Management 
Strategy for PCB-Contaminated Sediments recommends further 
research in the areas of ex situ and in situ technologies 
associated with removal and containment of contaminated 
sediment and pilot scale testing of innovative technologies. In 
keeping with these recommendations, the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to conduct 
research on the development and use of innovative approaches, 
technologies, and techniques for the remediation of sediment 
contamination in areas of concern in the Great Lakes.
    The bill authorizes $2,000,000 a year for fiscal years 2003 
through 2007 to be appropriated to the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, to carry out the research 
activities identified above.
    The Committee expects that the Administrator will 
collaborate with non-Federal entities, including colleges, 
universities, and private entities, in carrying out the 
Administrator's responsibilities under this section. In 
selecting non-Federal entities toparticipate in research 
projects under this section, the Administrator is directed to give 
preference to non-Federal entities located within the Great Lakes 
region.

            Legislative History and Committee Consideration

    Representatives Ehlers, Kirk, and Barcia introduced H.R. 
1070 on March 15, 2001. The bill was referred to the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the 
Committee on Science. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment held a hearing on H.R. 1070 on July 11, 2001. On 
June 25, 2002, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment marked up H.R. 1070, and reported the bill 
favorably to the Full Committee by voice vote, with an 
amendment. The amendment adopted by the Subcommittee changed 
the authorization from a grant program to a program that places 
responsibility to carry out qualified projects with the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, with 
cost-sharing support from a non-federal sponsor. The amendment 
also made technical changes to the definition of a qualified 
project. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee met in 
open session on June 26, 2002, and ordered the bill, as amended 
by the Subcommittee, reported to the House by voice vote.

                             Rollcall Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives 
requires each committee report to include the total number of 
votes cast for and against on each rollcall vote on a motion to 
report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, 
and the names of those members voting for and against. There 
were no recorded votes taken in connection with ordering H.R. 
1070 reported. A motion to order H.R. 1070 reported to the 
House, with an amendment, was unanimously agreed to by voice 
vote.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in this report.

                          Cost of Legislation

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the 
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is 
included in this report.

                    Compliance with House Rule XIII

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee 
references the report of the Congressional Budget Office 
included below.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
performance goals and objectives of this legislation are to 
increase monitoring, source control, and remediation of 
contaminated sediments at Great Lakes Areas of Concern and to 
increase research on the development of sediment remediation 
technologies and techniques.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 
1070 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, July 3, 2002.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1070, the Great 
Lakes Legacy Act of 2002.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S. 
Mehlman.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1070--Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002

    Summary: H.R. 1070 would authorize 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 
sediments at the bottom of the lakes. The bill would authorize 
the appropriation of $250 million over the 2003-2007 period to 
EPA for that purpose. In addition, the bill would authorize the 
appropriation of $10 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 $223 
million over the 2003-2007 period. Enacting H.R. 1070 would not 
affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures would not apply.
    H.R. 1070 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. This bill would benefit Great Lakes states by 
authorizing the appropriation of $250 million over the next 
five years for grants to conduct projects that lead to 
remediation of sediment contamination in areas in the Great 
Lakes.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO estimates 
that implementing the bill would cost $223 million over the 
2003-2007 period, assuming appropriation of the amounts 
authorized for each year. Those estimated outlays are based on 
historical patters for similar activities. The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1070 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--
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                                       2003     2004     2005     2006     2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

EPA funding for clean-up projects:
    Authorization level............................................       50       50       50       50       50
    Estimated outlays..............................................       25       40       48       50       50
Research and development:
    Authorization level............................................        2        2        2        2        2
    Estimated outlays..............................................        2        2        2        2        2
Total proposed changes:
    Authorization level............................................       52       52       52       52       52
    Estimated outlays..............................................       27       42       50       52       52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1070 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments. This bill would benefit Great Lakes states 
by authorizing the appropriation of $250 million over the next 
five years for grants to conduct projects that lead to 
remediation of sediment contamination in areas in the Great 
Lakes.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Susanne S. Mehlman; 
impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Elyse Goldman; 
impact on the private sector: Cecil McPherson.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or 
joint resolution of a public character shall include a 
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in 
the Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the 
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted 
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. (Public Law 104-4).

                        Preemption Clarification

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1994 
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint 
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the 
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local or 
tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 1070 does not 
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this 
legislation.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

         SECTION 118 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

 SEC. 118. GREAT LAKES.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Great Lakes Management.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (12) Remediation of sediment contamination in areas 
        of concern.--
                  (A) In general.--In accordance with this 
                paragraph, the Administrator, acting through 
                the Great Lakes National Program Office and in 
                coordination with the Office of Research and 
                Development, may carry out qualified projects.
                  (B) Qualified project.--In this paragraph, a 
                qualified project is a project to be carried 
                out in an area of concern located wholly or in 
                part in the United States that--
                          (i) monitors or evaluates 
                        contaminated sediment;
                          (ii) subject to subparagraph (D), 
                        implements a plan to remediate 
                        contaminated sediment; or
                          (iii) prevents further or renewed 
                        contamination of 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) has been identified in a 
                        Remedial Action Plan submitted pursuant 
                        to paragraph (3) and is ready to be 
                        implemented; or
                          (iii) will use an innovative 
                        approach, technology, or technique that 
                        may provide greater environmental 
                        benefits or equivalent environmental 
                        benefits at a reduced cost.
                  (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 matching requirement.--
                          (i) In general.--The non-Federal 
                        share of the cost of a project carried 
                        out under this paragraph shall be not 
                        less than 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, 
                        including any in-kind service performed 
                        under an administrative order on 
                        consent or judicial consent decree, but 
                        not including any in-kind services 
                        performed under a unilateral 
                        administrative order or court order.
                          (iii) Operation and maintenance.--The 
                        non-Federal share of the cost of the 
                        operation and maintenance of a project 
                        carried out under this paragraph shall 
                        be 100 percent.
                  (F) Maintenance of effort.--The Administrator 
                may not carry out a project under this 
                paragraph unless the non-Federal sponsor enters 
                into such agreements with the Administrator as 
                the Administrator may require to ensure that 
                the non-Federal sponsor will maintain its 
                aggregate expenditures from all other sources 
                for remediation programs in the area of concern 
                in which the project is located at or above the 
                average level of such expenditures in its 2 
                fiscal years preceding the date on which the 
                project is initiated.
                  (G) 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 possible.
                  (H) Authorization of appropriations.--
                          (i) In general.--In addition to other 
                        amounts authorized under this section, 
                        there is authorized to be appropriated 
                        to carry out this paragraph $50,000,000 
                        for each of fiscal years 2003 through 
                        2007.
                          (ii) Availability.--Funds 
                        appropriated under clause (i) shall 
                        remain available until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (g) Relationship to Existing Federal and State Laws and 
International Treaties.--Nothing in this section shall be 
[construed to affect] construed--
          (1) to affect the jurisdiction, powers, or 
        prerogatives of any department, agency, or officer of 
        the Federal Government or of any State government, or 
        of any tribe, nor any powers, jurisdiction, or 
        prerogatives of any international body created by 
        treaty with authority relating to the Great Lakes[.]; 
        or
          (2) to affect any other Federal or State authority 
        that is being used or may be used to facilitate the 
        cleanup and protection of the Great Lakes.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        Committee Correspondence

                          House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                     Washington, DC, June 27, 2002.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Young: On March 15, 2001, Congressman Ehlers 
introduced H.R. 1070, the ``Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2001.'' 
The bill was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Science. 
The bill contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Science.
    In deference to your desire to bring this legislation 
before the House in an expeditious manner, I will not exercise 
this Committee's right to consider H.R. 1070. Despite waiving 
its consideration of H.R. 1070, the Science Committee does not 
waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 1070. Additionally, the 
Science Committee expressly reserves its authority to seek 
conferees on any provisions that are within its jurisdiction 
during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this 
or similar legislation that falls within the Science 
Committee's jurisdiction. I ask for your commitment to support 
any request by the Science Committee for conferees on H.R. 1070 
as well as any similar or related legislation.
    I request that you include this letter as part of the 
legislative report to accompany H.R. 1070, as well as the 
Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation on 
the House floor.
    Thank you for your consideration and attention regarding 
this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                      Sherwood L. Boehlert,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                     Washington, DC, June 17, 2002.
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
Rayburn Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of June 27, 
2002, regarding H.R. 1070, the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2001, 
and for your willingness to waive consideration of provisions 
in the bill that fall within your Committee's jurisdiction 
under House Rules.
    I agree that your waiving consideration of relevant 
provisions of H.R. 1070 does not waive your Committee's 
jurisdiction over the bill. I also acknowledge your right to 
seek conferees on any provisions that are under your 
Committee's jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference on 
H.R. 1070 or similar legislation, and will support your request 
for conferees on such provisions.
    As you request, your letter and this response will be 
included in the committee report on the legislation as well as 
the Congressional Record during consideration on the House 
Floor.
    Thank you for your cooperation in moving this important 
legislation.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Don Young,
                                                          Chairman.