Segment 2 Of 2     Previous Hearing Segment(1)

SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
H.R. 3670, AND GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT REMEDIATION

Wednesday, April 12, 2000
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, D.C.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m. in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

    Mr. BOEHLERT. Good morning. The Subcommittee will come to order.
    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 are the largest system of fresh surface water on Earth, holding 18 percent of the world's supply, and 95 percent of the U.S. supply.
    Over the past 200 years, industrialization and development have had a significant impact on the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Great Lakes are particularly vulnerable to contamination because outflow rates for most of the lakes is very slow. As a result, many pollutants discharged into the Great Lakes settle into the sediments at the bottom of the Lakes.
    Efforts to restore the Great Lakes are proceeding through cooperative efforts with Canada, as well as through efforts of the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, other federal agencies, the Great Lakes States, industry, and local communities.
    Many of these efforts are taking place under section 118 of the Clean Water Act which Congress enacted in 1987 to meet the commitment made by the United States in the U.S./Canada 'Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.'
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    At present, there are 43 'Areas of Concern,' in the Great Lakes Basin. Restoration is complete at only one 'Area of Concern' located in Canada. Settlement remediation is a component of ecosystem restoration at virtually all the Great Lakes 'Areas of Concern.'
    To date, most active sediment remediation at U.S. 'Areas of Concern' has occurred as a result of Superfund enforcement action, or threat of Superfund enforcement action. However, as we all know from our oversight of the Superfund program, Superfund is not a good model to follow for cleanup of multiple hazardous substances from multiple sources accumulated over several generations, like the contaminated settlements at Great Lakes 'Areas of Concern.' Litigation over liability would never end. Fortunately, only a handful of contaminated settlement sites have ever been placed on Superfund's National Priorities List.
    A more successful and promising model is the use of public-private partnerships, like the partnership used at the Ashtabula River 'Area of Concern' in Congressman LaTourette's district.
    However, settlement remediation can be very costly. Federal assistance could help leverage State and private funding. In February of this year the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Congressman Oberstar, introduced H.R. 3670, which amends section 118 of the Clean Water Act to authorize $50 million a year for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005 for EPA to make grants to States, Indian tribes, interstate agencies, and local governments for projects to improve water quality at Great Lakes 'Areas of Concern.'
    The Administration made a similar proposal, providing one year of funding as part of the Administration's budget request. But they made this proposal as a rider on the VA/HUD appropriations bill. That is clearly not the best way to do business.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about the progress that has been made on settlement remediation in the Great Lakes, what lessons we have learned, what further actions need to be taken, and how we can best accomplish our shared goal of restoring the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. BOEHLERT. First I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the Representative from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a Great Lakes State, as is the Empire State of New York, Congressman Borski, for any remarks he would care to make.
    Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me first thank you for holding this hearing on an issue of tremendous importance to the Great Lakes region.
    I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the Ranking Member, Mr. Oberstar, in authoring H.R. 3670, the subject of today's hearing. The Great Lakes could not have a more strident advocate than Jim Oberstar.
    Mr. Chairman, the Great Lakes region is an area of tremendous importance to this Nation, containing nearly 20 percent of the world's supply of fresh water. The Great Lakes are the Nation's largest fresh water resource and the largest system of fresh water on earth. Fully one-tenth of the U.S. population lives within the Great Lakes basin, and this area is home to more than one-quarter of all U.S. industry, yet the legacy of these dramatic population pressures has not gone unnoticed.
    Toxic chemicals, trapped in the sediment of Great Lakes rivers and harbors, are a major source of chemical pollution to fish, wildlife, and the residents of this region. As a result, children, the elderly, and other susceptible populations living in this region have an extremely high risk of contracting cancer from eating polluted fish, as high as one in twenty-two individuals.
    It is crucial that we begin to address the contaminated sediments as quickly as possible so that the pollutants they contain do not leach further into the Great Lakes and contaminate these waters for generations to come.
    I believe that significant investment and attention to the legacies of our industrial past are long overdue. The lessons that are learned from addressing the contamination in these Areas of Concern will be of tremendous benefit to other toxic sediment projects nationwide.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I welcome the witnesses here today and look forward to their testimony.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
    We have a very distinguished first panel, regular visitors to this Subcommittee, the Honorable Charles Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Honorable Michael Davis, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, and he is accompanied by Jan Miller, manager of Corps programs supporting Great Lakes remedial action plans.
    Before we get to the panel, though, I would like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers.
    Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I normally give very brief opening statements; in this case I'm going to give a fairly lengthy one because I think this is an extremely important topic.
    I also welcome Mr. Fox here. He and I have met each other several times in the Science Committee. I am sure he's getting tired of testifying before me.
    But, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing and for focusing much-needed attention on the very serious problems we face from contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes Basin, as well as many other pollution activities that are creating difficulties. I certainly appreciate your effort to help educate Congress about how important the Great Lakes are to our Nation.
    Perhaps it should come as no surprise that this subcommittee is focusing on the Great Lakes, because the region is well represented on this committee. Both the Chairman and Ranking Member of this subcommittee, like myself, represent districts within the Great Lakes Basin. In addition, several of our colleagues who sit on this committee represent Great Lakes States. In fact, we have three of the four co-chairs of the bipartisan Great Lakes Task Force: Mr. Oberstar, Mr. LaTourette, and myself, sitting on this subcommittee.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    With this much representation, perhaps we should be holding even more hearings on Great Lakes issues. What this does show me is how much the members appreciate the special resource we have in the Great Lakes. Let me give some background.
    The Great Lakes are the most precious natural resource in the upper midwest, forming the largest fresh surface water system on earth. These fresh water seas hold an estimated six quadrillion gallons of water, or about one-fifth of the world's fresh surface water supply, and nine-tenths—that's 90 percent—of the fresh water supply of the U.S.
    We all view the lakes as a sacred gift which must be treasured and protected. Every citizen in the Great Lakes Basin is affected by this resource. It provides us with fresh drinking water, habitat for wildlife, food from fisheries, leisure for recreation on the waterways, water for agriculture, and shipping lanes for economic growth. I cannot stress enough how important water quality in the Great Lakes is to 33 million people that live in the Basin.
    We face several significant challenges that Congress, State and local governments, and communities must work together to solve. One of these challenges is improving water quality, which is the topic we are focusing on today.
    When we look at the water quality concerns, we note that the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement has served as a guiding policy to improving water quality in the Basin for almost 30 years, since President Nixon and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau signed the treaty in 1972. The agreement first helped us with a basic cleanup of the Basin and, more specifically, to reduce the amount of phosphorus flowing into the waterways. High levels of phosphorus in the Great Lakes were creating an imbalance in the ecosystem. After accomplishing much of this goal, we moved on to focusing on toxic contaminants that were harming water quality.
    We now know that toxic contaminants will find their way into sediment through a variety of pathways, and remain a persistent threat to the ecosystem and water quality until both the source of the contamination and the sediment are cleaned up.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The agreement identified 31 Areas of Concern in the United States where contaminated sediment, among other things, is impairing the beneficial use of the water and the area's ability to support aquatic life. These sites are where I believe legislation is necessary to improve water quality, and I will shortly be introducing legislation dealing with this, creating the Great Lakes Legacy Fund.
    Several weeks ago, I asked the Great Lakes community, consisting of environmental, community, and industry groups, along with the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office, how they would shape legislation dealing with the problem of contaminated sediments. I am very pleased to say that we will hear the principles of agreement that they have reached as a result of this charge in testimony today.
    I have always tried to be a consensus-builder and carefully listen to the affected community when developing legislation. I believe this is the best course of action, and I will be introducing this legislation, based on these principles, very shortly.
    In short, my legislation will authorize the EPA, acting through the Great Lakes National Program Office, to issue $50 million in grants each year for, first, remediation of contaminated sediment; second, prevention of further or renewed contamination of sediment; third, long-term monitoring of the contaminated sediment. In addition, the legislation will authorize the EPA to prioritize the grant selection process to Areas of Concern that are, first, located wholly within the United States; second, that have projects ready to be implemented under their remedial action plans; and third, use innovative approaches to clean up the sediment.
    Furthermore, this legislation will leverage Federal funding by requiring at least a 35 percent match of the Federal funding, while making sure that existing sources of funding do not get displaced by this new program.
    Finally, the legislation will coordinate the decision making process in awarding these grants among the Federal agencies dealing with contaminated sediments, and with the affected State or local governments.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. I look forward to working with everyone testifying today on this legislation, and I just want the members and the audience to know that we have drafts of this legislation present here. It's not quite ready to be introduced, but it should be within a few days. My staff has copies of the legislation available to anyone who is interested in reviewing it during the course of this hearing.
    Once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I would like to thank both the Chairman and the Ranking Member for their outstanding work on water quality issues. I am afraid I'm not as faithful in attending your meetings as I should be, but frankly, it's a mark of my confidence in you, Mr. Chairman. You have done such great work up to this point that I have agreed with everything you've done.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. You silver-tongued devil, you.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Ehlers.
    Is there anyone else seeking recognition from the Chair?
    [No response.]
    Mr. BOEHLERT. If not, we will go directly to our distinguished panel.
    Mr. Fox, you are up first.
TESTIMONY OF HON. CHARLES FOX, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY GIL VEITH; AND HON. MICHAEL L. DAVIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS), U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ACCOMPANIED BY JAN MILLER, MANAGER OF CORPS PROGRAMS SUPPORTING GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS

 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. FOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a pleasure to be before your subcommittee, and Dr. Ehlers. I do not grow tired of our time together and would be happy to spend more on this very important subject.
    I am joined here today on my right by Dr. Gil Veith, who is an individual who has an unbelievable amount of experience with science issues in the Great Lakes, and I thought he might be valuable in case any questions come up. Dr. Veith served for 26 years as the Director of our Environmental Research Lab in Duluth, Minnesota, and he is currently the Associate Director of Ecology for the EPA's Research Office in Research Triangle Park.
    I am also glad to be joined here by Mr. Mike Davis from the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps is a vital partner in our work in protecting and restoring the Great Lakes.
    Thanks to the strong and committed network of Federal, State, and citizen organizations, much work has been done to improve water quality in the Great Lakes. Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go to meet the commitments in the Great Lakes Agreement and to achieve the goal of a healthy Great Lakes that the Nation can be proud of.
    Today, the States report that fully 96 percent of the Great Lakes shoreline is impaired by a range of pollutants, including toxic chemicals, pesticides, nutrients, pathogens, and metals.
    The Environmental Protection Agency oversees implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada. One of the key tenets of the agreement is the identification and restoration of what are called ''Areas of Concern,'' or AOCs for short. These are severely degraded areas which have beneficial uses that are impaired. These impairments include restrictions on and consumption of water or fish; beach closings; deformities in fish and wildlife, among other attributes.
    There are a total of 42 Areas of Concern in the United States and Canada. Eleven AOCs are located in Canada; five are shared between the two countries; and the remaining twenty-six AOCs are dispersed among eight Great Lakes States. The majority of them, by the way, are in the great State of Michigan.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    For each AOC, the agreement requires development of a remedial action plan that identifies the specific problems degrading the area of concern, and outlines corrective actions that are necessary to mitigate those problems. Remedial action plans have been developed for each of the Areas of Concern, but many cannot be fully implemented due to the lack of adequate funds. As a result, all AOCs remain impaired from sources of degradation, such as contaminated sediments, storm sewer and combined sewer overflows, and nonpoint source runoff.
    The International Joint Commission, which oversees implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in the U.S. and Canada, recently expressed concern about the slow rate of AOC cleanup due to diminishing availability of cleanup funds, and they urged greater action by the U.S. and Canadian governments to prioritize the work among Areas of Concern and identify new resources for rapid implementation. In fact, in the last two months the Canadian government has responded to this challenge by pledging $8 million per year to restore the AOCs.
    The President's budget, as you know, included $50 million for this, and this was included in the report from the International Joint Commission recommending additional funding for AOC implementation. This report was issued in August of 1999.
    H.R. 3670 is strongly supported by the Administration. It would be a catalyst for continued progress in protecting the Great Lakes, and the Administration is pleased to support the bill. It would build upon the strong foundation of pollution control programs and stringent water quality standards in the Great Lakes and enable us to make major strides towards better overall health of the Great Lakes.
    I would be happy to answer any questions you might have about the specifics of the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Fox.
    Mr. Davis?

 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. MICHAEL DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Michael Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army. With me today is Mr. Jan Miller of the Corps of Engineers; Great Lakes and Ohio River Division. It is a pleasure to once again testify before this committee, today on the subject of H.R. 3670, and the Corps of Engineers activities related to the management and remediation of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes.
    Sediment contamination is a problem in many of the Nation's waterways, including many of the Federal navigation projects in the Great Lakes. The presence of contaminated sediments negatively affects the environment, and has increased the cost of channel maintenance. In some cases, it has limited our ability to perform maintenance at all.
    The Corps has extensive experience in the management of contaminated sediments through our navigation dredging activities. The expertise has been utilized by the Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal agencies and State and local governments in the remediation of contaminated sediments in Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
    The Corps has worked in partnership with EPA since the days of its predecessors, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, to manage contaminated sediments in Great Lakes harbors and channels in an environmentally responsible manner. In the late 1960s the Corps worked on a two-year pilot program on disposal alternatives for contaminated dredge material from Great Lakes harbors. The Corps evaluated treatment technologies and constructed prototype confined disposal facilities specifically for contaminated sediments.
    Confined disposal is the most widely used alternative for managing contaminated sediments, whether from dredging for navigation purposes or environmental remediation. In the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1970, Congress authorized a program for construction of CDFs for contaminated sediments dredged from Great Lakes navigation channels. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 included a national authority for CDFs.
    Under these and other authorities, the Corps has constructed 44 confined disposal facilities to serve Great Lakes navigation projects. Over 60 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments have been safely managed at these structures in accordance with Federal and State environmental laws and regulations. We believe that the dredging and confined disposal of contaminated sediments from Federal navigation channels has contributed to significant environmental benefits in the Great Lakes area. Contaminated sediments have been dredged from navigation channels in 12 of the 31 Great Lakes Areas of Concern that Mr. Fox mentioned, and have been placed in CDFs.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Proposed construction of new CDFs at three other Areas of Concern are vital elements of the remedial action plans.
    The Corps has worked closely with EPA to evaluate and enhance the performance of Great Lakes CDFs. This has included collaborative monitoring studies, development of contaminant mobility and transport models, and demonstrations of technologies for treating contaminated sediments and reclaiming clean soil from CDFs. Our agencies are working together on a report to Congress which will summarize the status and performance of Great Lakes CDFs.
    The Corps supported Federal, State and local agencies around the Great Lakes in the remediation of contaminated sediments through reimbursable support and cost-shared programs. The Corps has provided technical support to EPA regions at a number of Superfund sites with contaminated sediments. The Corps has also supported EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office in implementing the assessment and remediation of contaminated sediments, or the ARCS program.
    This support included demonstrations of sediment treatment technologies and development of guidance documents on sediment remediation technologies.
    The Corps has supported State and local agencies with the evaluation and design of sediment remediation alternatives at six Areas of Concern under the Great Lakes Remedial Action Plan and Sediment Remediation Authority.
    The Corps is currently conducting detailed design on a sediment remediation plan for the Ashtabula River under its environmental dredging authority, and is conducting reconnaissance studies on sediment remediation at another five Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
    The Corps is also helping State and local governments with the control of sediment contamination at the source. Corps districts have developed sediment transport models for Great Lakes tributaries to evaluate nonpoint source pollution prevention and soil conservation alternatives.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We also appreciate the opportunity to review H.R. 3670 and appreciate Congressman Oberstar's efforts to address the problems of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes. Maintaining safe, reliable, and economically efficient navigation channels depends upon our ability to responsibly manage contaminated sediments. H.R. 3670 will help address the need to improve water and sediment quality within the Great Lakes, including areas where the Corps has navigation responsibilities.
    We support H.R. 3670 and will defer to Assistant Administrator Fox for more detailed comments, since the bill was principally directed at the Environmental Protection Agency.
    In conclusion, our experience on the Great Lakes indicates that to be successful, source control and remediation of contaminated sediments requires the collaboration of agencies at all governmental levels. The Corps stands ready to support the EPA and others in the implementation of programs for Great Lakes sediment remediation, and will work to apply our cost-shared authorities for sediment remediation in concert with EPA. In addition, the Corps will continue to assist the U.S.-Canada technical cooperation, including the IJC, to help both countries achieve cost-effective solutions for Great Lakes contaminated sediments.
    Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Mr. Miller and I will be pleased to answer any questions you or the subcommittee may have.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Than you very much, Mr. Davis. Mr. Miller is going to consult with you right now.
    I will ask the first question of Mr. Fox.
    Mr. Fox, you probably know that one of the things we do up here, Mr. Borski and I, is that we take the Hippocratic oath: first, do no harm, just like the doctors. So let me ask this first question.
    Is dredging the default remedial option for contaminated sediments? Or does EPA evaluate all options and weigh the long-and short-term risk of each, including implementation risk, to make sure that EPA does not pick a remedy that causes more harm than good? This is a high profile issue, and I give the ball to you; run with it.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. FOX. Thank you very much. I very much appreciate that very difficult question you have asked, and the answer is that it is very much a site-specific determination based on the kinds of risks that are posed by contaminated sediments and what some of the potential best technical solutions are. We agree completely with the premise of ''do no harm.''
    I am familiar with sites where dredging of contaminated material was, in fact, the most protective and most beneficial—and frankly, the most cost-effective. Waukegan Harbor, for example, was a place where there were just enormous quantities of PCBs, and we simply had to get them out of the environment.
    There are going to be other situations where capping the sediments might be more appropriate. There might be techniques for in-place remediation in some cases, and these are the kinds of projects that we really need to look at very much on a site-specific basis.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much; that was the answer I was hoping for, ''site-specific,'' and you very carefully evaluate that in some places dredging is appropriate; in other places, you leave well enough alone and cap it?
    Mr. FOX. That's correct.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Okay. Fine.
    Mr. Davis, two questions. Let me get to the first one.
    The Corps Policy Guidance Letter No. 49 establishes a policy that the Corps will not use environmental dredging authorities at any area where EPA is considering a response action under Superfund authorities. This is contrary to the intent of Congress. We intend the Corps to work cooperatively with EPA and others on environmental dredging projects. Nothing in section 312 supersedes any Superfund authorities, so there is no reason that the Corps cannot provide assistance, even if EPA is conducting a response action in the same area.
    In both WRDA '96 and WRDA '99—Mr. Strachn, incidentally, of our Committee, who has had a 17-year history with the Corps, consistently tells me it's not ''worda,'' it's W-R-D-A '96 and W-R-D-A '99; apparently that's the Corps version in both of those bills, in 1996 and 1999, the Committee reaffirmed its intent that the Corps use its authority under section 312 to create a partnership with EPA and supplement EPA actions.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    What steps have you and the Corps taken to follow these instructions? And then I have another specific question of you.
    Mr. MICHAEL DAVIS. This issue has recently been brought to our attention in the Assistant Secretary's Office. We are in the process, with the Corps, of taking a look at PGL-49, and I think I will tell you the good news, that we are going to revise it so that it opens it up so that we address the concerns that you and others have raised, so that we would have the flexibility to use this authority at sites, CERCLA sites and Superfund sites.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. The follow-up question, and this is of particular interest to me. In consultation with both the Assistant Secretary and the Department of Justice, I am led to believe that if a Native American tribe wishes to dredge, it is required to file for a 404 permit. Is that your understanding?
    Mr. MICHAEL DAVIS. Yes, it is. To the extent they need a 404 permit for the dredging, yes, they would be required, unless there is some other provision in an existing treaty that would negate the need for that. We don't think that's generally the case, though. So I would agree with you that yes, generally they would have to have a Clean Water Act permit.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, as Mr. Fox knows, I am a champion of the mission of EPA, and I like to view myself as a partner. We don't always see eye-to-eye on every single detail, but I have consistently reported to the people that I'm privileged to represent Native American tribes, for whom I have a very high regard in terms of New York State and their dealing with environmental issues, but they must have a permit to do dredging.
    Let the record show that not only did Mr. Davis nod affirmatively, it was a vigorous nod. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Fox, do you have any comment on that?
    Mr. FOX. No, sir, I think you've gotten everything you need out of the Corps at this point.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. BOEHLERT. But you would agree with that?
    Mr. FOX. The only caveat I would say—and I am still learning the nature of these relationships, and it's very different from tribe to tribe—the only caveat I would add, as Mr. Davis mentioned, is that there are some separate treaties that the tribes have that might convey certain rights to them that aren't generally spoken to in Mr. Davis' answer.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. I understand that. But in general what I have said is that Native Americans are citizens of the United States, and the same environmental laws apply to them as apply to you and me.
    Mr. FOX. That's correct.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Let me just tell you my own experience. They are very good stewards of the land, at least the tribes with which I am familiar in New York State, and they consult on a regular basis with the agencies—in this instance, the Corps of Engineers—and they follow the guidance and do it at the right time and in the right way. But they can't do it absent a permit; that is critically important.
    Thank you very much.
    And now it is my pleasure to turn to Mr. Borski.
    Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fox, let me start with you and talk a little bit about money, if I can.
    Does the Great Lakes Program receive its own line item in the budget for RAP implementation? And if not, how is the program being funded?
    Mr. FOX. The Great Lakes Office, in fact we have in my budget a few different line items. We have a line item for the Great Lakes National Program Office, which—I don't have it in front of me, but roughly it is about an $18 million annual appropriation. We actually have a separate line item in our budget for implementation of some of the Remedial Action Plans that might be rolled up in some of that, but there is a separate identification of that, too, and I can certainly get you that information.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. BORSKI. All right. And can you let us know how much money for implementation of RAPs has been spent on the Great Lakes Program, specifically with water quality and the Areas of Concern?
    Mr. FOX. Absolutely. We'll get that to you.
    [Information received follows:]

    [insert here]

    Mr. BORSKI. I know that in your statement you mention that you support this bill that we are having the hearing on. Do you believe that the approach that Mr. Oberstar takes will provide more assurance that water quality improvement in the Great Lakes areas concerned will receive more adequate funding?
    Mr. FOX. Yes, we do, and for that reason we do support the bill.
    I would like to comment, though. The Chairman mentioned that we included a rider in the President's budget for this, and I would just like to state that it is the Administration's belief that there is ample authority under current law to implement the vast majority of the projects and ideas that we are talking about here, whether it's under section 118 of the Great Lakes authorization, under section 319, the nonpoint program. The Clean Water Act gives us very broad authority.
    The reason we included in our budget request some additional language was to get to some of the more subtle issues regarding this program that Mr. Oberstar's legislation does. For example, setting up a competitive grants program, that is one that would require a specific authorization to do that.
    Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Davis, in your statement you say that ''dredging and confined disposal of contaminated sediments from Federal navigational channels has contributed significant environmental benefits to the Great Lakes.'' Does that mean that you support dredging as a means of permanently remediating contaminated sediments?
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. MICHAEL DAVIS. Yes. We think that one option certainly is the removal of material. As the Chairman and Assistant Administrator Fox mentioned, sometimes that's not the best or the most environmentally desirable option, but we do agree that there are certain circumstances—and perhaps many—where actually physically removing it and confining it in an upland site is the best approach.
    Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Fox, would you care to comment?
    Mr. FOX. I was reflecting—there was a fairly high profile incident involving kepone on the James River. This was a pesticide that came out of a wastewater treatment plant and contaminated the sediments on the James River.
    In this case, the scientific assessment was to leave well enough alone and not even cap it in this case, and it would slowly, naturally become capped.
    So I think the point is that all of these sites are going to be very different and they are going to require very site-specific determinations in each case.
    Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Davis, we just received the Administration's proposed WRDA bill yesterday—I might say, finally we received it—and Mr. Borski and I have been eagerly awaiting the presentation.
    To what extent is the proposed Brownfields Program a program that can involve remediation or management of contaminated sediments?
    Mr. MICHAEL DAVIS. I think there is a linkage there, and we would have the opportunity to do that under our proposal.
    One of the things that we focused our proposal on was waterways and waters, versus upland, non-water-related brownfields types of activities. So to the extent that this was a component of a waterway or problem, then we perhaps could use this authority.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. Taylor, do you have anything or should we go to the next panel?
    Mr. TAYLOR. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. All right.
    Thank you very much. We will have some follow-up questions, and as usual we would expect a timely response, and as usual, you will comply. So I appreciate the cooperation that you and your respective agencies extend to this subcommittee. Thank you very much.
    Panel No. II consists of the Executive Director of the Lake Michigan Federation, Mr. Cameron Davis; Ms. Emily Green, the Director of the Sierra Club Great Lakes Program; Mr. George Kuper, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Council of Great Lakes Industries; Dr. Louis Thibodeaux, Emeritus Director of the Hazardous Substance Research Center South and Southwest, Louisiana State University; and Mr. Chuying Wu, Program Director of the Natural Resources Research Institute.
    We would appreciate if you would summarize your statements in five minutes or less. Your complete statements will appear in the record at this juncture in their entirety. We will go in the order that you were introduced, starting with Mr. Davis.
TESTIMONY OF CAMERON DAVIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LAKE MICHIGAN FEDERATION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS; EMILY GREEN, GREAT LAKES PROGRAM, DIRECTOR, SIERRA CLUB, MADISON, WISCONSIN; GEORGE H. KUPER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COUNCIL OF GREAT LAKES INDUSTRIES, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN; LOUIS J. THIBODEAUX, EMERITUS DIRECTOR, HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RESEARCH CENTER/SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST, LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA; AND CHUYING WU, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, DULUTH, MINNESOTA

    Mr. CAMERON DAVIS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Cameron Davis and I serve as the Executive Director of the Lake Michigan Federation, which is headquartered in Chicago.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I grew up just blocks from Lake Michigan, where my family used to picnic on Sundays. My family was just one of the groups of folks who have developed a deep love for Lake Michigan, and today the Federation is privileged to represent thousands of other people from around the country who also live, work, and play around what we call ''America's Lake'' because Lake Michigan is the largest lake wholly within U.S. borders.
    The Federation, formed 30 years ago next month, is the oldest citizens' not-for-profit Great Lakes protection organization in North America. Our mission is to restore fish and wildlife habitat; to conserve land and water; and to eliminate toxics in the Lake Michigan Basin. We achieve this through education, research, law, science, economics, and strategic partnerships. You can find out more about issues facing Lake Michigan than I'll have time to talk about today on our website, LAKEMICHIGAN.ORG.
    The Lake Michigan Federation strongly supports the establishment of the Great Lakes Legacy Fund, which you are considering today, because it has the power to go well beyond just providing dollars to address the most serious toxic contamination problem in the Great Lakes. The fund has already provided the basis for agreements among parties that often do not see eye-to-eye. It also has the potential to create strong State, local, and Federal partnerships for improving the Great Lakes environment.
    To assist in the authorization of the fund, the Lake Michigan Federation in March agreed to coordinate efforts by stakeholders of various interests to come up with principles that could lead to the establishment of the fund and ensure that funding is focused so that it makes a real difference to real people around real places in the Great Lakes.
    In short, the principles are grounded in an understanding that contaminated sediment pollution that lies in silt and mud at the bottom of rivers, harbors, and lakebeds is perhaps the most pressing ecological toxic pollution problem facing the Great Lakes. Often the result of past discharges, sediment contaminants are frequently referred to as ''legacy pollutants.''
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The International Joint Commission has named 31 toxic hotspots in the U.S. and shared with Canada, almost all of which are plagued by contaminated sediments. Despite having been listed in the 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which was referred to earlier, only one area of concern has been removed from that list so far, and even then that one was not removed because of cleanup.
    More funding is necessary to address this far-reaching Great Lakes problem. Contaminated sediment is not a glamorous issue. It is not one that people think about when they are walking down a street. It is not one that people can readily understand. Despite this, contaminated sediment continues to make the news because it is an issue that simply won't go away until it is addressed. It is unlike, for example, air pollution or runoff that can be readily seen; and as a result of that, I believe that it is the most critical toxic pollution problem facing the Great Lakes today.
    Therefore Great Lakes cleanup, ridding the most precious fresh surface water supply in the United States of contaminated sediment, is crucial to everyone in the country. The principles express consensus reached by organizations such as the Lake Michigan Federation, Council of Great Lakes Industries, Great Lakes United, Sierra Club, and others. Abbreviated principles and the full copy are attached to our written testimony, and state that priority funding should be directed at contaminated sediment cleanup, but may secondarily support contamination prevention efforts.
    Priority should be given to those cleanup efforts that seek to use innovative technologies, such as consideration of permanent destruction approaches. Funding could support consideration into the full range of options for addressing contaminated sediment, however. The fund would have a bias for action, supporting cleanup first, and monitoring or studies second. Non-Federal matching funds can include environmental penalties or settlement funds, but not Superfund enforcement monies.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Federal allocations should be set at $50 million per year for five years, but subject to extension as needed.
    While the consensus achieved is not to say that all parties will now agree on how to address all contaminated sediment problems for all time, it is to say that this consensus, over the broad direction of the Great Lakes restoration effort, is a dramatic step, and with your help, will provide exactly the resources we need.
    I will wrap up now.
    Lakeside communities around the Great Lakes are starting to envision the benefits of clean, healthy waterfronts, free of contaminated sediment. Waukegan Harbor, just north of Chicago, for example, was once dubbed ''the worst PCB mess in the world.'' Today, citizens are once again viewing their harbor as a community gathering place, not a place to be avoided.
    Lake Michigan has provided nature's brawn for the U.S. to grow over the past century. Now that we are part of the strongest economic time in history, it is time to give something back to the Great Lakes so that they continue to support a healthy Great Lakes region.
    The Great Lakes Legacy Fund is more important than just money. It is about providing the basis for future cooperation so that we can rid the Great Lakes of legacy pollutants and, in doing that, leave a healthy Great Lakes legacy for future generations.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.
    Ms. Green?
    Ms. GREEN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. I am Director of the Sierra Club Great Lakes Program. The Sierra Club is the Nation's oldest and largest environmental organization, with over 600,000 members nationwide, and for the past 20 years we have been a strong advocate for Great Lakes protection and cleanup. Eliminating the legacy of toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes has been one of our top priorities.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I am here in Washington today to ask for your help in addressing this toxic legacy. The cleanup of these hotspots has long been one of our most daunting tasks, but it is absolutely essential if we are to protect and restore this resource for both our own and future generations.
    I am here to speak in favor of legislation authorizing funding to clean up the Great Lakes and to express our support for the consensus-based Legacy Fund principles that my colleague just described.
    It is critically important that this legislation is passed with bipartisan support this year. We need this funding to address one of the worst problems that our region faces.
    You have heard a lot about where the sediments are and some of the ecological and human health concerns. I won't repeat that. But I do want to touch on the economic impact of this legacy.
    I think first, and maybe foremost, the presence of toxic pollutants in the sediment of every major Great Lakes port and industrial harbor has vastly increased the cost of navigational dredging. More than half of our navigational dredge spoils must now be contained, treated, or otherwise managed in some way, at a cost at least three to four times the cost of unconfined dredging and disposal.
    Toxic hotspots have also increased shipping costs. Difficulties in finding a place to put polluted dredge spoils have reduced, and sometimes, prevented dredging in ports like Green Bay, Indiana Harbor, and Toledo. Ships going in and out of ports like these routinely carry less cargo than they are capable of holding to allow ships to ride higher in the water. This practice of ''light loading'' can cost the shipping company thousands of dollars, as a 1,000-foot-long ship leaves 270 tons of cargo on shore to accommodate one additional inch of draft. Ships entering and leaving Great Lakes harbors may have to reduce their draft by as much as 18 or 20 inches, leaving behind thousands of tons of cargo.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    These increased costs are a drain on an industry that has been the backbone for economic development in our region, and this drain will only increase as already-low lake levels continue to fall, with some lakes expected to drop as much as 21 inches below normal this year. Cleaning up the toxic hotspots that are upstream at these ports would help reduce the strain.
    It is our position that the impacts of toxic contaminants in the Great Lakes warrant action. We have lived with a ''no action'' scenario for more than three decades; so far, the lakes have not healed themselves. We still have fish consumption advisories all over the lakes. We still see tumors and birth defects and other signs of pollution on fish and wildlife, and we still find higher concentrations of PCBs in the bodies of people who live in the Great Lakes region, and our region still suffers the economic impacts of this pollution.
    The few areas where we have taken action offer proof that cleanup works. The no consumption fish advisories were removed four years after the cleanup at Waukegan Harbor was completed, and four years after the cleanup of the Black River in Ohio was finished, the tumors on fish had all but disappeared.
    Data from recent dredging projects in the Manistique and the Fox Rivers in Wisconsin shows that dredging actually can be done without making the problem worse.
    Therefore, we must move forward with cleanups for the remaining toxic hotspots in the Great Lakes as quickly as possible, with cleanups that offer permanent, environmentally sound solutions. We should invest in and apply treatment technologies whenever we have the chance, as this will get rid of the problem for good. Where we cannot, we must make sure that the local communities are involved from the start in figuring out to manage and dispose of this sediment.
    The funding proposals that you are considering today offer the best chance we have of moving forward quickly with cleanups in the Great Lakes. We don't have many resources to clean up these hotspots because they fall through the gaps of our existing laws. They are kind of an orphan child that lacks a home and consistent funding under existing programs. We have done our best to address them, using the authorities and permits that we have; but since there is no law that requires the cleanup of these sites, there are not many resources to get the job done.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I don't think we need a contaminated sediments cleanup law, like a Clean Water Act, but we do need a dedicated funding source that is specifically designed for the cleanup of the Great Lakes toxic legacy. It would allow us to cross some of these sites off the list, show some successes, get the ball rolling for the rest of the region. I think it would make more of a difference than anything else at this juncture.
    So I urge you to help us clean up this toxic legacy. If you can provide these funds, we will make the most of this opportunity and go as far as we can to resolve this problem for the benefit of our own and future generations. We have the tools we need and the momentum to take action. It will make a difference, and its impacts will be felt long after all of us have gone
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Kuper?
    Mr. KUPER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. May I be allowed a few extra seconds to respond to a question Mr. Borski raised to Mr. Fox in the previous session?
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Why don't you give your testimony, and then you can respond to the question.
    Mr. KUPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, good morning.
    The Council of Great Lakes Industries' mission is a straightforward one of promoting the economic growth and vitality of the region, in harmony with the needs of our human and natural resources. We call that a ''sustainable development'' agenda, and we've been working at this for close to a decade now within the Great Lakes Basin. We are made up of both U.S. and Canadian members; our membership list has been attached to our testimony.
    We are here because we are committed to a healthy and vibrant ecosystem. Also, you will see our vision statement attached to our testimony. We are also here to reinforce your understanding of our region's need for these dollars and the authorization to support those dollars. We want to see a healthier ecosystem, period.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    First, when we were organizing this testimony, we quickly encountered something of a dichotomy, and that dichotomy is whether or not this legislation should be prescriptive or nonprescriptive. My personal preference is nonprescriptive; tell us what it is you want to have happen, by when, and we'll go do it. Just make the resources available to the Regional Program Office and let them organize the action, because they can utilize the USEPA's Principles of Contaminated Sediments Management Strategy. That Program Office has experience with multi-stakeholder processes, the result of which you heard from my fellow testifiers this morning, and the Program Office's commitment to getting things done. I like what I heard about Mr. Ehlers' bill.
    Now, if you need to be prescriptive, you need to be prescriptive because you're aiming this program to be administered by the USEPA's regulatory side. And if I could just draw your attention to today's Wall Street Journal, the lead editorial will explain to you eminently why you don't want to do that.
    A brief background. First, we are making real environmental progress in the Great Lakes Basin. The lakes are cleaner, and they continue to improve.
    Second, there is extensive multi-stakeholder experience now in the lakes through the Water Quality Agreement, the Binational Toxics Strategy, and as evidence in the guidelines that Cameron just mentioned to you earlier.
    We continue to learn more about the status of the lakes and their primary stressors. We continue to learn more about the nature and sources of persistent toxics that bioaccumulate, and we continue to learn more about remediation technologies. Therefore, the Federal dollars must be spent so as to provide maximum environmental benefits in the most cost-effective and ecosystem-protective manner. It's a systems issue that we face.
    This does not mean automatic dredging. It does mean site-specific analysis, as I am pleased to hear the Chairman say in his opening remarks here this morning. And it means applying these new remedial techniques and technologies.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    CGLI is concerned that maybe we haven't asked you all for enough money. The International Joint Commission's SEDPAC—that's the Sediments Priority Action Committee of the Water Quality Board—says that our lack of resources is the single most prevalent reason for why remediation action has not been taken so far.
    There is at this moment a bipartisan opportunity that we in the field see here in Washington. The leading presidential contenders from both parties have told the public that environmental remediation is an important part of their proposed plans. We need this money. We need it for site analysis; we need it for new remedial technologies, and for whatever remediation action is chosen to be pursued.
    Thank you for making it possible and for hearing me out.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Dr. Thibodeaux?
    Mr. THIBODEAUX. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, thanks for this opportunity.
    Students are our surrogates; upon graduation they do useful things, and most of our publications end up in archival journals, so we don't feel very useful a lot of the time. But I want to thank you today for this opportunity. It is rare.
    Although contaminated sediment remediation options are limited, a balanced combination of these at any given site can render its condition protective to human health and the environment. Three basic options are available. These include natural recovery, in situ containment and treatment, and extraction for off-site containment and treatment.
    The selection procedures for the appropriate mix of technologies should consider each of the above in turn. I will explain the procedure and give some details, in addition to noting strengths and limitations.
    First, there should be no presumptive technology for all sites. Each contaminated bedsite is different and should be studied so that all three options are evaluated carefully. Natural recovery is not the so-called ''no action'' option. Monitoring will be an ongoing activity at all of these sites. Postings to warn humans and barriers to exclude them and other biota may be required at selected sites.
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Fate and transport models, consisting of computer simulations of mathematical equations that describe the concentrations of particles, chemicals, and fish are used to evaluate this base-case. The present generation of fate and transport models are puny mimics of the complex vagaries of real world rivers, lakes, and estuaries. Present use requires much calibration, which allows good reproduction of the collected data but is very problematic in future predictions of concentration levels of sediment, water and fish. In addition to predicting the consequences of storm events which erode sediments, there are other low-water biologically-enhanced processes that contribute to chemical release that are mysteries to complete understanding. In summary, these fate and transport models need to integrate the physical, chemical and biological processes much better if we are going to move ahead in predicting natural recovery or designing for the consequence of more aggressive treatment options.
    Presently, in situ containment or treatment means capping, in the practical sense. Numerous laboratory treatment options are available, but lose their overall effectiveness as the stop to field application is contemplated. Capping mimics the natural recovery in the sense that clean soil or sediment-like solids, centimeters to meters in thickness, are placed upon the contaminated bed. It works on stopping or regulating several processes responsible for chemical release from the bed, therefore effectively sealing contaminants within the bed. Capping is inappropriate if channel deepening is required, or if mud flats and shallow waters are not desirable. It is also problematic in high erosion spots of some waterbodies. Armoring may be a partial solution to this. The present generation of fate and transport models used to predict and design for capping have no database to build upon. Demonstrations are needed.
    If excavation is necessary, then a hydraulic or mechanical dredge will be required. The operation is very disruptive to the stable fabric of the contaminated bed. During the operating period, dredging mimics a continuous storm event on the river; much material, both particulate and chemical, escape containment and remain uncaptured by the dredge. Although effective in removing chemical mass, dredging is much less effective in reducing contaminant concentrations in surficial sediment. The few detailed studies of dredging effectiveness that have been performed indicate high concentrations remain on the surface. The after-dredging residue must then depend upon natural recovery and capping to reduce the surficial contamination and complete the job of remediation. Efforts to redesign dredging machines, originally designed to remove much material rapidly, that are precise with acceptable chemical losses or leavings, is proving to be a real challenge. Although slowing the rate of dredging will increase effectiveness, it extends the total time for dredging.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The present generation of fate and transport models used to predict or design the effects of dredging and the aftermath of dredging have no database to build upon. These models lack the design elements and calibration data in order to allow them to accommodate the changes in the river conditions rendered by the passing of the dredge machines. Demonstrations are needed.
    In summary, the same fate and transport models used for projecting the natural recovery option are needed, but are not up to the task of the aftermath of capping or dredging. Presently, the projections and forecasts are being done without data support. We are not ready to go forward with extensive implementation of these intrusive remediation options. When capping is done, you have a clean surface, whereas dredging always leaves a contaminated surface.
    If the need ever arises, dredging can be performed at a site previously capped. Dredging appears to be by far the most disruptive and design/execution problematic of the two.
    We can afford to wait. Natural recover is operating to heal these sites. The sites are in a very stable niche, as evidenced by being in place for 50 years-plus. There are no published or documented in-depth studies to conclude that any but minor bed disruptions have occurred. Our design skills and engineering tools need further development. In my opinion, we can afford to wait while better tools are being developed, because natural recover is working at almost all sites to continuously reduce the risk.
    Thank you.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Thibodeaux.
    Mr. Wu?
    Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Chuying Wu, and I am Program Director of the Natural Resources Research Institute at the University of Minnesota-Duluth.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Our lab is mostly working with mining and mineral processing. What does this have to do with sediment remediation? The mining process takes raw ores to concentrate the valuable minerals from the low-concentrate taking of the minerals, so that it is isolated to a very small portion, so these can be very cost-effectively shipped from the remote locations to the industrial cities.
    Our sediment remediation would be somewhat of a reverse process. It is mostly located in the industrial areas. What we can do is conduct the process, and then concentrate the small portion of the sediment which is highly toxic, and then ship this small portion to the remote site for the disposal or for further decontamination, which destroys the contaminants. So this will provide a very cost-effective way to treat the sediment. As we know, most sediment remediation processes are very expensive, and implementing this technology will at least bring a step forward for the possible remediation of a large area of the contaminants.
    In the early 1980s, the Dutch government initiated research on sediment remediation, and other European countries, such as Germany and Belgium, have followed suit. There are pilot and full-scale plants built to process sediment. This has been very successful, and those plants are very similar to our mineral processing plants.
    We have been involved in sediment remediation research since 1990 on this project, sponsored by EPA's Regional Offices under the Great Lakes Protection Fund, and also some for private dredging companies. This process does not destroy the pollutants, but rather isolates them into smaller fractions so that they can be treated in a more cost-effective manner. Samples from the areas that we have been looking at are Presque Isle, Saginaw River, Rouge River, Buffalo River, Indiana Harbor, Manistique Harbor, St. Louis River/Harbor, Raisin River, and Milwaukee Harbor.
    Our research and tests continued on when EPA Region 5 conducted a full-scale remediation operation at Manistique. That process is nearly complete, and hopefully they will take Manistique off the AOC list. Because they used this mineral processing technology, only about 9,500 tons of the material out of 24,000 of dredged material has to be shipped out to Utah, I believe, to be disposed of. So that's only 40 percent of the material that has to be treated as hazardous waste, so you can see costs there are about half of the total cost.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    There is still a sense of urgency to treat the sediment. Out of the 43 Areas of Concern, only one has been cleaned. There are CDFs around the areas, and most of them are near capacity, so there is a need to find alternatives for that.
    We are currently working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build a large-scale pilot plant at the CDF in Duluth, hoping to extend the life of the current CDF and provide permanent solutions for the sediment problem in the area. It involves reuse of the sediment for topsoil, construction, beach nourishment, and wetland creation.
    Reauthorizing the Great Lakes Program would provide much-needed funding for the continued research and actions necessary for remediation of the sediment, maintenance of waterways, and the restoration of degraded fresh water estuary habitat.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Wu.
    The subcommittee is privileged to be joined by ''Mr. Great Lakes,'' the distinguished Ranking Member of the full committee, the gentleman from Minnesota who is the author of H.R. 3670 and who is the driving force behind this hearing and so much of the activity of the Congress dealing with the Great Lakes.
    The Chair is pleased to recognize Mr. Oberstar.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, at the outset. Thank you very much, and Chairman Shuster, for holding this hearing. It is on a subject of very great importance and I greatly appreciate your turning the committee's attention to this subject. I also want to express my regret and apology for not being here at the outset; we are all making choices every day. Today I made a choice to attend the service honoring Jean Simon, the late wife of our former Senator, Paul Simon. Jean died of brain cancer a few weeks ago. She was a very special, dear, wonderful, and supportive friend to my wife during her struggle with breast cancer, and wanted to participate in that very important event.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. BOEHLERT. We thank you for that, and I would say that we acknowledge that you have your priorities in order.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. I appreciate the comments of all the witnesses, this panel and the previous panel, whose testimony I did read ahead of time.
    Mr. Wu, I would like to pursue just briefly this matter of using mining technology to separate sediments. It is an idea that actually originated from a discussion I had with Gil Veith and the Director of the Natural Resources Research Institute, talking about the complexity and cost of removing contaminated sediments from Areas of Concern on the Great Lakes. I said, you know, we do this in mining operations; we separate nonmagnetic ore with a flotation process, at very low cost, $1.00 to $1.50 per cubic yard. Why can't we do that with sediments? And they all pounced on the idea, put their best minds together to work on it, and the U.S. Bureau of Mines provided financial support for laboratory-scale studies and then for bench-scale, and we were moving into the pilot demonstration plant phase when the Bureau of Mines was summarily abolished in 1995.
    Since then, the Corps of Engineers has provided support, and I just wondered how much financial support, Mr. Wu, the NRRI is getting from the Corps of Engineers to carry this work forward.
    Mr. Wu. We are getting about half a million this year from the Corps of Engineers to work on the Duluth CDFs.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. And the initial indication is that not only does it successfully separate the contaminated sediments, it reduced the amount by 60 percent that has to be carried off to contained landfills.
    What are you seeing, at least so far, in cost reduction compared to other traditional methods?
    Mr. Wu. Well, it is also site-specific. It depends on how the sediment is characterized. If there is a large amount of sand, like the Saginaw River, most of it is sand, so that can be separated about 10 to 90 percent, of which the 90 percent is clean sand. So that will be much more cost-effective.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Incinerator disposal for PCBs costs about $500 per cubic yard, and the process of this material costs about $2 to $10, depending on the nature of the material. So if you calculated only 10 percent of a cost of $500—and they could do it for even less—you can see how much saving that would be.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. I also understand that the most complex bottom sediments for separation are those that involve grease and oil and diesel fuel that has settled into the bottom sediments, and it becomes extremely difficult to separate.
    Mr. Wu. Yes. The coating is on the fine surfaces, so it needs a great deal of scrubbing, and also the flotations that you mentioned earlier. Those processes will be able to do it somewhat, but I think we still need a lot of research on that front.
    We can still do something on that, but it is not as effective as we would like to see.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Another concern is that of scientists and environmental groups of reintroducing material into the water column. Now, there are several methods being attempted; the typical hopper dredge process of digging the bottom sediments up and moving the bucket up through the water column causes considerable reintroduction of materials into the water column, and they don't all stay in the same place. Currents may move it along. But suction dredging, while expensive, has proven to be very effective in removing bottom sediments without reintroducing them into the water column.
    Have you investigated those options as well?
    Mr. Wu. I'm not particularly in that area.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Thibodeaux, do you have any experience with that?
    Mr. THIBODEAUX. Yes, I do. I have studied three sites, one using a high-tech backhoe and the other using cutter—more properly, I should call them arbor dredges. They are not very clean tools, either, Mr. Oberstar. They leave a lot of remains, and they do muddy up the water quite a bit. I have some really dramatic photos that I would like to share with you.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you.
    One final question, Mr. Wu. The methods that you are using at NRRI were borrowed from the mining industry and have been very effective in your tests so far. But have you applied these on a full-scale, commercial, pilot-type operation?
    Mr. Wu. Well, Manistique is pretty much based on the same method. I've been involved in that particular project, but not in the operation sense, but in the beginning stage of the process.
    It has been able to take it down from over 100 parts per million of PCBs to down to less than 2. That's with 60 percent of the materials just being locally disposed of, and the rest of them were shipped to Utah. That's the only one I know about. Others are mostly fixed stations, like just putting cement down on it, and hopefully it won't leach out. I don't like that method, but that's probably more economical for the companies to get rid of the material.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, thank you very much. I encourage NRRI to continue its work, and I look forward to going there in the near future to assess first hand the work that you're undertaking.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Oberstar.
    Let me ask Dr. Thibodeaux, are you familiar with any data on the environmental results of dredging projects?
    Mr. THIBODEAUX. Yes, I am.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Can you tell us a little bit about it?
    Mr. THIBODEAUX. I have, in the last three years, been studying very carefully three sites that have been dredged, one in Louisiana—that's Bayou Bon Fouqa, which is part of Lake Ponchartrain—another is on the Grasse River in upstate New York, and the third is Manistique Harbor on the north shore of Lake Michigan. In fact, I want to leave with you some documents, the primary document being a thesis of my student—I'd like to talk about that also in a minute—but I have three documents that give details of this. The student is not graduating until May, so the date on it is May, 2000, and you haven't seen those yet.
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I also have documents that I'm submitting to journals for review.
    No one has really studied environmental dredging to the extent that I think it should be studied. In fact, I am the only one; I can really reference no other sources at this time.
    But I would like to point out that at Manistique, if there ever was a case that had a sad ending, I guess we could call it that. Recall back that Manistique was planned—capping was the planned option. As the man from EPA told you, they went through all the scenarios of what's the best choice, and the decision was going down the path of these options, and the one chosen was capping; but at the last minute—and I have the letter on my desk, because we had been working on capping many years. We developed a lot of the theory that shows the effectiveness of it. At the last minute they decided to go with dredging.
    It's a very sad situation. They've dredged how many times now, and the surficial sediment are higher than what they started with. My student just had a chance to study Manistique after the first two years, 1997 and 1998, and it's a real shame on the short term, and it looks like on the long term dredging was not the proper thing to do. The data I've seen of this last year, it paints the same picture.
    Unfortunately, the case of Manistique was unique, and all these sites are unique. It had a very thick layer, about a yard to a meter, of very high organic matter, wood chips, and it's very hard to cut into and process. They had an especially-designed dredge; it was being directed by EPA. And you will notice that the figures that you have there—this is sort of an underground photograph, if you will, from side-scan sonar, and you can see the little hillocks here. If you will notice down toward the bottom part of the picture, you can see where the dredge has made its pass.
    Now, this dredge is about 13 feet wide. It looks like a very big vacuum cleaner. It has curved blades on the front and a suction which pulls up the material from the bottom at about 5 percent solids. These machines are not like laser surgery on the eye, unfortunately; they are very big, cumbersome machines in which it is very hard to even go back to where you were, and the actual movement of them laterally—which you have to do, kind of like moving a lawnmower laterally, which you never do—but it makes these furrows that you see, and it really destroys that fabric.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    What happened at Manistique is, because the concentration was deeper at depth than on the surface, you left the situation worse every year. And I think that's going to be the case for every dredging site. The three I looked at, it's somewhat the same story. In the case of the Grasse River, there were a lot of boulders; a lot of the boulders were removed first, and an arbor dredge was used. An arbor dredge was used in the case of Manistique. It started out with about 18 inches of sediment. The best they could do was get down to the last 4. That arbor dredge kept bouncing off of these boulders on the bottom and couldn't get out that last remnant.
    So these are two I have studied in depth from engineering reports.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Where is the Grasse River?
    Mr. THIBODEAUX. It flows into the St. Lawrence. It's in upstate New York. G-R-A-S-S-E. It's in upstate New York, and it flows into the St. Lawrence.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. I'm from upstate New York; it's north of me considerably. But it flows into the St. Lawrence from south to north?
    Mr. THIBODEAUX. Messina.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. It's in Messina? Okay.
    Mr. THIBODEAUX. So I guess I come away depressed about our technology of dredging. The machines have evolved from where you had to move a lot of sediments. But this is a very difficult environment to try to work in. Most sediment environments are very thin layers; it is unusual to have things as deep as Manistique, which was three feet. Most of them play out in about a foot. About 30 centimeters of contaminant is what you have on the bottom. And these big old machines just can't handle that thin a layer, and you lose and leave so much.
    What I'm doing now is trying to account, in a mass balance fashion, all these losses.
    I'll stop there.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, Dr. Thibodeaux.
    Mr. Borski?
    Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to give Mr. Kuper a chance to respond to the question which I had asked Mr. Davis earlier, and perhaps for Ms. Green to respond to that.
    Mr. KUPER. Thank you, Mr. Borski.
    Mr. Chairman, the question Mr. Borski raised was how much money is in the President's budget for the Great Lakes National Program Office. I believe the number for this year is reduced to $13.5 million instead of the $18 million that Mr. Fox mentioned in his testimony. And the trend is turning down, which has made many of us nervous in the region.
    Mr. BORSKI. Okay.
    Ms. Green, I want to ask you what your opinion is of the dredging, as opposed to leaving things as they are, or even capping them.
    Ms. GREEN. Sure. Actually, I would like to follow up and give you a little more detail on a couple of sites where I think dredging has worked and been very positive.
    I guess I will say first that I don't think you can say across the board that dredging doesn't work, just like I don't think you can say across the board that there's a ''one size fits all'' option for any of these sites.
    There have been two dredging pilot projects conducted on the Fox River recently, just completed in the last year. The first was run by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources at a small deposit upstream. They used a hydraulic dredge, and found that the downstream concentration of PCBs in the water, just downstream from the dredgehead, were nondetectable. They were below background, showing that the dredge did not resuspend sediments to a measurable degree. They had to cut dredging short because they started late in the season, but they went back and finished the job and did achieve their cleanup goal for that place.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The second site was run by the responsible parties, the pulp and paper mills. That site was dredged only 30 percent of what it should have been, so I will say right off that it's not done, and therefore the job's not over. But in the couple of areas where they did actually dredge down to within 6 inches of the designed depth, they did achieve the cleanup goal there as well, showing again, I think, that dredging can work.
    Like I said in my statement, there are a couple of full-scale cleanups—or close to full-scale cleanups—at Waukegan Harbor and at the Black River in Ohio, where the environmental condition dramatically improved within three to four years after dredging was finished, where PCB concentrations went down in fish, where tumors were no longer detected on fish in the Black River.
    Again, I don't think that it can be an across-the-board determination. The problem that we face in the Great Lakes, I think it's a long-term benefit issue. If you get rid of the stuff that's upstream, you help the condition of the ports. And most of our areas are in tributaries where there is continued flow downstream into the Great Lakes; that's something else that needs to be considered. That's one reason why we talk about dredging more than in some areas in other parts of the country that I'm not as familiar with, because we do have sort of an ongoing impact of flow downstream.
    So I guess dredging is not perfect, and it may not always have been done correctly; it might leave a little bit behind, but it dramatically accelerates recovery of the system, and I think that's really what we're after.
    Mr. BORSKI. Do you have any experience with or comments on the suction dredge itself?
    Ms. GREEN. The hydraulic dredging? Yes. Those were the dredges used in the Fox River. Like I said, at both of those sites, the downstream—they monitor it upstream and they monitor it downstream, and there was no statistically significant difference between those two monitoring stations. They did not find dramatic resuspension.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I'm not that familiar, but I know there's been a lot of work on developing these dredges overseas, in Holland, the Netherlands, with some success. These dredges are designed for the purpose of removing contaminated sediments. They are designed to minimize resuspension. They work a little bit slower than the typical Corps navigational dredges, but it's my understanding that they do a very good job of it. I think it's a technology we really ought to invest in.
    Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
    I just want to make one final comment to Ms. Green, because I noticed in your testimony the concern about partisanship and what happens here in Washington, and I wanted to assure you that this committee is the exception to the rule, that we do work very well together. Mr. Boehlert is an outstanding Chairman, and we work on a bipartisan basis in this committee, so we are hopeful we can come to a positive conclusion in this problem.
    Ms. GREEN. I very much appreciate that.
    Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Green, you could probably give some examples of where dredging was used and where the results were not what we all would hope. First, ''do no harm,'' the Hippocratic oath, and I think we all can agree that whatever we do should not put human health and the environment at greater risk. I wish there was a magic page and chapter that we could turn to and say, ''When this situation exists, this is what you do; and when this situation exists, this is what you don't do.'' I mean, I've got a little thing called the Hudson River that traverses up and down New York State, a very controversial issue. I've tried my damndest to do the responsible thing, but I'm not quite sure what the most responsible thing is.
    So we are trying to come to grips with that, and you're right, there is not one size that fits all. Dr. Thibodeaux is more on the cautious side, but I think with justification. If any of you come up with a magic formula that we can apply, please share it with us.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Having said that, I want to thank all of you for being valuable resources for this subcommittee. We take our work very seriously and we appreciate your giving of your time and talent to help educate us.
    So with that, this is not the last chapter; it is one more chapter in the continuing saga. Thank you so very much.
    This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

    [insert here]