69–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPT. 110–849 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

GREAT LAKES LEGACY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. OBERSTAR, from the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 6460] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 6460) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for the remediation of sediment contamination in areas of concern, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 

recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is 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 Reauthorization Act of 2008’’. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

Section 118(a)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(a)(3)) 

is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (I) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) in subparagraph (J) by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(K) ‘site characterization’ means a process for monitoring and evaluating 

the nature and extent of sediment contamination in accordance with the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s guidance for the assessment of contaminated sediment in an area of concern located wholly or partially within the 

United States; and 

‘‘(L) ‘potentially responsible party’ means an individual or entity that may 

be liable under any Federal or State authority that is being used or may 

be used to facilitate the cleanup and protection of the Great Lakes.’’. 

SEC. 3. REMEDIATION OF SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION IN AREAS OF CONCERN. 

(a) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—Section 118(c)(12)(B)(ii) of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking ‘‘sediment’’ and inserting ‘‘sediment, including activities to restore aquatic habitat that are carried out 

in conjunction with a project for the remediation of contaminated sediment’’. 

(b) LIMITATIONS.—Section 118(c)(12)(D) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(D)) is 

amended— 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
2 

(1) in the subparagraph heading by striking ‘‘LIMITATION’’ and inserting ‘‘LIMITATIONS’’; 

(2) in clause (i) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end; 

(3) in clause (ii) by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and 

(4) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(iii) unless each non-Federal sponsor for the project has entered into 

a written project agreement with the Administrator under which the 

party agrees to carry out its responsibilities and requirements for the 

project; or 

‘‘(iv) unless the Administrator provides assurance that the Agency 

has conducted a reasonable inquiry to identify potentially responsible 

parties connected with the site.’’. 

(c) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.—Section 118(c)(12)(E)(ii) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 

1268(c)(12)(E)(ii)) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(ii) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.— 

‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal share of the cost of a project 

carried out under this paragraph may include the value of an inkind contribution provided by a non-Federal sponsor. 

‘‘(II) CREDIT.—A project agreement described in subparagraph 

(D)(iii) may provide, with respect to a project, that the Administrator shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 

project the value of an in-kind contribution made by the non-Federal sponsor, if the Administrator determines that the material or 

service provided as the in-kind contribution is integral to the 

project. 

‘‘(III) WORK PERFORMED BEFORE PROJECT AGREEMENT.—In any 

case in which a non-Federal sponsor is to receive credit under subclause (II) for the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal sponsor and such work has not been carried out by the non-Federal 

sponsor as of the date of enactment of this subclause, the Administrator and the non-Federal sponsor shall enter into an agreement 

under which the non-Federal sponsor shall carry out such work, 

and only work carried out following the execution of the agreement 

shall be eligible for credit. 

‘‘(IV) LIMITATION.—Credit authorized under this clause for a 

project carried out under this paragraph— 

‘‘(aa) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of 

the project; and 

‘‘(bb) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of the 

materials and services provided by the non-Federal sponsor, as 

determined by the Administrator. 

‘‘(V) INCLUSION OF CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS.—In this subparagraph, the term ‘in-kind contribution’ may include the costs of 

planning (including data collection), design, construction, and materials that are provided by the non-Federal sponsor for implementation of a project under this paragraph.’’. 

(d) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—Section 118(c)(12)(E) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 

1268(c)(12)(E)) is amended— 

(1) by redesignating clauses (iii) and (iv) as clauses (iv) and (v), respectively; 

(2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following: 

‘‘(iii) TREATMENT OF CREDIT BETWEEN PROJECTS.—Any credit provided 

under this subparagraph towards the non-Federal share of the cost of 

a project carried out under this paragraph may be applied towards the 

non-Federal share of the cost of any other project carried out under this 

paragraph by the same non-Federal sponsor for a site within the same 

area of concern.’’; and 

(3) in clause (iv) (as redesignated by paragraph (1) of this subsection) by striking ‘‘service’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘contribution’’. 

(e) SITE CHARACTERIZATION.—Section 118(c)(12)(F) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 

1268(c)(12)(F)) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(F) SITE CHARACTERIZATION.— 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, in consultation with any affected State or unit of local government, shall carry out at Federal expense the site characterization of a project under this paragraph for the 

remediation of contaminated sediment. 

‘‘(ii) LIMITATION.—For purposes of clause (i), the Administrator may 

carry out one site assessment per discrete site within a project at Federal expense.’’. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
3 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 118(c)(12)(H) of such Act (33 

U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(H)) is amended— 

(1) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—In addition to other amounts authorized under this 

section, there is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph— 

‘‘(I) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008; and 

‘‘(II) $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013.’’; 

and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(iii) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—Not more than 20 percent of the funds 

appropriated pursuant to clause (i)(II) for a fiscal year may be used to 

carry out subparagraph (F).’’. 

(g) PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM.—Section 118(c)(13)(B) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 

1268(c)(13)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘2008’’ and inserting ‘‘2013’’. 

SEC. 4. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. 

Section 106(b)(1) of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 1271a(b)(1)) 

is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts authorized under other laws, there 

is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section— 

‘‘(A) $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008; and 

‘‘(B) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013.’’. 

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

H.R. 6460, the ‘‘Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 

2008’’, amends section 118 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

(‘‘Clean Water Act’’ or ‘‘Act’’) to reauthorize and increase appropriations for projects to remediate contaminated sediment in the Great 

Lakes areas of concern, and to make several additional modifications to the implementation of the program to accelerate the completion of remediation projects. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Great Lakes basin includes all of the state of Michigan, 

parts of Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Approximately 40 million people live within the Great Lakes 

basin. Water in the Lakes is used for a multitude of activities including fishing, swimming, boating, agriculture, industry, and shipping. In addition, the Lakes contain around 84 percent of North 

America’s and 21 percent of the world’s surface fresh water supplies. 

Industrialization and development have had a significant impact 

on the Great Lakes ecosystem. The region’s industrial development 

has included mining, steel production, and machine tool and automobile manufacturing. Agriculture is also a significant component 

of the regional economy. The Great Lakes have historically provided convenient waterways for the movement of goods. They also 

provide process and cooling water for industrial users, and are used 

to generate hydroelectric power. While industrialization, agriculture, power generation, and other activities have produced significant economic development in the region, water quality has also 

been adversely impacted. 

In its 2002 National Water Quality Inventory, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) reports that 91 percent of assessed 

Great Lakes shoreline miles were impaired—meaning that the 

shoreline did not meet all of its designated uses, including fishing, 

swimming, and suitability for aquatic wildlife habitat. The leading 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
4 

causes of impairment include the presence of pathogens, metals, 

and toxic organic compounds in the shoreline waters of the Great 

Lakes. EPA notes that the dominant cause of reported shoreline 

impairment is legacy, or historical, pollution—chiefly contaminated 

sediment. In the same report, EPA reports that 99 percent of the 

assessed Great Lakes open waters were rated as impaired. The 

predominant causes of this impairment include the presence of priority organics, metals (primarily mercury), and pesticides in the 

open waters of the Great Lakes. The primary sources of open water 

impairments are atmospheric deposition, industrial sources, agriculture, and legacy (historical) pollutants. 

The impaired nature of the Great Lakes is also reflected in the 

biennial assessment of EPA and Environment Canada, entitled the 

‘‘State of the Great Lakes’’ report, which is carried out pursuant to 

the 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. In 2007, this report identified the status of the Great Lakes ecosystem as ‘‘mixed’’, 

with the particular concern expressed on the localized toxic contamination that continues to exist in high levels in the Great Lakes 

areas of concern. 

Under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the United States 

and Canada created the International Joint Commission (‘‘IJC’’) to 

monitor, periodically inspect, and make recommendations on actions to be taken by the United States and Canada to protect the 

Great Lakes. 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 toward these commitments and 

issues biennial reports. 

To support the commitments made in the Great Lakes Water 

Quality Agreement, Congress added section 118 to the Clean Water 

Act in 1987. Section 118 formally established the Great Lakes National Program Office within EPA. One of the functions of the Office 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 within the Great Lakes 

Basin, 26 areas wholly within the United States, 12 areas located 

wholly within Canada, and 5 areas that are shared by both countries. The areas of concern were defined under the Great Lakes 

Water Quality Agreement as ‘‘ecologically degraded geographic 

areas requiring remediation’’. An area is considered ecologically degraded if at least one of 14 beneficial use impairments is present 

as a result of contamination—restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption; tainting of fish and wildlife flavor; degradation of fish 

and wildlife populations; fish tumors or other deformities; bird or 

animal deformities or reproduction problems; degradation of 

benthos; restrictions on dredging activities; eutrophication or undesirable algae; restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste 

and odor problems; beach closings; degradation of aesthetics; added 

costs to agriculture or industry; degradation of phytoplankton and 

zooplankton populations; or loss of fish and wildlife habitat. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
5 

GREAT LAKES LEGACY ACT OF 2002

In 2002, Congress enacted the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 

(P.L. 107–303). The Great Lakes Legacy Act, which amends section 

118 of the Clean Water Act, authorizes funding for projects to monitor, evaluate, and remediate contaminated sediment in the areas 

of concern located wholly within, or shared by, the United States, 

to increase public awareness of contaminated sediments, and to 

promote research and development for innovative approaches, technologies, and techniques for the remediation of contaminated sediments. Funding authorized pursuant to the Great Lakes Legacy 

Act for remediation of contaminated sediment is primarily focused 

on sites within the areas of concern that are not Superfund sites. 

Sediment remediation projects funded under the Great Lakes 

Legacy Act authorization are negotiated agreements between EPA 

(through the Great Lakes National Program Office) and a nonFederal sponsor. Cleanup projects are cost-shared 65 percent Federal and 35 percent non-Federal, with the non-Federal sponsor 

being responsible for 100 percent of the operation and maintenance 

costs. The non-Federal share may include in-kind services. 

The Great Lakes Legacy Act authorized appropriations of $270 

million over five years (fiscal years 2004 through 2008). The actual 

appropriations for the same period totaled $126.3 million. This authorization of appropriations consists of $50 million per year for 

projects (contaminated sediment remediation and monitoring); $3 

million per year for research; and $1 million per year for outreach 

activities. 

GREAT LAKES LEGACY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008

On May 21, 2008, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

held a hearing on reauthorization of the Great Lakes Legacy Act, 

at which the Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of the EPA, the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Michigan, 

and stakeholder organizations from the Great Lakes region. 

Several witnesses at this hearing expressed support for reauthorization and recommended several improvements that could be 

made to the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 to accelerate the pace 

of remediation and delisting of contaminated sites within the areas 

of concern. 

Specific recommendations included: (1) increasing the authorization of appropriations for the remediation of contaminated sediments from $50 million annually to $150 million annually; (2) allowing the use of Legacy Act funds for the restoration of aquatic 

habitat restoration at sites where contaminated sediment has occurred; (3) maximizing the leverage and use of non-Federal contributions to remediation projects from non-Federal sponsors, including potentially responsible parties; (4) extending the life of appropriated Legacy Act funding beyond two years; (5) reducing the 

cost-share requirement for sediment remediation projects at ‘‘orphan sites’’—where no viable responsibility party can be identified; 

and (6) striking the ‘‘maintenance of effort’’ requirement of the 

Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (see 33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(F)). 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
6 

SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

This section designates the title of the bill as the ‘‘Great Lakes 

Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008’’. 

Section 2. Definitions 

This section amends section 118(a)(3) of the Clean Water Act to 

add definitions to the terms ‘‘site characterization’’ and ‘‘potentially 

responsible party’’. 

New subparagraph 118(a)(3)(K) defines the term ‘‘site assessment’’ as ‘‘a process for monitoring and evaluating the nature and 

extent of sediment contamination in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s guidance for the assessment of contaminated sediment in an area of concern located wholly or partially 

within the United States.’’ In this definition, the Committee intends for the term ‘‘site assessment’’ to be limited to those activities, such as sampling, monitoring and evaluating sediment, necessary to assess the nature and extent of contaminated sediments 

present at a site; however, this definition does not include activities 

directly related to the design of a potential remediation project, 

which would be subject to normal cost share under section 

118(c)(12)(E) of the Clean Water Act. 

The Committee also intends for EPA to utilize, to the maximum 

extent practicable and where appropriate, existing authorities and 

guidance within its contaminated sediment program for the conduct of site assessments, such as the EPA’s Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (‘‘ARCS’’) Assessment Guidance. However, this definition does not preclude the development 

of additional approaches and guidance, where appropriate, to conduct site assessments and characterizations. 

New subparagraph 118(a)(3)(L) defines the term ‘‘potentially responsible party’’ as ‘‘an individual or entity that may be liable 

under any Federal or State authority that is being used or may be 

used to facilitate the cleanup and protection of the Great Lakes.’’ 

This definition is consistent with the provisions of the Great Lakes 

Legacy Act of 2002, codified at 33 U.S.C. 1268(g). 

Section 3. Remediation of sediment contamination in areas of concern 

Section 3 of the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008 

amends various paragraphs of section 118(c) of the Clean Water 

Act to expand the scope of projects eligible for funding under section 118(c)(12)(H) of the Act, provide additional clarity and flexibility for non-Federal sponsors to meet their statutory cost share 

obligation for projects, and to increase the overall authorization of 

appropriations for projects eligible under section 118(c)(12)(B) of 

the Act. 

Subsection 3(a) amends section 118(c)(12)(B) of the Clean Water 

Act to authorize activities to restore aquatic habitat that are carried out in conjunction with a project for the remediation of contaminated sediment. According to EPA, of the 30 remaining Great 

Lakes’ areas of concern located wholly within the United States or 

shared with Canada, 26 areas include within the beneficial use impairments the ‘‘loss of fish and wildlife habitat’’ for the site that 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
7 

must be addressed before the site can be delisted as an area of concern. In many instances, the continued presence of contaminated 

sediment has resulted in degradation of sustainable aquatic habitat 

for native fish and wildlife populations, and activities to remediate 

these sediments, alone, can similarly impact the sustainability of 

aquatic habitat. 

During the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment 

hearing on reauthorization of the Great Lakes Legacy Act, several 

witnesses testified in support of expanding the existing Clean 

Water Act authority for the Great Lakes’ areas of concern to include restoration of degraded aquatic habitat. In the view of many 

of the witnesses, oftentimes, remediation of existing contaminated 

sediments alone may not be enough to delist an area of concern, 

and additional aquatic habitat restoration work would be required 

to address beneficial use impairments at the site, and to move the 

site toward delisting as an area of concern. In addition, the Committee expects that carrying out restoration activities for degraded 

habitat at the same time as projects for the remediation of contaminated sediment will be more efficient and less costly than if 

the same types of restoration activities were carried out separately, 

and should result in the delisting of areas of concern in a more expedited and cost-effective manner. 

To address these concerns, subsection 3(a) would expand the existing authorization for projects to remediate contaminated sediment to include activities to restore aquatic habitat that are carried out in conjunction with a project for the remediation of contaminated sediment. The Committee expects that aquatic habitat 

restoration activities carried out under this new authority will be 

related to and carried out in conjunction with a project for the remediation of contaminated sediment, and will typically be smaller, 

both in terms of scale and overall cost, than the corresponding 

projects to remediate contaminated sediment. The Committee does 

not intend aquatic habitat restoration activities to overtake the 

program or change its primary focus, which is remediation of contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes’ areas of concern. 

Subsection 3(b) amends section 118(c)(12)(D) of the Clean Water 

Act to provide that the EPA Administrator may not carry out a 

project for the remediation of contaminated sediment unless: (1) 

each non-Federal sponsor has entered into a written project agreement with the Administrator under which the non-Federal sponsor 

agrees to carry out its responsibilities and requirements for the 

project; and (2) the Administrator provides assurance that the Environmental Protection Agency has conducted a reasonable inquiry 

to identify potentially responsible parties connected with the site. 

The requirement of new clause 118(c)(12)(D)(iv) is consistent 

with the intent of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 that funds 

authorized for the remediation of contaminated sediment sites not 

affect ‘‘any other Federal or State authority that is being used to 

may be used to facilitate the cleanup and protection of the Great 

Lakes.’’ 33 U.S.C. 1268(g). Potentially responsible parties (‘‘PRPs’’) 

are eligible to participate as non-Federal sponsors for projects undertaken pursuant to section 118(c)(12) of the Clean Water Act. As 

noted in the legislative history of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 

2002, the intent of the providing Federal support for remediation 

of contaminated sediment in the areas of concern is to encourage 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
8 

‘‘greater cooperation’’, ‘‘leverage [additional] contributions by local 

communities and the private sector’’ toward cleanup, and ‘‘expediting the remediation of sites with contaminated sediment.’’ However, consistent with the statutory language of the Great Lakes 

Legacy Act of 2002 and the principle of ‘‘polluter pays’’, the Committee continues to believe that funding for the remediation of contaminated sediments under section 118(c)(12) of the Clean Water 

Act supplement (but not replace) potential contributions from responsible parties. 

The Committee is concerned with the overall level of effort undertaken by EPA in the identification of responsible parties related 

to potential projects to remediate contaminated sediment under 

section 118(c)(12) of the Clean Water Act. The Committee has reviewed the Stage 1 and Stage 2 review process identified by EPA 

in its 2006 final rule for ‘‘Implementation of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002’’ (71 Fed. Reg. 25504), including the requirement 

that representatives from Great Lakes National Program Office 

(‘‘GLNPO’’) and EPA enforcement and regulatory programs coordinate with other Federal agencies to review potential Legacy Act 

projects. However, the Committee is concerned that this review is 

limited to avoiding duplication with on-going enforcement or regulatory actions or other Federal, State, local, or tribal efforts rather 

than an effort to proactively identify viable responsible parties related to the sites. 

Given these concerns, new clause 118(c)(12)(D)(iv) requires the 

Administrator to provide assurance that the Environmental Protection Agency has conducted a reasonable inquiry to identify potentially responsible parties connected with the site. This provision 

builds upon the existing authorities of section 118(c)(12) to maximize the potential for leveraging additional funds from non-Federal 

sources through the identification and encouraged participation of 

responsible parties in remediation activities. The Committee does 

not intend this language to require EPA to conduct an additional 

inquiry to identify potentially responsible parties in instances 

where EPA has already conducted a reasonable inquiry under other 

Federal authorities, including the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (‘‘CERCLA’’), 

nor does it intend for this language to impose an absolute responsibility on EPA to identify every responsible party related to the site, 

including parties that are likely to have contributed only de minimis amounts of contamination to the site or parties that are no 

longer financially viable to act as non-Federal sponsors of Legacy 

Act projects. 

The Committee understands that this provision may require EPA 

to take some additional time to ensure that a reasonable inquiry 

has taken place, but does not expect this additional requirement to 

significantly delay cleanup projects within the areas of concern, nor 

to divert additional sites to other Federal or State remediation authorities. In addition, EPA is encouraged to coordinate this effort 

with State authorities, and where appropriate, utilize existing 

State efforts to identify potentially responsible parties as a basis 

for its responsibilities under this Act. 

Subsection 3(c) amends section 118(c)(12)(E)(ii) of the Clean 

Water Act to provide additional clarification on non-Federal, inkind contributions for eligible projects under section 118(c)(12) of 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
9 

the Clean Water Act. The requirements of subsection 3(c) apply to 

all projects carried out under section 118(c)(12) of the Clean Water 

Act, including those projects that may have been initiated prior to 

the date of enactment of the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization 

Act of 2008. 

First, this amendment retains the provisions of existing 

118(c)(12)(E)(ii) that the non-Federal share of the cost of a project 

may include the value of an in-kind contribution provided by a nonFederal sponsor, but requires that, after the date of enactment, the 

non-Federal sponsor identify, in a written project agreement those 

potential in-kind contributions for which the non-Federal sponsor 

intends to seek credit against the non-Federal share of the cost of 

the project. 

In addition, new subclause 118(c)(12(E)(ii)(II) requires the EPA 

Administrator to make a determination that the material or service 

for which the non-Federal sponsor seeks credit is integral to the 

project before the material or service would be eligible as credit 

against the non-Federal share of the cost of the project. 

New subclause 118(c)(12)(E)(ii)(III) requires that in-kind work 

that has not been carried out prior to the date of enactment of this 

new subclause and for which the non-Federal sponsor may seek 

credit against its non-Federal share must be included as part of a 

written agreement between EPA and the non-Federal sponsor. 

New subclause 118(c)(12)(E)(ii)(IV) provides that credit for an inkind contribution authorized under clause 118(c)(12)(E)(ii) shall not 

exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of the project and shall 

not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of the material or service provided by the non-Federal sponsor, as determined by the Administrator. 

Subsection 3(d) amends section 118(c)(12)(E) of the Clean Water 

Act to allow the Administrator to apply non-Federal credit (in excess of the non-Federal share of the cost of a project) toward the 

non-Federal share of any other project carried out under section 

118(c)(12) of the Clean Water Act by the same non-Federal sponsor 

for a site within the same area of concern. Consistent with the intent of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002, this provision is intended to maximize the cooperation and financial participation of 

local community and private sector non-Federal sponsors by allowing non-Federal contributions in excess of the non-Federal share at 

any one discrete site to be utilized at other impaired sites within 

the same area of concern. The objective of this new provision is to 

ensure that any credit in excess of the non-Federal share for an individual project can be carried over to other remediation projects 

by the same non-Federal sponsor within the same area of concern. 

Subsection 3(e) amends section 118(c)(12)(F) to authorize the Administrator to carry out a site assessment for potential projects eligible under section 112(c)(12) at Federal expense. During the Subcommittee hearing on ‘‘Reauthorization of the Great Lakes Legacy 

Act’’, several witnesses testified in support of increased Federal 

funding for remediation projects to accelerate the pace of cleanup 

and delisting of areas of concern. New subparagraph 118(c)(12)(F) 

of the Clean Water Act achieves this objective by authorizing the 

Administrator to carry out the initial site assessment of a potential 

project at Federal expense, rather than as a cost-shared component 

of an overall project as required by current law. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
10 

A site characterization is a necessary precursor to remediation 

projects by providing much needed information regarding the 

project size and scope, and is critical in the identification of potential non-Federal sponsors who may be wiling to act as cost-sharing 

partners for subsequent stages of the remediation project. 

The Committee believes that increasing Federal participation in 

site assessments should accelerate the movement of Legacy Act 

projects from assessment to remediation by providing needed information to EPA’s technical review committees. This new authority 

is modeled on similar authority for the United States Army Corps 

of Engineers (‘‘Corps’’) to carry out a reconnaissance study for a potential water resources development project at Federal expense. It 

is during the reconnaissance phase that the Corps determines the 

water and related land concerns that may warrant Federal participation, and the level of interest and support from non-Federal 

sponsors for a proposed water resources project. Similarly, the 

Committee expects that during the ‘‘site assessment’’ phase of a 

project carried out under section 118(c)(12) of the Clean Water Act, 

the Administrator will sample, monitor, and assess the nature and 

extent of sediment contamination, identify potential non-Federal 

sponsors that may be willing to act as cost-share partners for later 

remediation projects, and provide sufficient information for the 

evaluation of the proposed costs and benefits of a remediation 

project at the site. 

In addition, the Committee believes that EPA can utilize this authority to be proactive in working with State and local officials, and 

private sector interests, in identifying and funding the assessment 

of sites the cleanup of which will eliminate potential threats to 

public health and safety and otherwise benefit the economic or ecological health of communities neighboring the areas of concern. The 

information gathered in these initial site assessments may also be 

helpful in potentially ranking future remediation projects, based 

upon the potential benefits of the project. 

Finally, the Committee has included language (new clause 

118(c)(12)(F)(ii)) to ensure that only one site assessment may be 

carried out at Federal expense for each individual site within an 

area of concern. The Committee does not intend for the Administrator to utilize this new authority to carry out multiple site assessments at Federal expense for the same site. Once a site assessment has been completed utilizing this new authority, the individual site would no longer be eligible for additional site assessment work to be carried out at Federal expense. 

The amendment made by subsection 3(e) also deletes the language of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 related to maintenance of effort. 

Subsection 3(f) amends section 118(c)(12)(H) of the Clean Water 

Act to increase the overall authorization of appropriations for section 118(c)(12) from $50 million to $150 million annually through 

2013. New clause 118(c)(12)(H)(iii) provides that not more than 20 

percent of funds appropriated under this subparagraph may be 

used to carry out site assessments at Federal expense pursuant to 

new subparagraph 118(c)(12)(F). 

Subsection 3(g) amends section 118(c)(13) of the Clean Water Act 

to reauthorize appropriations for EPA’s public information program 

through 2013. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
11 

Section 4. Research and development program 

This section amends section 106(b)(1) of the Great Lakes Legacy 

Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 1271a) to reauthorize appropriations, at increased levels, for a research and development program within the 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

The Committee strongly supports the establishment a research 

and development program within EPA to develop innovative approaches, technologies, and techniques for the remediation of contaminated sediment within the Great Lakes areas of concern. The 

Committee believes that this program could be instrumental in developing new technologies for the remediation of contaminated 

sediment which could substantially reduce the overall cost of remediation activities for contaminate sediment projects, both within 

the Great Lakes areas of concern as well as nationwide. The Committee strongly recommends that the administration include funding for this important program in the President’s budget request 

for fiscal year 2010. 

Consistent with House Report 107–587 (Part 1), the Committee 

expects that the EPA 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 to participate in research 

projects under this section, the Administrator is directed to give 

preference to non-Federal entities located within the Great Lakes 

watershed. 

ADDITIONAL MATTERS

During Committee consideration of H.R. 6460, several stakeholder groups expressed concern about the expiration of funds appropriated under the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 that remain 

unexpended two years after appropriation. The Committee strongly 

supports the continued availability of funds appropriated under 

section 118(c)(12) of the Clean Water Act until they are expended 

(consistent with the authority found in section 118(c)(12)(H)(ii)). 

The Committee intends to work with the Committee on Appropriations to ensure that funds appropriated to address contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes areas of concern may remain 

available until expended. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On May 21, 2008, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing, entitled ‘‘Reauthorization of the Great 

Lakes Legacy Act’’. 

On July 10, 2008, Representative Vernon Ehlers introduced H.R. 

6460, the ‘‘Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008’’. No 

similar legislative proposal was introduced in previous Congresses. 

On July 31, 2008, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in open session to consider H.R. 6460. The Committee adopted by voice vote an amendment in the nature of a substitute that made several technical changes to the bill. The Committee ordered the bill, as amended, reported favorably to the 

House by voice vote with a quorum present. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
12 

RECORD 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 record 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 consideration of H.R. 6460 or ordering the bill reported. A motion to order H.R. 6460, as amended, reported favorably to the House was agreed to by voice vote with a 

quorum present. 

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 in the report. 

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 reauthorize appropriations 

for projects to remediate contaminated sediments in the Great 

Lakes areas of concern and for research on the development of 

sediment remediation technologies and techniques, and to make 

targeted improvements to the implementation of the program. 

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 

enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 6460 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, August 8, 2008. 

Hon. JAMES L. OBERSTAR, 

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. 6460, the Great Lakes 

Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
13 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S. Mehlman. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT A. SUNSHINE

(For Peter R. Orszag, Director). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 6460—Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008 

Summary: H.R. 6460 would authorize the Enviromnental 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 

$750 million over the 2009–2013 period to EPA for that purpose. 

In addition, the bill would authorize the appropriation of $25 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. Under current law, the amounts authorized for those 

two programs for 2008 totaled $50 million and $3 million, respectively. 

Assuming appropriation of the specified amounts, CBO estimates 

that implementing this legislation would cost $639 million over the 

2009–20013 period. Enacting H.R. 6460 would not affect direct 

spending or receipts. 

H.R. 6460 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 $639 million over the 2009–2013 

period, assuming appropriation of the amounts authorized for each 

year. Those estimated outlays are based on historical patterns for 

similar activities. The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 6460 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 Cleanup Projects: 

Authorization Level .............................................................. 150 150 150 150 150 750 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 60 120 138 147 150 615 

Research and Development: 

Authorization Level .............................................................. 5 5 5 5 5 5 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 4 5 5 5 5 24 

Total Changes: 

Authorization Level .............................................................. 155 155 155 155 155 775 

Estimate Outlays ................................................................. 64 125 143 152 155 639 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 6460 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. The bill would extend EPA programs to cleanup sediment 

contamination in the Great Lakes. Any costs state, local, or tribal 

governments might incur, including matching funds, would result 

from complying with conditions of aid. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
14 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susanne S. Mehlman; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Neil Hood; Impact 

on the Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XXI 

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, H.R. 6460, the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008, does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 

9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

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 1974 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. 6460 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. 

APPLICABILITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

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 omitVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:46 Sep 16, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR849P1.XXX HR849P1

erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
15 

ted 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 

TITLE I—RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 118. GREAT LAKES. 

(a) FINDINGS, PURPOSE, AND DEFINITIONS.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the term— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(I) ‘‘Lakewide Management Plan’’ means a written document which embodies a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting the beneficial 

uses of the open waters of each of the Great Lakes, in accordance with article VI and Annex 2 of the Great Lakes 

Water Quality Agreement; øand¿ 

(J) ‘‘Remedial Action Plan’’ means a written document 

which embodies a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting the beneficial 

uses of areas of concern, in accordance with article VI and 

Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreementø.¿; 

(K) ‘‘site characterization’’ means a process for monitoring and evaluating the nature and extent of sediment 

contamination in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s guidance for the assessment of contaminated sediment in an area of concern located wholly or partially within the United States; and 

(L) ‘‘potentially responsible party’’ means an individual 

or entity that may be liable under any Federal or State authority that is being used or may be used to facilitate the 

cleanup and protection of the Great Lakes. 

* * * * * * * 

(c) GREAT LAKES MANAGEMENT.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(12) REMEDIATION OF SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION IN AREAS OF

CONCERN.— 

(A) * * * 

(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— 

(i) * * * 

(ii) subject to subparagraph (D), implements a plan 

to remediate contaminated øsediment¿ sediment, including activities to restore aquatic habitat that are 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
16 

carried out in conjunction with a project for the remediation of contaminated sediment; or 

* * * * * * * 

(D) øLIMITATION¿ LIMITATIONS.—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; 

øor¿ 

(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 projectø.¿; 

(iii) unless each non-Federal sponsor for the project 

has entered into a written project agreement with the 

Administrator under which the party agrees to carry 

out its responsibilities and requirements for the project; 

or 

(iv) unless the Administrator provides assurance that 

the Agency has conducted a reasonable inquiry to identify potentially responsible parties connected with the 

site. 

(E) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.— (i) * * * 

ø(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.¿ 

(ii) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.— (I) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal share of the 

cost of a project carried out under this paragraph 

may include the value of an in-kind contribution 

provided by a non-Federal sponsor. 

(II) CREDIT.—A project agreement described in 

subparagraph (D)(iii) may provide, with respect to 

a project, that the Administrator shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 

project the value of an in-kind contribution made 

by the non-Federal sponsor, if the Administrator 

determines that the material or service provided as 

the in-kind contribution is integral to the project. 

(III) WORK PERFORMED BEFORE PROJECT AGREE- MENT.—In any case in which a non-Federal sponsor is to receive credit under subclause (II) for the 

cost of work carried out by the non-Federal sponsor 

and such work has not been carried out by the 

non-Federal sponsor as of the date of enactment of 

this subclause, the Administrator and the non-Federal sponsor shall enter into an agreement under 

which the non-Federal sponsor shall carry out 

such work, and only work carried out following the 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
17 

execution of the agreement shall be eligible for 

credit. 

(IV) LIMITATION.—Credit authorized under this 

clause for a project carried out under this paragraph— 

(aa) shall not exceed the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project; and 

(bb) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of the materials and services provided by the non-Federal sponsor, as determined by the Administrator. 

(V) INCLUSION OF CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS.—In 

this subparagraph, the term ‘‘in-kind contribution’’ 

may include the costs of planning (including data 

collection), design, construction, and materials 

that are provided by the non-Federal sponsor for 

implementation of a project under this paragraph. 

(iii) TREATMENT OF CREDIT BETWEEN PROJECTS.— Any credit provided under this subparagraph towards 

the non-Federal share of the cost of a project carried 

out under this paragraph may be applied towards the 

non-Federal share of the cost of any other project carried out under this paragraph by the same non-Federal 

sponsor for a site within the same area of concern. 

ø(iii)¿ (iv) 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 øservice¿ contribution performed under, an administrative order on consent 

or judicial consent decree; but 

(II) may not include any funds paid pursuant to, 

or the value of any in-kind øservice¿ contribution 

performed under, a unilateral administrative 

order or court order. 

ø(iv)¿ (v) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The nonFederal share of the cost of the operation and maintenance of a project carried out under this paragraph 

shall be 100 percent. 

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.¿ 

(F) SITE CHARACTERIZATION.— (i) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, in consultation 

with any affected State or unit of local government, 

shall carry out at Federal expense the site characterization of a project under this paragraph for the remediation of contaminated sediment. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
18 

(ii) LIMITATION.—For purposes of clause (i), the Administrator may carry out one site assessment per discrete site within a project at Federal expense. 

* * * * * * * 

(H) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

ø(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.¿ 

(i) IN GENERAL.—In addition to other amounts authorized under this section, there is authorized to be 

appropriated to carry out this paragraph— 

(I) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 

through 2008; and 

(II) $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 

through 2013. 

* * * * * * * 

(iii) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—Not more than 20 percent of the funds appropriated pursuant to clause (i)(II) 

for a fiscal year may be used to carry out subparagraph (F). 

* * * * * * * 

(13) PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM.— 

(A) * * * 

(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 ø2008¿ 

2013. 

* * * * * * * 

GREAT LAKES LEGACY ACT OF 2002 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—GREAT LAKES 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 106. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. 

(a) * * * 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

ø(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.¿ 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts authorized under 

other laws, there is authorized to be appropriated to carry out 

this section— 

(A) $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008; 

and 

(B) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. 

* * * * * * * 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
19 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here HR849.001
20 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here HR849.002