Great Lakes: EPA Needs to Define Organizational Responsibilities 
Better for Effective Oversight and Cleanup of Contaminated Areas 
(17-MAY-02, GAO-02-563).					 
                                                                 
To protect the Great Lakes, and to address common water quality  
problems, the United States and Canada entered into the bilateral
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972. The agreement has	 
been amended several times, most recently in 1987. The 1987	 
amendment committed the two countries to cooperate with state and
provincial governments to develop and implement remedial action  
plans (RAPs) for designated areas of concern located in the Great
Lakes Basin-- areas contaminated, for example, by toxic 	 
substances. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) leads the  
effort to meet the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality	 
Agreement, which include RAP development and implementation. As  
of April 2002, of the 26 contaminated areas in the Great Lakes	 
Basin that the United States is responsible for, all have	 
completed the first stage of the RAP process, however, only half 
have completed the second stage. Even though EPA has been charged
with leading the effort to meet the goals of the agreement, it	 
has not clearly delineated responsibility for oversight of RAPs  
within the agency, and, citing resource constraints and the need 
to tend to other Great Lakes priorities, reduced its staff and	 
the amount of funding allocated to states for the purpose of RAP 
development and implementation. 				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-563 					        
    ACCNO:   A03371						        
  TITLE:     Great Lakes: EPA Needs to Define Organizational	      
Responsibilities Better for Effective Oversight and Cleanup of	 
Contaminated Areas						 
     DATE:   05/17/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Water pollution control				 
	     Water quality					 
	     International agreements				 
	     Inland waterways					 
	     Intergovernmental relations			 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Great Lakes					 
	     Canada						 


******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-563
     
Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

May 2002 GREAT LAKES EPA Needs to Define Organizational Responsibilities
Better for Effective Oversight and Cleanup of Contaminated Areas

GAO- 02- 563

Page i GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 Background 3 Cleanup Progress Has Been Limited in Many
Contaminated Areas 6 EPA Is Not Fulfilling the Nation?s Responsibility to
Ensure the

Cleanup of Contaminated Areas 9 Conclusions 14 Recommendations for Executive
Action 14 Agency Comments 15

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 18

Appendix II Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency 19

Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 23

Tables

Table 1: Status of Areas of Concern 7

Figures

Figure 1: CEM Funding Provided to EPA Regions for RAP and LaMP Activities
Has Declined 12

List of Abbreviations

CEM Costal Environmental Management EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office IJC International Joint Commission
LaMPs Lakewide Management Plans OIG Office of Inspector General RAPs
Remedial Action Plans SOLEC State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences
Contents

Page 1 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

May 17, 2002 Congressional Requesters Millions of people in the United
States and Canada depend on the Great Lakes as a source for drinking water,
recreation, and economic livelihood. Over time industrial, agricultural, and
residential development on lands adjacent to the lakes have seriously
degraded the lakes? water quality, posing threats to human health and the
environment, and forcing restrictions on activities, such as swimming and
fish consumption.

In an effort to better protect the Great Lakes, and to address common water
quality problems, the governments of the United States and Canada entered
into the bilateral Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972. In 1978 the
parties reached a new agreement, which, as amended in 1983 and 1987,
expanded the scope of the activities by prescribing prevention and cleanup
measures intended to improve the lakes? conditions. Specifically, the 1987
amendment committed the two countries to cooperate with state and provincial
governments to ensure, among other things, the development and
implementation of remedial action plans (RAPs) for designated areas of
concern (areas) located in the Great Lakes Basin- areas contaminated for
example with toxic substances known to cause deformities in fish or animals.
The countries have agreed to use RAPs for managing the cleanup process and
restoring contaminated areas to their beneficial use, such as swimming or
fishing. The countries have identified 43 contaminated areas: 26 located
entirely within the United States, 12 in Canada, and 5 shared by both. The
agreement obligates the International Joint Commission (IJC)- an
international body charged with assisting the implementation of the
agreement- to review the RAPs and provide comments on them.

The Clean Water Act charges the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
with leading the effort to meet the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, which include RAP development and implementation. The purpose of
the section of the act addressing the Great Lakes is to achieve the goals of
the agreement through improved organization and definition of the agency?s
mission, funding of state grants for pollution control in the Great Lakes
area, and improved accountability for implementation of the agreement. The
act also establishes the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) within
EPA, charging it with, among other things, cooperating with federal, state,
tribal, and international agencies to develop and implement specific action
plans to carry out the

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

United States? responsibilities under the various agreements. GLNPO is also
charged with coordinating the actions of the agency, both in headquarters
and in the regions, aimed at improving Great Lakes? water quality.
Specifically, under the act the administrator is to ensure that GLNPO enters
into agreements with the various organizational elements within EPA
specifically delineating duties and responsibilities of each element within
the agency and the time and resources needed to carry out and complete them.

According to EPA, the RAP process provides a forum for individuals,
organizations, and local governments to become actively involved in the
restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystems. As such, EPA provides states
certain flexibility in developing RAPs. In some areas, states have borne the
responsibility for developing RAPs. In other areas, local citizens formed
citizen advisory councils to assume this responsibility. The RAP process
consists of three successive stages: (1) defining an area?s environmental
problem, (2) selecting remedial and regulatory measures to address the
problem, and (3) implementing the measures and restoring an area to its
beneficial use, such as swimming. As part of the RAP process, the states
submit their respective RAPs to the IJC for review and comment. When an area
successfully completes all three stages of the RAP process, the area?s name
is removed from the list of contaminated areas, signifying that the area is
restored.

Concerned with continued environmental problems in the lakes, you asked us
to (1) determine what progress has been made in developing and implementing
RAPs and (2) assess the effectiveness of EPA?s efforts to ensure that RAPs
are developed and implemented. The methodology that we used to address these
issues is presented in appendix I.

As of April 2002, none of the 26 contaminated areas in the Great Lakes Basin
for which the United States is responsible had completed all three stages of
the RAP process and been restored to beneficial use. Currently, all of the
areas have defined their respective environmental problems (stage 1), but
only approximately half of the areas selected remedial and regulatory
measures to address these problems (stage 2). The slow progress of cleanup
efforts reflects a general departure from the RAP process specified in the
agreement. In a few areas, the state or local groups continue to follow the
RAP process, although the ultimate remediation of the contaminated areas
remains uncertain. In some areas, citizen advisory councils developed
alternative cleanup plans that completely abandoned the RAP process.
According to state and local Results in Brief

Page 3 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

officials, the councils abandoned the process because they lacked the
technical expertise or financial resources to implement the RAPs. In other
areas, the states or citizen groups assumed responsibility for the RAPs ,
modifying the process to conform to each area?s particular circumstances.
Several areas forged ahead to address some of their environmental problems,
with successes realized through other federal program activity, such as
Superfund, or funding from state or nonprofit sources.

EPA is not effectively fulfilling the nation?s responsibility under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 to ensure that RAPs are
developed and implemented in the contaminated areas. Even though EPA has
been charged with leading the effort to meet the goals of the agreement, it
has not clearly delineated responsibility for oversight of RAPs within the
agency, and, citing resource constraints and the need to tend to other Great
Lakes priorities, reduced its staff and the amount of funding it allocates
to states for the purpose of RAP development and implementation. For
example, in 1992, EPA transferred the oversight responsibility for RAPs from
GLNPO to the agency?s regional offices, which it believed to be more
familiar with funding and managing such programs. The regional offices
provided initial support and oversight for the RAP process, but then
significantly reduced the number of assigned staff and the amount of
federally allocated funds devoted to RAP development and implementation.
Now, no EPA office claims responsibility for overseeing this effort.
Moreover, reductions in staff and funding limited the number of areas that
EPA can effectively monitor. According to EPA officials, the agency reduced
its support for RAPs under the assumption that states would continue to fund
the RAP efforts. Instead, the states followed EPA?s lead and reduced their
support as well. Subsequently, EPA shifted its attention to other priorities
in the Great Lakes Basin that are required under the agreement. We are
recommending that the EPA administrator clarify which office within EPA is
directly responsible for ensuring the implementation of RAPs and identify
the actions, time periods, and resources needed to help EPA fulfill its RAP
oversight responsibilities.

Recognizing their mutual interests in the Great Lakes and other boundary
waters, the United States and Canada signed the Boundary Waters Treaty in
1909, giving both countries equal rights to use the waterways that cross the
international border. Accordingly, the treaty established the International
Joint Commission (IJC), comprised of three commissioners from each country,
to help the two governments resolve and prevent disputes concerning boundary
waters. With increased concern over the Background

Page 4 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

contamination of the Great Lakes, the two countries signed the first
international Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972 to improve the
environmental conditions in the lakes. The agreement focused on controlling
phosphorous as a principal means of dealing with eutrophication in the
lakes. The parties signed a new agreement in 1978 that called for increased
control of toxic substances and restoring water quality throughout the Great
Lakes Basin. Subsequent amendments were made to the agreement in 1983 and
1987. The 1987 amendments added several annexes that focused on specific
environmental concerns, such as contaminated sediment.

The 1978 agreement as amended contains 17 annexes that define in detail the
specific programs and activities that the two governments agreed upon and
committed to implement. Although most of the annexes specify pollution
prevention strategies, Annex 2 calls for the preparation of RAPs to address
the restoration and protection of beneficial uses in specific contaminated
areas designated as areas of concern and the other open waters of the Great
Lakes. Such areas may include areas along the Great Lakes? shoreline and
areas that drain into the lakes that states and provinces identified as
contaminated areas requiring cleanup. The agreement binds the United States
and Canada to cooperate with state and provincial governments to designate
such areas of concern, with the IJC reviewing progress by each government in
addressing actions to restore water quality in the lakes. The agreement as
amended also directs that the public be consulted in the RAP process and
that each RAP

 define the environmental problems and the causes of these problems in the
areas,  provide an evaluation of remedial measures,  select remedial
measures,  provide an implementation schedule,  identify organizations or
individuals responsible for implementation,  include a process for
evaluating remedial implementation and

effectiveness, and  provide a description of monitoring to track
effectiveness and

confirmation that the areas are restored. In defining the environmental
problems, RAPs determine the applicability of 14 adverse environmental
conditions to the area. Such impairments include beach closings, tainting of
fish and wildlife flavor, and bird or animal deformities or reproduction
problems.

Page 5 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

In addition, the Water Quality Act of 1987 amended the Clean Water Act to
provide that EPA should take the lead in coordinating with other federal
agencies and state and local authorities to meet the goals in the agreement.
The act also established GLNPO within EPA to fulfill the United States?
responsibilities under the agreement and to coordinate EPA?s actions both at
headquarters and in the affected regional offices. The Great Lakes Critical
Programs Act of 1990 amended the Clean Water Act further defining GLNPO?s
role and requiring the submission of all RAPs to the office and also
requiring each plan be submitted to the IJC for review and comment. The 1990
Act designated states as the primary parties for developing and implementing
plans, although ensuring successful completion of the plans remains the
responsibility of the United States and EPA under the agreement and the
Clean Water Act. When Coastal Environmental Management (CEM) funding first
became available in 1992, and because the Water Divisions administered other
water program funding, EPA officials made the decision to transfer oversight
of the RAP process from GLNPO to the Water Division in EPA Regions II, III,
and V, which border the Great Lakes.

For the past several years, we and others have reported on slow progress of
the Great Lakes cleanup activities, making particular reference to the fact
that neither GLNPO nor any other EPA office had devoted the necessary
responsibility, authority, and resources to effectively coordinate and
oversee cleanup efforts in the Great Lakes Basin. In 1990, we reported that
the development of the RAPs and Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) 1 called
for in the agreement had fallen far behind schedule and recommended that EPA
better coordinate GLNPO and EPA?s headquarters offices to improve the
process. 2 Likewise, EPA?s Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported in
1999, that EPA officials were not as effective as they could be in working
with states and local officials on RAPs and recommended that one official
coordinate these activities. 3 The IJC, in its most recent biennial report,
identified the RAP process as an area needing improvement and reported that
the process for preparing RAPs and LaMPs was no longer being followed, in
some cases resulting in an ad hoc

1 LaMPs are management plans for the open waters of each lake to reduce
loadings of critical pollutants in order to restore beneficial uses. 2 See
U. S. General Accounting Office, Water Pollution: Improved Coordination to
Clean Up the Great Lakes, GAO/ RCED- 90- 197 (Washington: D. C.: Sept. 28,
1990). 3 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA?s Great Lakes Program
EPA/ OIG Rept. 99P00212 (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 1, 1999).

Page 6 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

modification of the annex. The IJC also reported that information on RAP
implementation is not readily available in a standardized, consolidated
format. 4 Overall, the IJC concluded that although some progress had been
made in the Great Lakes, the governments had not committed adequate funding
or taken decisive actions to restore and protect the lakes. Citing the
public?s right to know (and in an effort to get the program back on track),
the IJC recommended a results- oriented approach, suggesting that the
governments of the United States and Canada prepare one consolidated
progress report that lists accomplishments, expenditures, what remains to be
done, and the amount of funding and time needed to restore the contaminated
areas to beneficial use.

Progress in cleaning up the Great Lakes and restoring the contaminated areas
to their beneficial uses has fallen behind where the parties hoped it would
be. As of April 2002, most of the RAPs for which the United States was
responsible were in the second stage of having remedial and regulatory
measures selected; none has completed all three stages indicating completion
of cleanup. (See table 1.)

4 International Joint Commission, Tenth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water
Quality,

(June 29, 2000). Cleanup Progress Has

Been Limited in Many Contaminated Areas

Page 7 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

Table 1: Status of Areas of Concern Date Reported to IJC Area of Concern
State Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Ashtabula River OH 1991 Black River OH 1994 Buffalo River NY 1989 1989
Clinton River MI 1988 1995 Cuyahoga River OH 1992 Deer Lake MI 1987
Eighteenmile Creek NY 1997 1997 Fox River WI 1988 Grand Calumet River IN
1991 1997 Kalamazoo River MI 1998 Lower Menominee River MI/ WI 1991 1996
Manistique River MI 1987 1997 Maumee River IN/ OH 1992 Milwaukee Estuary WI
1994 Muskegon Lake MI 1987 1994 Oswego NY 1990 1991 Presque Isle Bay PA 1993
River Raisin MI 1987 Rochester Embayment NY 1993 1997 Rouge River MI 1989
1994 Saginaw River/ Bay WI 1988 Sheboygan River WI 1989 St. Louis Bay/ River
MN/ WI 1992 1995 Torch Lake MI 1987 Waukegan Harbor IL 1993 1995 1999 White
Lake MI 1987 1995

Source: EPA Great Lakes Ecosystem Report 2000.

No area of concern in the United States has had its designation removed-
that is, been delisted- although the Great Lakes Strategy 2002 plan, which
was developed by representatives of federal, state, and tribal governments
in the Great Lakes area, lists as one of its objectives the removal of 3
areas from the list by 2005, and 10 by 2010.

The RAP process envisioned in the agreement is not being consistently used
as a model for cleanup activities occurring at the areas. While cleanup
activities have occurred in many areas, such activities have generally
resulted from other environmental programs or initiatives. The RAP process
has essentially been abandoned for some areas, modified for others, and for
a limited number of areas the process is being followed to

Page 8 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

address the environmental impairments. According to state officials, a major
reason that the RAP process is not being followed is the lack of general
funding, including funding from EPA. Whether or not the process is being
followed at an area often depends in part on state involvement in the
process and whether there is local interest. As a result, implementation of
the agreement is uneven across the areas and, in areas where the process has
been abandoned, the initial investment in the process may have been largely
wasted.

Each of the eight Great Lakes states- Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan,
Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin- has approached the RAP
process in a somewhat different manner after EPA reduced its funding, but in
general the volume of resources they devoted to the process has diminished
in the past 10 years, according to state officials.

 The state of Michigan, which contains 14 areas, completed the first stage
of the RAP process- defining the environmental problems- in 1987 and 1988.
In the preparation stage, the state funded a group of state coordinators,
who spent part or all of their time on RAPs. Today, the coordinators spend
only a small fraction of their time on RAPs and serve mainly as an area?s
informational point of contact. In addition, the state decided that it would
no longer follow the three- stage process set forth in the agreement.
Responsibility for the Michigan RAP process rests primarily with local
groups known as public advisory councils, and while none of these groups
have abandoned their work, state officials indicated that two groups are on
the verge of quitting and that others had significantly decreased their
activities. The officials further stated that, while RAPs may be a catalyst,
they are not driving the implementation of the areas? cleanup activities.
Instead, officials noted, other federal programs, such as Superfund, and
state and nonprofit programs provide funding for cleanup and restoration
activities. An organization representing the public advisory councils
recently recommended that the state play a more aggressive role in
supporting their efforts by providing funding and technical support.  The
state of New York, which has six contaminated areas, employs a parttime
coordinator for each area. According to state officials, over the years

the overall activity in the RAP process has decreased, but the state retains
oversight and commitment to the process. However, the RAP process is not the
impetus for cleanup activities at the areas. Instead, other programs, such
as EPA?s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, have been used to clean up
contaminated areas.  In Wisconsin, which has five contaminated areas, the
work on the RAP

process for the areas was stopped after EPA decreased funding for RAP

Page 9 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

activities. As with other states, cleanup work continues at the areas
through other programs, although the state only completes projects
consistent with a RAP when it has the time and funds to do so, according to
a state official. The state does not monitor RAP progress, and community
groups are no longer actively involved in the process.  In Ohio, which has
four contaminated areas, the RAP process evolved

differently in each area. For example, a structured process exists to
address the environmental impairments in one area, but the process is less
structured in two other areas and significantly modified in another,
according to a state official. Community organizations are involved in three
of the four areas. The state has also modified the three- stage process
specified in the agreement, saying that the RAPs could never be used to
cleanup an area because they are not implementation documents, according to
the official.  In Minnesota, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, which
have one

contaminated area each, any work underway in the areas is largely the result
of other programmatic activity, such as the removal of contaminated sediment
in Waukegan Harbor, Illinois, as part of the Superfund program. There is
local involvement in the RAP process in the areas in Illinois, Pennsylvania,
and Indiana. In Minnesota, a nonprofit group sponsors environmental projects
in the region where the area is located, but it is not directly involved in
the RAP process.

EPA and others often present environmental cleanup activities that relate to
the goals of the RAP process as evidence that progress is being made at the
areas, but these activities often relate to the goals of other programs,
such as Superfund. Such reporting makes it difficult to determine what
progress is being made in eliminating the impairments identified in the
individual RAPs. In this connection, the members of the IJC responsible for
reviewing the progress of the areas have reported their frustration in
assessing RAP progress because EPA has not provided meaningful information
to them.

EPA is not effectively fulfilling the nation?s responsibilities to ensure
that RAPs are developed and implemented in the contaminated areas. Several
EPA actions, such as diffusing RAP responsibility within the agency,
reducing federal funding and staff support for the RAP process, and shifting
the agency?s attention to other cleanup priorities in the Great Lakes Basin
have all contributed to the uneven progress in RAP development and
implementation. For example, in 1992, EPA transferred the responsibility for
overseeing the RAP process from GLNPO to its Water Divisions in Regions II,
III, and V. GLNPO retained responsibility for EPA Is Not Fulfilling

the Nation?s Responsibility to Ensure the Cleanup of Contaminated Areas

Page 10 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

certain RAP- related activities, such as preparing progress reports and
funding research that affected the contaminated areas. The Water Divisions
provided initial support and oversight for the RAP process, but following
several sequential cutbacks in process- related state funding and staff,
their capacity to oversee the RAP process was diminished to the point where
EPA could no longer ensure the ultimate restoration of the contaminated
areas. As support for the RAP process waned, EPA shifted its attention to
other environmental problems in the Great Lakes, such as completing plans to
address lakewide environmental problems. Although important, these
activities did not supplant the need for RAPs to address the contaminated
areas.

Responsibility for oversight of the RAP process within EPA has changed over
time and today no office claims that responsibility. Amendments to the Clean
Water Act in 1987 named EPA as the lead agency and charged GLNPO with
coordinating EPA?s actions aimed at improving the water quality of the Great
Lakes. The act was amended in 1990 to, among other things, require GLNPO to
ensure the submission of RAPs for each area of concern. The EPA
administrator is responsible under the act for ensuring that GLNPO
specifically delineate the duties and responsibilities, the time
commitments, and resource requirements with respect to Great Lakes
activities when entering into agreements with other organizational elements
within EPA. Shortly after the 1990 amendments were enacted, EPA officials
transferred oversight of the RAP process from GLNPO to its Water Divisions
in Regions II, III, and V, which border the Great Lakes. While this decision
was not formally documented, an EPA official familiar with the decision
stated that EPA headquarters considered GLNPO?s primary focus to be on
research and basin- wide activities. Furthermore, the official did not think
that, as an office, GLNPO had the organizational mindset or capacity to
oversee the RAP process. According to GLNPO officials, EPA believed the
Water Divisions were more familiar with funding and managing similar
programs. GLNPO, however, continued to track the status of RAPs and provide
technical assistance and grant funds for projects associated with RAPs.

In 1995, EPA?s Region V Office reorganized and created teams responsible for
the Great Lakes including their contaminated areas. These teams are focusing
on developing and updating the LaMPs for each lake. The directors for GLNPO
and the Region V Water Division share responsibility for the teams. In
addition to the CEM funds provided for RAPs by the Water Divisions, GLNPO?s
base budget has averaged about $14.5 million annually since 1993. During
that same period GLNPO awarded about $3.2 Oversight Responsibility

Within EPA for Contaminated Areas Is Unclear

Page 11 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

million annually to states, tribes, local organizations, and academic
institutions to fund Great Lakes activities related to the areas such as
sediment research and pollution prevention.

In a September 1999 report on EPA?s Great Lakes Program, the EPA OIG
recommended that the EPA?s Region V administrator clarify the role of GLNPO
as it relates to RAPs and LaMPs. The administrator agreed with this
recommendation and stated that GLNPO?s roles and responsibilities would be
addressed during the development and implementation of a Great Lakes
strategy. At that time, regional officials expected this strategy to be
completed by April 2000. EPA released its Great Lakes strategy on April 2,
2002; however, this strategy did not clarify GLNPO?s roles and
responsibilities for RAPs, nor did it include provisions for specific
funding to carry out the strategy. GLNPO officials stated that they decided
not to include this clarification in the strategy because it required more
specifics than could be included in the document. Still, as of April 2002,
the agency had not clarified GLNPO?s role in any other document.

GLNPO officials have stated that state and local governments are primarily
responsible for implementation of RAPs through their local pollution control
programs, except when federal programs and authorities, such as Superfund,
are in the lead for a particular effort. Further, other EPA officials have
noted that the financial assistance provided states for developing RAPs was
intended only to be seed money and that the states were expected to continue
funding the process. State and other EPA officials, including GLNPO
officials, maintain that the federal government is ultimately responsible
for the RAPs and cleaning up the areas. According to the director of the
Water Division in Region V, there needs to be clear delineation of oversight
responsibility for RAPs, which are, in the end, a federal responsibility.

Over the past 10 years EPA has taken several steps that have reduced its
ability to sustain the RAP process, such as reducing the amounts of
RAPrelated funding allocated to the states and reducing the number of agency
staff assigned to oversee RAP activities. To assist states in preparing RAPs
for the contaminated areas, EPA provided funding to the states from the CEM
program. States used the funding to hire staff to focus on the planning
process and organize community involvement to develop the RAPs. The funding
was allocated to the three EPA Regions and then provided to the states. EPA
decreased its regional CEM funding from $9.2 million in fiscal year 1992 to
$2.5 million in fiscal year 2002. (See figure 1.) EPA Cut Funding and

Staffing for ProgramRelated Activities

Page 12 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

Figure 1: CEM Funding Provided to EPA Regions for RAP and LaMP Activities
Has Declined

Source: EPA operating budget plans.

Approximately 75 percent of the CEM funding was provided to Region V in
fiscal years 1992 through 2002. The director of the Water Division for EPA
Region V stated that when the CEM funding was first available for work on
both RAPs and LaMPs, 7 or 8 staff positions were provided for each of the 6
states in the region. The decrease in funding resulted in reducing the staff
committed to RAPs in the three states that we visited- Ohio, Michigan, and
Wisconsin. For example, in Wisconsin, as the funding for RAPs and other
Great Lakes activities was reduced, the state reduced its staff working on
RAPs and LaMPs from 9 full- time to one full- time and one part- time
position. As a result, the state could no longer provide support for the
local RAP committees or updates for the RAPs and stopped doing remedial
action work at the contaminated areas, unless it related to some other
program, such as Superfund.

EPA also reduced its staffing levels for the RAPs. The agency had funded RAP
liaison positions to facilitate and coordinate work on RAPs. In EPA?s Region
V, which encompasses most of the areas of concern, there were 21 RAP
liaisons with at least one assigned to each area in 1999. As of 2001

Page 13 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

this staffing had been reduced to two part- time and one full- time liaison.
An EPA official responsible for the liaisons stated that work on RAPs was no
longer a priority and priorities had shifted to LaMPs. In fiscal year 2002,
one person was assigned to work full- time on the RAP for the Detroit River
area, but neither Region V nor EPA headquarters had any staff responsible
for monitoring RAP progress. GLNPO has provided grant funding to the Great
Lakes Commission, a binational agency promoting information sharing among
Great Lakes states, to update information on the contaminated areas and the
RAPs on GLNPO?s web site. The information provides an overview of the status
of RAPs with updated information provided by state or local officials. The
information, however, does not present an analysis of the progress in
cleaning up areas or time frames for expected completion.

EPA has reduced support for the RAP process and redirected its efforts to
several other Great Lakes initiatives, many of which are required in the
agreement and either directly or indirectly affect the areas. Specifically,
the Water Divisions have focused resources on the development of LaMPs.
LaMPs address overall concerns in the open lake waters, such as reduction in
loadings of critical pollutants, but they do not replace the RAPs, which are
intended to clean up the shoreline where most of the contamination occurs.
GLNPO has been involved in several other initiatives, including coordinating
the development of a Great Lakes strategy. The strategy was developed by the
U. S. Policy Committee, which is comprised of representatives from federal,
state, and tribal organizations responsible for the actions specified in the
agreement. The strategy sets forth certain goals, objectives, and actions
the parties agree to address, including the following.

 The reduction of toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem. [The
reduction of mercury and dioxin emissions from medical waste incinerators
was one objective under this goal. A key action for this goal is that
Minnesota will achieve a 70 percent reduction of its 1990 mercury emissions
by 2005.]  The development of environmental indicators for the Great Lakes
through

a series of State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) at which
indicators are discussed and agreed upon. These biennial conferences,
jointly sponsored by GLNPO and Environment Canada, bring together
representatives from federal, state, and provincial organizations, and the
general public. The latest conference, held in October 2001, approved 33 of
80 indicators being proposed to assess conditions in the Great Lakes. EPA
Has Shifted Its Focus

to Other Great Lakes Activities

Page 14 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

 Maintaining a ship for research and monitoring on the Great Lakes and
providing another vessel for sampling contaminated sediment.

The strategy also addresses cleaning up areas through RAPs and sets forth
objectives to cleanup and delist three areas by 2005, and 10 by 2010 and an
acceleration of sediment remediation efforts leading to the cleanup of all
sites by 2025. In addition, the strategy calls for delisting guidelines for
the areas, which were completed in December 2001. The guidelines include
tasks such as requiring monitoring data for achieving restoration goals and
addressing impairments caused by local sources within the areas. While the
strategy sets forth numerous environmental objectives state environmental
officials have questioned how the objectives will be achieved without
additional funding.

The process now being used to develop and implement RAPs for many of the
contaminated areas in the Great Lakes Basin has deviated from the process
outlined in the agreement between the United States and Canada. Momentum for
RAP activity waned since EPA diffused the responsibility for ensuring RAP
progress among its various offices, began reducing its staff and process-
related funding to the states, and shifted its priorities to completing
other activities in the Great Lakes Basin. As a result, states and local
communities have had to seek funding from other federal programs or other
sources in order to continue their cleanup activities. Although EPA?s
initial investment in the process yielded some results in terms of planning
documents and public involvement, EPA is not in a position to provide
assurance that such involvement will continue in the future or that the RAPs
will be implemented. Without a clear delineation of oversight
responsibilities within EPA for RAP implementation, all preliminary efforts
and expenditures may have been largely wasted. Absent EPA?s support,
involvement, and consistent oversight, states and local communities will
have difficulty keeping the process moving forward.

To help EPA more effectively oversee the RAP process and meet the United
States? commitment under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, we are
recommending that the EPA administrator

 clarify which office within EPA is responsible for ensuring RAP
implementation, and  identify the actions, time periods, and resources
needed to help EPA fulfill

its RAP oversight responsibilities. Conclusions

Recommendations for Executive Action

Page 15 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

We provided EPA with a draft of this report for its review and comment. The
agency generally agreed with the findings and recommendations in the report.
EPA maintained that significant progress was being made at the areas of
concern with most RAPs having completed Stage 2 and one having completed
Stage 3. However, we and the IJC believe that this does not represent
significant progress, and no area of concern within the United States has
been delisted. EPA also stated that the RAP process does not fairly
represent environmental improvements that are being made at the areas of
concern. We recognize that some cleanup activities are being taken within
the areas of concern that relate to other program requirements, but maintain
that the RAP process is still the primary cleanup vehicle. The agency also
stated that it has been actively involved in ensuring that RAPs are
developed and it is reviewing the RAP process to create a more effective
program. While this may have been true initially, EPA significantly reduced
this support and currently provides only limited support for the process. We
commend EPA for developing delisting principles and guidelines, but this
effort does not directly address the need to improve the overall
effectiveness of the RAP process. EPA agreed with our recommendations to
clarify which office within EPA is responsible for ensuring RAP
implementation, and it will seek to clarify these responsibilities within
EPA. As to our recommendation to identify actions, time periods, and
resources needed for fulfilling its RAP oversight responsibilities, EPA
commented that this would be a difficult task because of the wide spectrum
and scale of environmental problems within the areas of concern and other
priorities and responsibilities within EPA. We recognize that this task may
be difficult, but it is critical if EPA is to fulfill its oversight
responsibility. The full text of EPA?s comments is included as appendix II.

We conducted our review from September 2001 through April 2002 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. (See app. I for a
detailed description of our scope and methodology.)

As arranged with your offices, we plan no further distribution of this
report until 30 days after the date of this letter unless you publicly
announce its contents earlier. At that time, we will send copies to other
appropriate congressional committees, the EPA administrator, and the
International Joint Commission. We will also make copies available to others
upon request. Agency Comments

Page 16 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

Should you or your staff need further information, please contact me on
(202) 512- 3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

John B. Stephenson Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Page 17 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

List of Congressional Requesters Honorable Evan Bayh United States Senate

The Honorable Mike DeWine United States Senate

Honorable Carl Levin United States Senate

Honorable Debbie Stabenow United States Senate

Honorable James Oberstar House of Representatives

Honorable Vernon Ehlers House of Representatives

Honorable Steven LaTourette House of Representatives

Honorable John Dingell House of Representatives

Honorable Louise Slaughter House of Representatives

Honorable Sherwood Boehlert House of Representatives

Honorable Sherrod Brown House of Representatives

Honorable Bart Stupak House of Representatives

Honorable Marcy Kaptur House of Representatives

Honorable Robert Borski House of Representatives

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 18 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

To assess what progress had been made in developing and implementing cleanup
plans for the contaminated areas around the Great Lakes, we reviewed the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1987, which set forth the United
States? obligation to cooperate with state governments to ensure the cleanup
of the contaminated areas and described the process for developing and
implementing the cleanup plans. We also used Internet web site information
that described the cleanup status at the contaminated areas of concern. In
addition, we visited areas of concern (areas) in the Milwaukee Wisconsin
Estuary and Ashtabula, Ohio, where we discussed cleanup efforts,
implementation plans, and assistance provided by federal, state and local
agencies. Further, we gathered and analyzed information obtained through
interviews with officials from the International Joint Commission (IJC), the
Great Lakes Commission, the Northeast Midwest Institute, EPA Headquarters
and Region V Office of Water, and the Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO), the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, and local
community advisory groups responsible for cleanup activities at the selected
areas.

To determine how the cleanup plans were being used at other areas, we
visited the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, which manages the
greatest number of contaminated areas (14), and solicited telephone and
written comments from each of the other five Great Lakes states concerning
their cleanup activities and the remedial action plan process. To further
assess EPA efforts to provide oversight for the contaminated area cleanup
process, we reviewed EPA?s legislative responsibilities for providing
oversight under the Clean Water Act and discussed with EPA, state, and other
federal agencies EPA?s success in fulfilling these responsibilities.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Page 19 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Page 20 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Page 21 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Page 22 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 23 GAO- 02- 563 Great Lakes Cleanup

John Wanska (312) 220- 7628 Key contributors to this report were Willie E.
Bailey, Jonathan S. McMurray, Rosemary Torres- Lerma, Stephanie Luehr, and
Karen Keegan. Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments GAO Contact Staff Acknowledgments

(360130)

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to
support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help
improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal
programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other
assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO?s commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
through the Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts and
fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of
older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and
select ?Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products? under
the GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail: fraudnet@
gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U. S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO?s Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***