69–010 

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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
2 

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. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
3 

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). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
4 

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 øblack 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.— 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
5 

(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— 

ø(ii)¿ (i) subject to subparagraph (D), implements a 

plan to remediate contaminated sediment; øor¿ 

ø(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 

ø(i)¿ (v) monitors or evaluates contaminated sediment; 

ø(C) PRIORITY.—In selecting projects to carry out under 

this paragraph, the Administrator shall give priority to a 

project that— 

ø(i) constitutes remedial action for contaminated 

sediment; 

ø(ii)(I) has been identified in a Remedial Action Plan 

submitted under paragraph (3); and 

ø(II) is ready to be implemented; 

ø(iii) will use an innovative approach, technology, or 

technique that may provide greater environmental 

benefits, or equivalent environmental benefits at a reduced cost; or 

ø(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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
6 

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); 

øbut¿ 

(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 

ø(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 mainteVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:05 Sep 28, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR488.XXX SR488

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
7 

nance 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. 

ø(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.¿ 

ø(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. 

ø(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 ø$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.— ø(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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
8 

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 ø2004 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 ø2004 through 

2008¿ 2009 through 2013. 

(2) AVAILABILITY.—Funds appropriated under paragraph (1) 

shall remain available until expended. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING