Great Lakes Initiative: EPA Needs to Better Ensure the Complete and Consistent Implementation of Water Quality Standards

Great Lakes Initiative: EPA Needs to Better Ensure the Complete
and Consistent Implementation of Water Quality Standards
(27-JUL-05, GAO-05-829).

The virtual elimination of toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes is
a goal shared by the United States and Canada. While some
progress has been made, pollution levels remain unacceptably
high. The Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) requires stringent water
quality standards for many pollutants in discharges regulated by
states administering National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit programs. As requested, this report
examines the (1) GLI's focus and potential impact on water
quality in the Great Lakes Basin, (2) status of GLI's adoption by
the states and any challenges to achieving intended goals, and
(3) steps taken by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
ensuring full and consistent implementation of GLI and for
assessing progress toward achieving its goals.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-05-829
ACCNO: A31364
TITLE: Great Lakes Initiative: EPA Needs to Better Ensure the
Complete and Consistent Implementation of Water Quality Standards
DATE: 07/27/2005
SUBJECT: Environmental monitoring
Performance management
Performance measures
Program evaluation
Standards
Toxic substances
Water pollution
Water pollution control
Water quality
Canada
EPA Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative
Great Lakes
Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control
Agreement

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System Program

******************************************************************
** 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-05-829

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2005

GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE

EPA Needs to Better Ensure the Complete and Consistent Implementation of Water
Quality Standards

GAO-05-829

Highlights of GAO-05-829, a report to congressional requesters

As requested, this report examines the (1) GLI's focus and potential
impact on water quality in the Great Lakes Basin, (2) status of GLI's
adoption by the states and any challenges to achieving intended goals, and
(3) steps taken by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for ensuring
full and consistent implementation of GLI and for assessing progress
toward achieving its goals.

GAO recommends that EPA take three actions to better ensure full and
consistent implementation of GLI, including issuing a permitting strategy
for a more consistent approach to controlling mercury and, resolve
disagreements with the state of Wisconsin on GLI provisions.

EPA generally agreed with GAO's recommendations. It plans to work with the
Great Lakes states in assessing approaches for reducing mercury in lieu of
developing a mercury permitting strategy.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-829.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact John Stephenson at (202)
512-3841 or [email protected].

July 2005

GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE

EPA Needs to Better Ensure the Complete and Consistent Implementation of Water
Quality Standards

GLI has limited potential to improve overall water quality in the Great
Lakes Basin because it primarily focuses on regulated point sources of
pollution, while nonpoint sources, such as air deposition and agricultural
runoff, are greater sources of pollution. GLI's potential impact is
further limited because it allows the use of flexible implementation
procedures, such as variances, whereby facilities can discharge pollutants
at levels exceeding stringent GLI water quality standards. Finally, many
of the chemical pollutants regulated by GLI have already been restricted
or banned by EPA and have a limited presence in point source discharges.

By 1998, the eight Great Lakes states had largely adopted GLI water
quality standards and implementation procedures in their environmental
regulations and NPDES programs. However, EPA determined that some states
had failed to adopt some GLS provisions or had adopted provisions that
were inconsistent with GLI and EPA promulgated rules imposing GLI
standards. Wisconsin officials, however, believe that the state cannot
implement standards that are not explicitly supported by state law, and
disagreements with EPA over the rules remain unresolved. As a result, GLI
has not been fully adopted or implemented in the state. Finally, a major
challenge to fully achieving GLI's goals remains because methods for
measuring many pollutants at the low levels established in GLI do not
exist. Consequently, some pollutants cannot be regulated at these levels.

EPA has not ensured consistent GLI implementation by the states nor has
the agency taken adequate steps toward measuring progress. For example,
EPA did not issue a mercury permitting strategy to promote consistent
approaches to the problems posed by mercury as it stated in GLI. In the
absence of a strategy, states developed permits for mercury that vary from
state to state. Attempts by EPA to assess GLI's impact have been limited
because of inadequate data or information that has not been gathered for
determining progress on dischargers' efforts to reduce pollutants.

Great Lakes Basin Area in the United States and Canada

Contents

Letter

Results in Brief
Background
Great Lakes Initiative Has Limited Potential to Impact Overall Water

Quality

States Have Largely Completed Adopting GLI Standards in Their Regulatory
Programs, but Measuring Some Pollutants at GLI Levels Is a Significant
Challenge

EPA Has Not Ensured Consistent Implementation of GLI Standards or Taken
Adequate Steps Toward Measuring Progress in Achieving GLI Goals

Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action

1 3 6

28 35 35

Appendixes
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 40
Purpose and Status of Bioaccumulative
Appendix II: Chemicals of
Concern (BCC) Identified in GLI 42
Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection 44
Agency
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 47
Table 1: BCC Discharge Limits in Great Lakes
Tables States' NPDES
Permits 17
Table 2: State GLI Provisions Disapproved by 23
EPA
Figure 1: Area Comprising the Great Lakes
Figures Basin Figure 2: Number of Facilities with 7
NPDES Permits in the Great
Lakes Basin by County 10
Figure 3: Illustration of Point and Nonpoint
Sources of
Pollution 13
Figure 4: Minnesota Mercury Emissions 15

Contents

Abbreviations

BCC bioaccumulative chemicals of concern
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GLI Great Lakes Initiative
GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
PCS Permit Compliance System
PMP pollutant minimization program
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
POTW publicly owned treatment works
TMDL total maximum daily load
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
WET whole effluent toxicity

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

July 27, 2005

Congressional Requesters:

Millions of people in the United States and Canada depend on the Great
Lakes-the largest system of freshwater in the world-as a source of
drinking water, recreation, and economic livelihood. Over the last several
decades, the Great Lakes Basin-which includes the five Great
Lakes-Superior, Michigan, Huron, Ontario, and Erie-and a large land area
that extends beyond the lakes, including their watersheds, tributaries,
and connecting channels, has proven vulnerable to the effects of toxic
pollutants as a result of industrial, agricultural, and residential
development. During the 1970s, it became apparent that certain toxic
chemicals such as mercury and dioxin, can accumulate over time in aquatic
species, such as fish, posing risks to those species as well as humans and
wildlife that consume fish from the Great Lakes Basin. These chemicals,
known as bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCC), are discharged into
the basin from point sources, such as industrial or municipal facilities'
pipes and drains, or from nonpoint sources, which include air emissions
mainly from coal-fired power plants, agricultural runoff, and sediments
highly contaminated from past industrial practices.

The United States and Canada have undertaken a variety of binational
initiatives to improve environmental conditions in the Great Lakes Basin.
In 1972, the two countries signed the first international Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) to restore and enhance water quality in
the lakes. In 1978, the parties signed a second GLWQA reaffirming the
goals of the earlier agreement and calling for increased control over the
discharge of toxic pollutants, such as BCCs, and their virtual elimination
throughout the Great Lakes Basin. While progress has been made to control
these toxic pollutants, inconsistencies developed in the way pollutants
from point sources were controlled by the eight states bordering the Great
Lakes. In 1989, to promote consistency in Great Lakes states'
environmental regulatory programs, the eight states began developing a
framework for coordinating regional action for controlling point sources
of toxic pollution, based on the 1986 Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control
Agreement or "the Governors' Agreement." Controlling point sources of
pollution was already under way through the implementation of the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program authorized in 1972
by the Clean Water Act. In most cases, states administer the NPDES
program, which regulates the discharge of pollutants into

surface waters of the United States from industrial, municipal, and other
facilities through permits.

In 1990, the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act amended the Clean Water Act
to require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to publish final
guidance for the Great Lakes states, conforming to the objectives and
provisions of the GLWQA, on minimum water quality standards,
implementation procedures, and antidegradation policies for protecting
existing water quality. The act required states to adopt provisions
consistent with these standards, procedures, and policies.1 In 1995, EPA
issued the Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System, also
known as the Great Lakes Initiative (GLI). To control toxic substances and
protect aquatic life, wildlife, and human health, GLI sets forth water
quality criteria for 29 toxic substances, including BCCs and it primarily
focused on 22 BCC pollutants, such as mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB), and dioxin. Mercury is the most prevalent BCC in the Great Lakes
Basin and poses a significant threat to human health. GLI also contains
detailed methodologies for developing criteria for additional pollutants
and implementation procedures for developing more consistent, enforceable
water quality-based effluent limits in NPDES discharge permits for point
sources of pollution. The eight Great Lakes states-Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin-are
responsible for implementing GLI, which provides them some flexibility in
implementing water quality standards. EPA's Regions 2, 3, and 5 are
responsible for ensuring the adoption and implementation of GLI by the
states. The NPDES program and the GLI are strictly U.S. efforts and do not
apply to Canada, which follows a different approach to regulating point
source pollution.

You asked us to examine (1) the focus of GLI and its potential to impact
water quality in the Great Lakes Basin; (2) the status of GLI's adoption
by the states and the challenges, if any, to achieving GLI's intended
goals; and (3) steps EPA has taken for ensuring the full and consistent
implementation of GLI and for assessing progress toward achieving GLI's
goals. Because of the prevalence of mercury in the Great Lakes Basin, this
report focuses on control of this pollutant.

1EPA has interpreted the term "consistent with GLI" to mean as
environmentally protective as GLI. The Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit has upheld this interpretation as reasonable under the Clean Water
Act. American Iron and Steel Inst. v. EPA, 115 F.3d 979 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

To determine the focus of GLI and its potential to affect water quality in
the Great Lakes Basin, we reviewed the finalized GLI requirements and
available data on the major sources of toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes
Basin. We obtained information on the impact of GLI from officials of
several state and other environmental organizations, including officials
that were involved in developing GLI. To determine the status of GLI's
adoption by the states, we examined EPA regulations and analyzed documents
pertaining to EPA's review of state submissions under GLI to identify any
remaining unresolved matters. To identify challenges that might exist to
achieve GLI's intended goals, we reviewed the water quality criteria
established for individual pollutants in GLI, particularly BCCs, and
analyzed information provided by EPA and state officials to determine if
any challenges existed. To identify the steps EPA has taken for ensuring
the full and consistent implementation of GLI, we reviewed GLI to identify
the activities EPA committed to undertake and obtained information from
EPA and Great Lakes state officials on the status of implementation,
including any consequences resulting from delays in implementation. To
determine the steps taken by EPA for assessing progress toward achieving
GLI's goals, we reviewed efforts by EPA Region 5 officials to determine
progress made under GLI for improving water quality, including the
agency's analysis of available databases, and its efforts in monitoring of
the states' implementation of GLI. We performed our work from October 2004
to June 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. A more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology is
outlined in appendix I.

Results in Brief GLI has limited potential to improve overall water
quality in the Great Lakes Basin because it focuses primarily on point
sources of pollution regulated by state NPDES programs rather than
nonpoint sources, such as air deposition and agricultural runoff, which
are a greater source of pollution. While the importance of nonpoint
sources of pollution was mentioned in GLI, they were not specifically
addressed. GLI's ability to impact overall water quality is further
limited because under certain circumstances it lets states use flexible
implementation procedures, such as variances, when issuing permits for
facilities, allowing them to discharge pollutants at levels exceeding
stringent GLI water quality standards. Thus, while mercury is the only BCC
with a significant number of permit limits established as a result of GLI,
the discharger is often allowed to exceed mercury water quality standards
in GLI because states have granted them variances, limiting GLI's ability
to impact water quality. GLI's incremental impact is also limited by the
fact that many of the BCCs regulated by GLI

had already been previously restricted or banned by EPA. For example,
certain pesticides targeted by GLI were banned in the 1970s and 1980s.
Consequently, many of these chemicals are not present or are present only
at low levels in Great Lakes point source discharges. While these factors
limit GLI's incremental ability to impact overall water quality in the
Great Lakes, its effective implementation is still important because the
virtual elimination of toxic pollutants remains a goal and controls on
point source discharges are still needed to meet this goal.

While EPA has concluded that the Great Lakes states have largely completed
adopting GLI provisions in their regulatory programs, measuring some
pollutants at GLI levels is a significant challenge to implementing the
stringent water quality standards called for in GLI. By 1998, the eight
Great Lakes states had generally incorporated provisions consistent with
GLI-including water quality criteria and implementation procedures-into
their environmental regulations and NPDES permit programs. However, in
2000, EPA determined that six states had either failed to adopt some GLI
provisions or had adopted some provisions that were inconsistent with GLI
guidance. EPA promulgated rules disapproving these elements of the six
states' submissions and imposing the GLI standards. In Wisconsin, however,
officials believe that the state cannot implement standards that are not
explicitly supported by state law, and disagreements over certain GLI
provisions between state and EPA officials have continued since 2000. As a
result, GLI is not fully adopted or implemented in the state. While
provisions consistent with GLI have largely been adopted in other state
programs, a significant obstacle exists to achieving GLI's intended goals.
Specifically, many of the BCCs cannot be measured at the low level of GLI
water quality criteria because sufficiently sensitive measurement methods
do not exist. It is difficult to accurately assess the need for, or
implement a permit limit for a pollutant when its presence in a facility's
discharge cannot be measured at the level established by the water quality
standard. For example, when GLI was issued, mercury could only be measured
at levels many times greater than its GLI water quality criteria. With the
development of a new measurement method, a much more widespread and
pervasive problem with mercury levels was found, resulting in many more
facilities being required to have mercury discharge limits and monitoring
requirements in their permits. In the case of other BCCs, such as PCBs,
methods to measure at low levels have not been developed.

EPA has not ensured the consistent implementation of GLI across the Great
Lakes states or taken adequate steps to measure progress toward achieving

GLI's goals. Of particular note, to promote a uniform and consistent
approach to the problems posed by mercury, EPA stated in GLI that it was
committed to issuing a mercury permitting strategy for the Great Lakes
Basin no later than 2 years after publishing GLI. Although EPA drafted a
strategy, it was never issued because the agency perceived a general lack
of public interest, and agency resources were directed to other GLI
activities, according to EPA officials. In the absence of an EPA strategy,
individual states developed permits for mercury that vary from state to
state. For example, in Michigan, variances for dischargers allowing them
to exceed mercury water quality standards are based on discharge levels
that the state regulatory agency considers achievable by most dischargers
in the state, while in Ohio, discharge levels are based on the level
currently achievable by the individual facility. Such different approaches
fail to promote the consistent implementation of water quality standards
as envisioned by GLI. In addition, GLI stated that EPA Region 5, in
cooperation with EPA Regions 2 and 3 and headquarters would establish a
GLI Clearinghouse-a database that would allow states to share information
for developing and updating consistent water quality standards. While
development of the Clearinghouse was initiated in 1996, because of other
agency priorities it was not made available to the states until 2005. In
the absence of the Clearinghouse, some states developed their own water
quality standards without the benefits of this shared information. As a
result, EPA cannot be assured the Great Lakes states have adequate
information to develop and update water quality standards in a consistent
manner, which is a guiding GLI principle. Finally, EPA has been unable to
sufficiently assess the impact of GLI with existing data sources and has
not gathered additional information to monitor progress. The automated
system that tracks NPDES permits does not provide accurate information
that can be used to determine whether pollutant discharges have decreased
under GLI. EPA Region 5 officials are attempting to assess the impact of
GLI by comparing individual permits before and after GLI requirements, but
this effort has yet to yield even preliminary results. EPA has also not
assessed the impact of programs required by permits for minimizing
pollutants that might exceed GLI standards.

To better ensure the full and consistent implementation of GLI and improve
measures for monitoring progress toward achieving GLI's goals, we are
making a number of recommendations to EPA aimed at issuing a mercury
permitting strategy, fully developing a GLI Clearinghouse, and collecting
information on the impact of discharger plans to minimize pollutants,
among other actions.

In commenting on this report, EPA believes that we did not effectively
consider other benefits from GLI and that differences in how states
address mercury in NPDES permits does not result in an unacceptable level
of inconsistency. EPA plans to assist and work with the Great Lakes states
in assessing the most effective approaches for reducing mercury loadings
by dischargers. It will continue efforts to develop the Clearinghouse,
collect information on pollutant minimization programs, and work with the
state of Wisconsin to resolve outstanding issues.

Background The Great Lakes and their connecting channels form the largest
system of freshwater on earth. Covering more than 94,000 square miles,
they contain about 84 percent of North America's surface freshwater and 21
percent of the world's supply. The lakes provide water for a multitude of
activities and occupations, including drinking, fishing, swimming,
boating, agriculture, industry, and shipping for more than 30 million
people who live in the Great Lakes Basin-which encompasses nearly all of
the state of Michigan and parts of Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the Canadian province of Ontario.

Figure 1: Area Comprising the Great Lakes Basin

Sources: GAO, MapArt.

During the 1970s, it became apparent that pollution caused by persistent
toxic substances, such as BCCs, was harming the Great Lakes and posing
risks to human health and wildlife. On average, less than 1 percent of the
Great Lakes' water recycles or turns over each year, and many pollutants
stay in place, settling in sediments or bioaccumulating in organisms. As a
result, under the GLWQA of 1978, the United States and Canada agreed to a
policy of prohibiting the discharge of harmful pollutants in toxic amounts
and virtually eliminating the discharge of such pollutants. The two
parties also pledged to develop programs and measures to control inputs of
persistent toxic substances, including control programs for their
production, use, distribution, and disposal. The concept of virtual
elimination recognizes that it may not be possible to achieve total
elimination of all persistent toxic substances. Some toxic substances may
be produced by or as a result of natural processes, persist at background
or natural levels, or cannot be eliminated for technological or economic
reasons.

In addition to agreeing to a policy calling for the virtual elimination of
toxic pollutants, the 1978 GLWQA, as amended, also established a process
and set of commitments to address the pollutant problem. Other joint
United States and Canada toxic reduction efforts were initiated in
subsequent years, in keeping with the objectives of the agreement. These
included the 1991 Binational Program to Restore and Protect the Lake
Superior Basin-which, among other things, established a goal of achieving
zero discharge of designated persistent and bioaccumulative toxic
substances from point sources in the Lake Superior Basin. In addition,
recognizing the long-term need to address virtual elimination, the EPA
Administrator and Canada's Minister of the Environment signed the Great
Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy in 1997, which provides a framework for
actions to reduce or eliminate persistent toxic substances, especially
those that bioaccumulate in the Great Lakes Basin.

Agreements within the two countries also addressed the problem of toxic
pollutants and the implementation of the GLWQA. In the United States, the
Governors' Agreement in 1986 developed by the Council of Great Lakes
Governors recognized that the problem of persistent toxic substances was
the foremost environmental issue confronting the Great Lakes, and they
were committed to managing the Great Lakes as an integrated ecosystem. At
that time, inconsistencies in state standards and implementation
procedures became an increasing concern to EPA and state environmental
managers. The Governors agreed to work together to, among other things,
establish a framework for coordinating regional action in controlling
toxic pollutants entering the Great Lakes Basin, increase federal emphasis
on controlling toxic pollution, and expedite the development of additional
national criteria or standards for toxic substances to protect both the
ecosystem and human health. In Canada, the Canadian and Ontario
governments entered into several agreements with each other over the last
30 years to address environmental problems in the Great Lakes. These
agreements, each referred to as the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting
the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, included a focus on the control of toxic
chemical pollution and runoff. In addition, a 2002 agreement outlines how
these two governments will continue to work together to focus efforts to
help clean up the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem. Several priority projects
are planned under the agreement, including reducing the amount of harmful
pollutants, such as mercury, that find their way into the Great Lakes.

To further control toxic substances in the United States, efforts on the
GLI began in the late 1980s to establish a consistent level of
environmental

protection for the Great Lakes ecosystem, particularly in the area of
state water quality standards and NPDES programs for controlling point
sources of pollution. As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the NPDES
permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that
discharge pollutants into U.S. surface waters. Under NPDES, all facilities
that discharge pollutants from any point source into U.S. waters are
required to obtain a permit that provides two levels of control: (1)
technology based limits (discharge limits attainable under current
technologies for treating water pollution) and (2) water quality-based
effluent limits (based on state water quality standards). Point sources
are discrete conveyances such as pipes or constructed ditches. Individual
homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do
not have a surface discharge, do not need an NPDES permit; however,
industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their
discharges go directly to surface waters. As of May 2005, there were
nearly 5,000 facilities in the Great Lakes Basin that had NPDES permits,
and over 500 of these were considered major facilities.2

2Major dischargers include municipalities with capability to discharge
greater than one million gallons per day and certain industrial facilities
based on ratings by EPA and the states.

9 of 22 BCCs. GLI also contains detailed methodologies for developing
criteria for additional pollutants and implementation procedures for
developing more consistent, enforceable water quality-based effluent
limits in discharge permits for point sources of pollution. The most
common of the 22 BCCs currently being discharged from point sources in the
Great Lakes Basin is mercury. Because mercury can be highly toxic and
travel great distances in the atmosphere, it has long been recognized to
have a wide range of detrimental effects for ecosystems and human health.
When mercury is deposited within a water body, microorganisms can
transform it into a very toxic substance known as methyl mercury. Methyl
mercury tends to remain dissolved in water and can bioaccumulate in the
tissues of fish to concentrations much higher than in the surrounding
water. The primary way people are exposed to mercury is by eating fish
containing methyl mercury. Poisoning can result from eating fish
contaminated with bioaccumulated methyl mercury, which is dangerous to
certain adults, children, and developing fetuses.

Three general principles guided the development of GLI: (1) to incorporate
the best science available to protect the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem; (2)
to promote consistency in standards and implementation procedures in Great
Lakes states' water quality standards while allowing appropriate
flexibility; and (3) to reflect the unique nature of the Great Lakes Basin
ecosystem by establishing special provisions for toxic substances, such as
BCCs. Although improved consistency in Great Lakes states' water quality
standards and NPDES programs was a primary goal of GLI, implementing and
supplemental regulations published by EPA provided flexibility to states
in adopting and implementing GLI provisions in several areas.3 These
regulations included relief from GLI provisions for point source
dischargers through the use of existing NPDES program provisions such as
variances, mixing zones, and compliance schedules. For example, provisions
in GLI allow the states to grant dischargers variances for up to 5 years
from GLI water quality standards, which are the basis of a water quality
based effluent limitation included in NPDES permits. According to GLI,
variances are to apply to individual dischargers requesting permits and
apply only to the pollutant or pollutants specified in the variance.

360 Fed. Reg. 15366 (Mar. 23, 1995).

Great Lakes Initiative Has Limited Potential to Impact Overall Water Quality

GLI has limited potential to incrementally improve water quality in the
Great Lakes Basin because first, it primarily focuses on point sources,
which are not the major source of certain toxic pollutants that currently
affect the Great Lakes Basin. Moreover, once GLI was implemented, few
NPDES permits included limits for BCCs because they were not in
discharges, and many of these BCCs were already regulated or banned before
the GLI guidance was issued. Finally, for mercury, which is the BCC that
is most frequently controlled in NPDES permits, GLI provisions provide
flexible implementation procedures, including variances, that under
certain circumstances are used by states to allow dischargers relief from
the more stringent water quality standards. The stringent water quality
standards may be either technically or economically unattainable by
dischargers.

GLI's Primary Focus Is on Point Sources Which Are Not the Major Source of
Many Toxic Pollutants

A primary focus of GLI is to establish consistent water quality standards
within the Great Lakes Basin, which apply to all sources of pollutants but
mainly to point sources. Thirty-three years ago, point sources of
pollution were the basis for the establishment of the NPDES program and
the major cause of poor water quality in the Great Lakes Basin. In
implementing this program, it was recognized that controlling point
sources was an important means of reducing pollutants discharged into
waterways by requiring permits that specified allowable levels of
pollutants. Since the introduction of the NPDES program there have been
significant water quality improvements in the Great Lakes Basin.
Currently, however, nonpoint sources of certain toxic pollutants are a
significant threat to overall water quality in the Great Lakes Basin and
other areas within the United States and Canada. Nonpoint sources of
pollutants often impact overall water quality through runoff from
agricultural processes or releases into the air from industrial
facilities, which are then deposited into the Great Lakes. For example,
major sources of mercury released into the air include coal-fired power
plants, industrial boilers, and waste incinerators that burn materials
containing mercury. Much, if not most, of the mercury entering the Great
Lakes is from atmospheric deposition. EPA Great Lakes National Program
Office officials stated that air deposition is likely responsible for more
than 80 percent of mercury loadings into the Great Lakes.4 Currently,

4The Clean Water Act established the Great Lakes National Program Office
within EPA, charging it to, among other things, develop and implement
specific action plans to carry out responsibilities under the GLWQA.

Several state and environmental officials commented that while GLI
resulted in states becoming more aware of the need to attain water quality
standards for BCCs from point sources, it did not specifically address the
larger problem of nonpoint sources of pollution. For example, Minnesota
officials stated that they do not anticipate any water quality
improvements from GLI for mercury, the most prevalent BCC in the Lake
Superior Basin, because GLI does not specifically address nonpoint
sources, such as atmospheric deposition. A 2004 state study estimated that
99 percent of mercury in Minnesota lakes and rivers comes from atmospheric
deposition. The study concluded that although 30 percent of mercury
atmospheric deposition in Minnesota is the result of natural cycling of
mercury, 70 percent is the result of human activities, such as the release
of trace concentrations that are naturally present in the coal used by
power plants, and in the mining and processing of taconite ore, which is
used to produce iron and steel. Of the mercury atmospheric deposition in
Minnesota, it is estimated that 10 percent of this is from emissions
within Minnesota. The sources of mercury atmospheric deposition from
within Minnesota are shown in figure 4.

Figure 4: Minnesota Mercury Emissions

Sources: GAO and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

1.4%

Recycling mercury from products

1.6%

Other

Crematories

Dental preparations

Petroleum

Smelters that recycle cars and appliances

Volatization of disposed products

Waste incineration

Taconite processing

Coal

Note: The "other" category includes sources such as natural gas, wood, and
fluorescent lamp breakage, which each, individually, make up less than 1
percent of the total. Due to rounding total percentage of individual
categories exceeds 100 percent.

While the focus of GLI is on point sources, the importance of controlling
nonpoint sources of pollution to improve overall water quality in the
Great Lakes is recognized in GLI guidance. The guidance states that once
GLI is implemented by the states, water quality criteria for pollutants
and other provisions that are included in the guidance would be applied to
nonpoint sources. However, according to the guidance, to be implemented,
nonpoint source provisions would need to be enforced through the states'
own regulatory programs. GLI also promotes the use of total maximum daily
loads (TMDL) as the best approach for equitably addressing both point

and nonpoint sources.5 TMDLs for the Great Lakes are also addressed in the
Great Lakes Strategy 2002, which was developed by the U.S. Policy
Committee for the Great Lakes.6 The strategy has an objective that TMDLs
for each of the Great Lakes and impaired tributaries will be completed by
2013; but according to EPA officials, TMDLs for BCCs have not been
established for any of the Great Lakes, and only two TMDLs for BCCs have
been completed for tributaries.

Few Permits Contain Limits for Toxic Pollutants, and Many Toxic Pollutants
Are Already Restricted or Banned

While GLI identified many toxic pollutants, few NPDES permits currently
limit the discharge of these pollutants, particularly BCCs, because they
are either not present in discharge water or the pollutants are already
restricted or banned. BCCs are still present in some facilities'
discharges and are regulated by NPDES permits, but while there are nearly
5,000 permits for facilities in the Great Lakes Basin, there are only
about 250 discharge limits for BCCs, according to Great Lake states'
officials. Five of the eight states reported that they had discharge
limits for BCCs in the Great Lakes Basin.7 Further, not only are there
relatively few BCC discharge limits in permits, but most, 185, are for
mercury-with Michigan issuing the most discharge limits of the five
states. The number of BCC discharge limits by state and pollutant is shown
in table 1.

5TMDLs are limits for identified pollutants in impaired water bodies
identified by the states as required by the Clean Water Act.

6The U.S. Policy Committee is a group of senior level representatives from
federal, state, and tribal government agencies with environmental
protection or natural resource responsibilities in the Great Lakes Basin.

7The information presented is based on data reported from Great Lakes
states' permit officials. The states of Illinois, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin reported that none of their permits in the Great Lakes Basin
establish discharge limits for BCCs.

Table 1: BCC Discharge Limits in Great Lakes States' NPDES Permits

Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota New Ohio Pennsylvania Wisconsin Total
York
Mercury 0 20 83 2 37 43 0 0 185
PCBs 0 1 10 1 10 3a 0 0
Dioxin 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0
Lindane 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0
Hexachlorobenzene 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0
Hexachlorobutadiene 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0
Other 0 0 2 0 16 0 0 0
Total 0 21 103 4 72 46 0 0 246
Great Lakes Basin
Permitted
Facilities 12 150 1753 89 1275 1041 84 319 4723

Sources: GAO and state NPDES program officials.

Note: Data provided by state officials, from February through May 2005.

aOhio officials provided an estimate of 1-5 PCB discharge limits in Great
Lakes Basin permits. The number "3" is used as an approximation.

Several of the pollutants addressed by GLI had their use restricted or
banned by EPA in the 1970s and 1980s and therefore are not used by
facilities or found in their discharges. Of the 22 BCCs covered by GLI, at
least 12 are either banned or are no longer produced in the United States.
Some of the banned BCCs, such as toxaphene and dieldrin, are pesticides
and insecticides that are likely to be present in the Great Lakes Basin
water bodies as contaminated sediments from prior agricultural runoff
rather than municipal and industrial point source discharges. Other BCCs,
such as lindane, are no longer produced in the United States, while
others, such as mirex and hexachloracyclohexane, are no longer produced or
used in the United States. See appendix II for BCCs identified in GLI and
whether they have been banned, restricted, or are still in use.

While the preceding factors limit GLI's potential to improve overall water
quality in the Great Lakes, its effective implementation is still
important because the virtual elimination of toxic pollutants in the Great
Lakes Basin remains a goal for the United States and Canada. Controlling
point source pollution is still needed to meet this objective. Although
point source discharges of toxic pollutants are not as widespread as
nonpoint sources, point source discharges may create localized "hot spots"
of elevated concentrations of BCCs. These areas can have potentially
adverse effects on aquatic life, wildlife, and humans. For example, while
the major sources of mercury are nonpoint sources, it is still the most
prevalent BCC found in

point source discharges overall in the Great Lakes, and heavy
concentrations of mercury in these hot spots may result in its
bioaccumulation in fish to levels that are dangerous to both humans and
wildlife that consume them. Achieving GLI's objective to have consistent
water quality standards for controlling point sources of toxic pollutants
may prove difficult, however, because of flexible implementation
procedures that allow discharge of pollutants at levels greater than GLI
water quality standards.

Many NPDES Permits Allow for Dischargers' Mercury Pollutant Levels to Exceed
GLI Standards

Many NPDES permits for facilities in the Great Lakes Basin allow the
discharge of mercury at levels greater than the GLI water quality
standard. Flexible implementation procedures such as variances are widely
used to allow dischargers to exceed the strict GLI mercury water quality
standard of 1.3 nanograms per liter of water (ng/L). GLI allows states to
grant variances for complying with the mercury and other water quality
standards under certain circumstances, such as if the imposition of water
quality standards would result in substantial and widespread harmful
economic and social impact. Variances are applicable only to the permit
holder requesting the variance for up to 5 years and are only available
for dischargers that were in existence as of March 23, 1997.8 New
facilities are not eligible for variances and must comply with the water
quality standard for mercury established under GLI. Officials in two
states-Minnesota and Michigan-expressed concerns that new industrial
facilities that discharge mercury may not locate in the state because of
their inability to comply with the mercury standard.

The use of variances for mercury became a more critical concern when new
methods to measure the pollutant were approved by EPA in 1999, allowing
mercury to be measured at a quantification level of 0.5 ng/L, below the
GLI water quality standard of 1.3 ng/L.9 This method was 400 times more
sensitive than the one previously used by EPA and allowed the very low GLI
limits to be quantified for the first time, causing potentially widespread
problems for Great Lakes Basin dischargers that discovered for the first
time that they were exceeding the mercury water quality criteria,

8Variances may be renewed along with the renewal of a NPDES permit, which
may be issued for up to 5 years.

9A quantification level is the lowest concentration of a contaminant that
can be quantitatively measured using a specific laboratory procedure.

according to state NPDES program officials. Using the more sensitive
method, many more facilities were found to have levels of mercury in their
effluent that exceeded water quality standards. State and EPA officials
also determined that no economically feasible treatment technologies
existed to reduce mercury to the lower level, and states were unwilling to
issue permits that placed facilities in noncompliance. Michigan officials
stated that they knew of only one permitted facility that was able to
comply with the lower standard. As a result, states issued variances under
their GLI regulations that provide for the most efficient short-term
relief to "ubiquitous" pollutants, and EPA encouraged states to consider
variances for multiple dischargers on a watershed basis, where
appropriate.10 EPA wanted to provide the states appropriate flexibility in
adopting and implementing GLI's requirements, while also maintaining a
minimum level of consistency. To facilitate granting variances for
numerous facilities exceeding the mercury standard, three states-Indiana,
Ohio, and Michigan-adopted procedures that expedited and simplified the
variance application and granting process.

While variances are widely used under GLI, mixing zones and compliance
schedules are also options that states may use under GLI. Mixing zones are
areas around a facility's discharge pipe where pollutants are mixed with
cleaner receiving waters to dilute their concentration. Within the mixing
zone, concentrations of toxic pollutants, such as mercury, are generally
allowed to exceed water quality criteria as long as standards are met at
the boundary of the mixing zone. Several Great Lakes states no longer
allow the use of mixing zones for BCCs in their permits, and GLI
authorization for their use by all existing BCC dischargers expires in
November 2010.11 Mixing zones, as with variances, are not authorized for
new dischargers. Compliance schedules are another option and grant
dischargers a grace period of up to 5 years before they must comply with
certain new or more restrictive permit limits. Similar to mixing zones,
compliance schedules are also not available to new dischargers in the
Great Lakes Basin and are only available for existing permits reissued or
modified on or after March 23, 1997. According to state officials,
Minnesota uses compliance schedules for

10Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System: Supplementary
Information Document (SID), EPA, 1995, 820-B-95-001.

11EPA's initial 1995 mixing zone provision under the GLI was vacated by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in American
Iron & Steel Institute v. EPA, 115 F.3d 979 (D.C. Cir. 1997) and was
remanded to EPA for further consideration. EPA promulgated a final rule in
2000 in response. 65 Fed. Reg. 67638 (Nov. 13, 2000).

existing dischargers to issue permits for facilities that have mercury
levels above GLI water quality criteria. These schedules extend no later
than March 2007, and then the GLI water quality standard of 1.3 ng/L must
be met, unless a variance is granted, according to a state official.

States Have Largely Completed Adopting GLI Standards in Their Regulatory
Programs, but Measuring Some Pollutants at GLI Levels Is a Significant
Challenge

By 1998, the Great Lakes states largely completed adopting GLI provisions
in their regulatory programs by incorporating GLI standards in their
environmental regulations and NPDES permit programs. Upon reviewing state
regulations, however, EPA found that several states had either failed to
adopt some GLI provisions or adopted provisions that were inconsistent
with GLI guidance. As a result, EPA promulgated regulations applying
certain GLI provisions to some states, but issues surrounding the
implementation of these provisions, particularly in Wisconsin, have not
been fully resolved. Further, while GLI provisions have been adopted in
most state programs, a significant obstacle exists to achieving GLI's
intended goals, in that many BCCs targeted by GLI cannot be measured at
the low level of GLI water quality criteria because sufficiently sensitive
measurement methods do not exist. Without the ability to measure to the
water quality criteria, it is difficult to accurately determine whether
there is a need for a pollutant permit limit for a facility's discharge.

Great Lakes States Have Generally Incorporated GLI Provisions into Their
Regulations and NPDES Programs

GLI provisions have generally been incorporated into state regulations and
NPDES programs, but this did not occur within the statutory time frame;
and, as a result, two lawsuits were filed against EPA to implement the
requirements of the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990. This act,
which amended the Clean Water Act, required the Great Lakes states to
adopt standards, policies, and procedures consistent with GLI within 2
years of its publication. The act further required EPA to issue GLI
standards by the end of that 2-year period for any state that had failed
to do so. EPA, however, did not issue GLI standards by the required date
for those states that had failed to develop standards. Consequently, in
July 1997, the National Wildlife Federation filed a lawsuit to force EPA
to take action. In response, EPA negotiated a consent decree providing
that it must make GLI provisions effective in any state that failed to
make a submission by February 1998. EPA was never forced to take action,
however, because all of the Great Lakes states adopted GLI standards into
their regulations and submitted them to EPA for approval by the February
deadline. For example, in July 1997, Michigan modified its administrative
rules for water quality standards and added implementing procedures to the
state's

administrative rules. Other states adopted GLI into their regulations for
the Great Lakes Basin area of their states, and they later adopted aspects
of the GLI provisions, or all of them, for the entire state. For example,
according to state officials, when GLI was originally adopted by Ohio,
most of its provisions only applied to the Lake Erie Basin, but in 2002,
Ohio adopted GLI aquatic life criteria statewide. Further, Ohio applied
GLI criteria for human health only to the Lake Erie Basin and based human
health criteria for the remainder of the state on EPA national guidance.
However, according to Ohio environmental officials, the two health
criteria have been converging since the adoption of GLI.

In addition to the requirements of the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act
and the consent decree provisions, EPA's GLI regulations bound the agency
to publish a notice approving the submission within 90 days or to notify
the state that all or part of their submission was disapproved and to
identify changes required for EPA's approval. Because EPA did not take the
required actions on every state's submission, in November 1999, the
National Wildlife Federation and the Lake Michigan Federation filed a
lawsuit to force EPA to take action on all Great Lakes states' GLI
submissions.12 EPA negotiated another consent decree providing that EPA
would take the required actions by July 31, 2000, for six states-Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania-and by September 29,
2000 and October 31, 2000, for New York and Wisconsin, respectively. EPA
ultimately issued its final determinations for Michigan, Ohio, Indiana,
Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Illinois in August 2000. Determinations for
New York and Wisconsin followed in October and November 2000,
respectively. Although a few exceptions were identified, EPA determined
that all the Great Lakes states had generally adopted requirements
consistent with GLI; however, certain matters relating to the state
submissions remained unresolved.

Unresolved Matters While EPA determined that all the Great Lakes states
had generally adopted Affecting Full GLI Adoption requirements consistent
with GLI, it disapproved certain elements of six Remain in Several Great
states' submissions as less protective than GLI. EPA promulgated final

rules applying the relevant GLI provisions to the disapproved elements.
ForLakes States example, EPA disapproved four states' rules relating to
determining the need for permit limits on the aggregate toxicity of
facility's

12The Lake Michigan Federation changed its name to the Alliance for the
Great Lakes, effective April 14, 2005.

discharge-termed whole effluent toxicity (WET) reasonable potential. EPA
disapproved certain elements of the state rules because they were deemed
inconsistent with GLI provisions. In determining whether the states
adopted policies, procedures, and standards consistent with GLI, EPA
evaluated whether the states' provisions provided at least as stringent a
level of environmental protection as the corresponding provisions of the
guidance. In 12 instances, EPA determined that state provisions were not
as stringent or were absent. EPA then promulgated final rules specifying
which state provisions it was disapproving as being inconsistent with GLI
and applying the relevant GLI provisions. If the state later adopted
requirements that EPA approved as being consistent with the GLI
provisions, then EPA indicated that it would amend its regulations so that
they would no longer apply for the state.

The individual provisions disapproved by EPA vary from state to state,
although the WET provisions were disapproved for four of the six states
with disapproved elements. For Michigan and Ohio, the WET reasonable
potential procedure was the only GLI provision that was disapproved. For
Indiana, EPA disapproved its WET reasonable potential procedure and two
additional provisions. Specifically disapproved were Indiana's criteria
for granting of variances from water quality standards and provisions
preventing the inclusion of discharge limits in permits when a facility
has applied for a variance. Illinois' sole disapproved provision related
to TMDL development while New York's disapproved provisions related to
chronic aquatic life criteria and mercury criterion for the protection of
wildlife. GLI provisions disapproved by EPA are summarized in table 2.

Table 2: State GLI Provisions Disapproved by EPA

Illinois TMDL development Indiana WET reasonable potential

Criteria for granting variances

Inclusion of discharge limits in permits with a pending variance
application

Michigan WET reasonable potential

New York Chronic aquatic life criteria Mercury wildlife criterion

Ohio WET reasonable potential

Wisconsin WET reasonable potential

Consideration of intake pollutants in establishing discharge limits

Aquatic life criteria for copper and nickel; chronic aquatic life criteria
for endrin and selenium

TMDL development

Source: EPA.

Note: Pennsylvania and Minnesota had no disapproved elements in their
adoption of GLI.

The Great Lakes states now have requirements, consistent with GLI, to
follow that are either fully incorporated into their rules or that have
been promulgated by EPA.13 However, in Wisconsin, the GLI provisions
promulgated by EPA have not been implemented because state officials
believe provisions that are not explicitly supported by Wisconsin law
cannot be implemented and because material disagreements exist between
state officials and EPA over the GLI provisions. This situation has
resulted in delays in issuing renewals of some NPDES permits or issuing
permits under state provisions that are inconsistent with GLI, according
to state officials.

Of the four requirements EPA found inconsistent for Wisconsin, one
significant disagreement involved certain technical and scientific details
relating to the consideration of intake pollutants and another involved
the determination of WET reasonable potential under GLI. For the WET

13None of the states with rules promulgated by EPA have amended their
rules and regulations to resolve inconsistencies; and there is no
requirement that they do so, as long as they are following the EPA
promulgated rules. However, Michigan and New York are attempting to change
their rules and regulations to have the federally imposed GLI requirements
withdrawn.

determination, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources officials stated
that the GLI requirements are a misapplication of statistical procedures
and overly burdensome. Because of these differences in determining WET
reasonable potential, Wisconsin uses both state and GLI procedures. If the
Wisconsin procedures result in the need for a WET limit, but the GLI
procedures do not, then the permit is issued with the WET limit. However,
if GLI procedures result in the need for a WET limit, but the state
procedures do not, the permit is backlogged until a solution can be
negotiated. As a possible resolution to this issue, EPA has recently
provided the state with a small grant to reevaluate their WET procedure
and identify possible changes that would be as protective as the GLI and
acceptable to Wisconsin officials. While the state has not implemented WET
reasonable potential provisions that are consistent with GLI, it has only
impacted a relatively small number of permits in the Great Lakes Basin.

The disagreement involving Wisconsin's provisions for intake pollutants
that are inconsistent with GLI have a potentially greater impact and,
according to state officials, they do not have the resources to use the
more complex GLI approach. The GLI provisions for intake pollutants are
important because, according to state officials, the most prevalent BCC,
mercury, exists at levels exceeding its water quality criteria throughout
the Great Lakes Basin. GLI provisions address the condition where
pollutant levels in a water body contain "background" levels that exceed
the water quality criteria for that pollutant. Specifically, provisions
address the discharge of pollutants that are taken in through a facility's
source or intake water and are then returned to the same water body. GLI
allows facilities to discharge the same mass and concentration of
pollutants that are present in its intake water-a concept of "no net
addition"-provided the discharge is to the same body of water and certain
other conditions are met. EPA considers this practice to be
environmentally protective and consistent with the requirements of the
Clean Water Act when a pollutant is simply moved from one part of a water
body to another that it would have reached regardless of its use by a
facility.

However, EPA determined that Wisconsin's procedures allow pollutant
discharges at background levels, regardless of whether the pollutant
originated from the same body of water, a different body of water, or the
facility generated the pollutant itself. Further, EPA found that the
state's procedures would allow granting of a permit without discharge
limits in situations where one would be required by GLI. EPA therefore
determined that the state's procedure was inconsistent with GLI because it
would allow

facilities to discharge pollutants that were not previously in the water
body at levels greater than the applicable water quality criteria, which
EPA believed was inconsistent with the fundamental principles of GLI
permitting procedures. Although the procedures were disapproved, state
officials continue to disagree with EPA's determination. The disagreement
has remained unresolved since 2000, and EPA's rule applying the GLI
provisions to Wisconsin have not been followed by the state. EPA Region 5
officials stated that they have had some contacts with the Wisconsin
officials, but these contacts have not resulted in resolving the
differences.

GLI Has Provided Benefits but the Inability to Measure Pollutants at Low
Levels Is a Significant Challenge

The introduction of GLI in the Great Lakes states has produced several
benefits. GLI introduced new standards and methodologies that are based on
the best science available for protecting wildlife, deriving numeric
criteria for additional pollutants, developing techniques to provide
additional protection for mixtures of toxic pollutants, and determining
the bioaccumulative properties of individual pollutants. GLI also
formalized a set of practices and procedures for states to use in
administering their NPDES permit programs and resolved legal challenges to
provisions similar to GLI in at least one state. Through its emphasis on
BCCs, GLI played a large role in stimulating efforts to address these
particularly harmful and problematic toxic chemicals. GLI's impact on
state water quality programs has also extended beyond the Great Lakes
Basin, as a number of states have adopted GLI standards and procedures
statewide. Also, according to EPA officials, parts of GLI have been used
nationally and in other states, including implementation methods in
California, wildlife criteria in New Jersey, and bioaccumulation factors
in EPA's revised national guidance for deriving human health water quality
criteria.

While GLI has provided benefits, developing the ability to measure
pollutants at GLI water quality criteria levels remains a challenge to
fully achieving GLI goals in the Great Lakes Basin. Several GLI pollutants
cannot be measured near their water quality criteria, and without this
ability it is difficult to determine whether a discharge limit is needed
and to assess compliance. For example, if a pollutant has a water quality
criteria of 4 ng/L but can only be measured at 40 ng/L, it cannot be
determined if the pollutant is exceeding the criteria unless it is at or
above the measurement level, which is about 10 times greater than the
criteria level. Therefore, the ability to accurately and reliably measure
pollutant concentrations is vital to the successful implementation of GLI
water quality standards. Michigan and Ohio officials identified 23 GLI
pollutants where the water quality criteria is lower than the level at
which the pollutant's concentration in

water can be reliably measured. In addition, for Ohio, 11 of the 22 BCCs
that are the central focus of GLI cannot be measured to the level of their
water quality criteria. These include two of the more prevalent BCCs-PCBs
and dioxin. Currently, using EPA approved methods, PCBs can be detected
only at levels around 65,000 times greater than the levels established by
their water quality criteria. Minnesota officials stated that, if methods
existed to measure PCBs at low levels, it might be revealed that PCBs are
as much of a problem as mercury. At the time GLI was developed, it was
envisioned that more sensitive analytical methods would eventually be
developed to allow measurement of pollutant concentrations at or below the
level established by GLI water quality criteria, which would allow for the
implementation of enforceable permit limits based on GLI criteria. Until
this could be realized, EPA provided a provision in GLI requiring
dischargers to implement a pollutant minimization program (PMP) to
increase the likelihood that the discharger is reducing all potential
sources of a pollutant to get as close as possible to the water quality
criteria. A PMP sets forth a series of actions by the discharger to
improve water quality when the pollutant concentration cannot be measured
down to the water quality criteria.

The Great Lakes states' experience with mercury illustrates the impact
that having sufficiently sensitive measurement methods can have on
identifying pollutant discharges from point sources. Until 1999, methods
to measure mercury at low levels were generally not available. Few mercury
permit limits existed, and measurement sensitivity using EPA approved
methods was about 400 times less sensitive than the currently used method.
Then, in 1999, EPA issued a newly approved analytical method with the
capability to reliably measure mercury concentrations down to 0.5 ng/L,
well below the lowest GLI mercury water quality criteria of 1.3 ng/L. This
development had a significant impact on discharging facilities and
permitting authorities as the more sensitive measurement methods disclosed
a more pervasive problem of high mercury levels in Great Lakes Basin
waterbodies than previously recognized. Likewise, the new measurement
methods showed that many facilities had mercury levels in their discharges
exceeding water quality criteria; and, for the first time, permits could
include enforceable discharge limits, based on these low criteria. The
result was a significant increase in the number of permits needing mercury
limits and monitoring requirements. The enhanced measurement capability
also resulted in the development of statewide mercury strategies,
including variances, to assist facilities in implementing the new
measurement methods and eventually attaining the GLI water quality
criteria. In conjunction with the use of variances for mercury, EPA
encouraged the use of PMPs so that facilities

could reduce potential sources of mercury and thus move closer to meeting
the GLI water quality standards. While the development of more sensitive
methods for measuring other BCCs may not have as significant an impact as
it did with mercury, such a development would provide for a more
meaningful assessment of comparing pollutant levels with GLI water quality
criteria.

When GLI was developed, EPA recognized that the relatively low water
quality criteria levels for many pollutants would result in instances
where limits were set below levels that could be reliably measured. Water
quality criteria levels were based on the best science available for
protecting wildlife, aquatic species, and human health whether or not
methods were available for measuring pollutants at those levels. While EPA
officials involved in developing GLI believed that measurement methods
would eventually be available, developing EPA approved methods can be a
time-consuming and costly process. EPA officials involved in the
development of measurement methods explained that the development process
is based on needs and priorities as well as development costs and
resources. EPA is currently involved in developing a more sensitive
analytical method for measuring PCBs, but EPA officials believe it will
take 4 to 5 more years before it will be used because of the nature of the
agency's approval process and potential legal challenges. One class of
pollutant that has not yet been included as a BCC under GLI is
polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs-a flame retardant containing toxic
chemicals with bioaccumulative characteristics. The agency has allocated
$60,000 to develop an analytical method for this class of pollutant. EPA
officials did not know when a method for this class of pollutant will be
approved but may have a better idea at the end of 2005. At that point, if
results are promising and funding is available, EPA would validate the
method.

EPA Has Not Ensured Consistent Implementation of GLI Standards or Taken
Adequate Steps Toward Measuring Progress in Achieving GLI Goals

To ensure the eight Great Lakes states implement GLI consistently, EPA
stated in GLI that it would undertake certain activities, including
issuing a mercury permitting strategy and developing and operating a
Clearinghouse for the sharing of information by states to facilitate the
development and implementation of GLI water quality standards. EPA began
work on the mercury strategy but abandoned efforts because of a perceived
lack of interest and other agency priorities. Further, EPA has yet to
fully develop the Clearinghouse. Additionally, because EPA has not
collected sufficient data, the agency cannot determine whether GLI is
reducing pollutant discharges into the Great Lakes, whether GLI is
improving water quality, or assess overall progress toward achieving GLI
goals.

EPA Has Not Developed the Mercury Permitting Strategy Envisioned in GLI

To promote a uniform and consistent approach to the problems posed by
mercury from point sources, EPA stated in GLI that it was committed to
issuing a mercury permitting strategy for use by the Great Lakes states no
later than 2 years after GLI's publication. Although EPA believed that
there was sufficient flexibility in GLI to handle the unique problems
posed by mercury, such as variances and TMDLs, it intended to develop a
mercury permitting strategy to provide a holistic, comprehensive approach
by the states for addressing this pollutant. In June 1997, EPA published a
draft of this strategy for public comment. The strategy described the
flexibility in developing requirements for controls on the discharge of
mercury. However, the strategy was not implemented because, according to
EPA officials, few substantive comments were submitted on the draft
strategy, and agency resources were directed to other GLI activities.
Three states-New York, Michigan, and Wisconsin-that provided comments
generally supporting the effort each provided additional observations. For
example, New York noted that the strategy offered only administrative
solutions rather than tangible technical solutions to the mercury problem.
Wisconsin suggested that the strategy conformed to the basic framework and
principles of a previously developed state strategy and therefore thought
it unnecessary to substitute EPA's strategy for their own.

In lieu of a formal strategy, EPA participated in meetings with state
officials and has approved mercury permitting strategies submitted by some
of the Great Lakes states. However, in the absence of an EPA strategy on
implementing water quality standards for mercury, most of the Great Lakes
states developed their own approaches to ensuring that facilities meet the
water quality criteria established in GLI, but these approaches have been
inconsistent and create the potential for states to have different mercury

discharge requirements. A major goal of GLI was to ensure that water
quality standards of Great Lakes states were consistent within this shared
ecosystem, however, the mercury permitting approaches adopted by the Great
Lakes states contained different requirements for mercury. For example,
limits in Ohio were set at 12 ng/L based on state standards existing
before adoption of GLI, and limits established in Michigan were initially
set at 30 ng/L primarily based on data from the state of Maine. EPA
officials stated that while disparities exist, the overall limits are
being lowered.

Further, differences in states' strategies for reducing mercury from point
sources have emerged in states' use of variances for existing
facilities.14 Each state followed their own approach for mercury based on
their needs and a consideration of the approaches taken by other Great
Lakes states. While Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana based their mercury
strategies on the use of streamlined processes for obtaining mercury
variances, each state's approach varies in significant ways. For example,
Michigan uses a mercury permitting strategy where all existing facilities
in the state are granted a variance in their NPDES permits if there is
reasonable potential for the mercury standard to be exceeded. The variance
exempts a facility from meeting the GLI water quality standard of 1.3 ng/L
and establishes this water quality standard as a goal for a PMP. The
variance establishes a universal discharge limit, based on all the
facilities in the state, rather than on a facilities' current discharge
level or discharge level it could achieve individually. Michigan chose
this approach after the new measurement method was approved in 1999,
substantially increasing sensitivity for mercury in water, and most
facilities found they could not meet the GLI water quality standard. As a
result, Michigan established an interim discharge level of 30 ng/L, based
on what could be achieved by the majority of the facilities in the state,
and dischargers are considered to be in compliance with the mercury limit
if they do not exceed the level in their permit and are implementing a
PMP. Michigan has recently lowered this discharge level to 10 ng/L for
permits issued or renewed in 2005.

Conversely, Ohio's mercury strategy requires dischargers to apply for a
variance and submit detailed studies and action plans to identify and
eliminate known sources of mercury. According to state officials, Ohio's
mercury permitting strategy allows dischargers to operate for 19 months
using the new mercury measurement method to determine their discharge

14New facilities constructed after 1997 are not eligible for variances
under GLI.

levels and evaluate whether they are able to comply with the water quality
standard. If the discharger can comply with the GLI water quality
standard, then the limit is included in their permit. If the discharger
cannot comply they may request a variance. A variance establishes a
monthly permit limit, based on the level currently achievable for that
individual facility, and includes a required PMP. An annual permit limit
of 12 ng/L is included as an annual discharge requirement for all
facilities with a variance. According to state officials, Indiana's NPDES
permits for major facilities may contain monitoring requirements for
mercury, and some will contain effluent limits that must be achieved after
a 3 to 5 year compliance schedule. Additionally, Indiana developed a
streamlined mercury variance rule. This rule establishes a process for
dischargers to obtain temporary effluent limits, based on the level of
mercury currently in their effluent, and requires dischargers to develop
and implement a PMP in conjunction with a mercury variance.

Other states have developed different mercury permitting approaches.
Minnesota includes a discharge limit in permits, based on the standard of
1.3 ng/L and implemented through a compliance schedule allowing the
facility up to 5 years to meet the limit. According to state officials, if
dischargers are unable to meet the limit at the expiration of the
compliance schedule, they will be required to apply for a variance on an
individual basis. State officials also reported that Minnesota recently
developed a draft statewide TMDL for mercury as a response to the mercury
problem. Wisconsin has not granted variances, but it has granted PMP's for
about 20 facilities that are unable to comply with the mercury standard.
According to a Wisconsin official, the state considers that granting PMPs
without a limit is in essence a variance. However, it is referred to as an
"alternative mercury limitation," and the state official explained that,
if it were an official variance, the discharge limit would actually be in
the permit, and the variance would be a part of that limit. New York and
Pennsylvania only recently began using the more sensitive mercury testing
method and therefore have yet to address how facilities will be granted
variances.

EPA's Delayed Introduction To promote a more consistent and shared
approach to developing water of the GLI Clearinghouse quality standards
among the Great Lakes states, EPA stated in GLI that Limited the
Development of Region 5 would develop a GLI Clearinghouse. As envisioned
in GLI, this

Clearinghouse would be a database containing all the information on
theConsistent Water Quality criteria and data used by the Great Lakes
states in developing water qualityStandards standards. The Clearinghouse
was to be developed in cooperation with

EPA Headquarters, Regions 2 and 3, and the Great Lakes states. As

envisioned, data included in the Clearinghouse could be quickly shared
between the states to assist them in developing or updating numeric water
quality criteria for toxic chemicals for aquatic life, wildlife, and human
health. It could also be used to share data on any new pollutants that
might be designated a BCC. When EPA developed GLI, it assumed that more
chemicals would emerge as BCCs in the future and require development of
additional water quality standards. GLI allows the Great Lakes states to
designate additional chemicals for BCC controls without EPA sponsoring a
public review and comment process. EPA was concerned that inconsistencies
could arise among states when they identified future BCCs and believed the
Clearinghouse would minimize this possibility. As envisioned in GLI, EPA
Region 5 would operate the Clearinghouse, and if new information indicated
a pollutant was a potential BCC, this information would be reviewed by EPA
and the states and placed in the Clearinghouse to alert all the other
Great Lakes states. Once alerted, states could then notify the public of
any revisions to their water quality standards or permit requirements.

The development of the Clearinghouse did not proceed as envisioned in the
GLI. The Clearinghouse development effort was initiated in 1996 and EPA
began entering data into the database at that time. However, the database
was not available for use by the states until recently, because of other
EPA priorities. Meanwhile, states developed their own water quality
criteria for some GLI pollutants without centralized access to information
from other states, likely resulting in longer development time and
potential for inconsistencies among states. According to Minnesota state
officials, without a GLI Clearinghouse, developing numeric criteria has
been a problem since information on toxic chemicals or criteria are not
readily available from other Great Lakes states. Currently, Minnesota is
not close to developing criteria for all GLI pollutants. Officials stated
that the availability of the Clearinghouse will help them in developing
these criteria. Ohio officials expressed disappointment that EPA had not
developed the Clearinghouse so many years after the guidance was issued
because of its importance as a resource for developing water quality
criteria. EPA renewed its efforts to complete the development of the
Clearinghouse in late 2004. In early 2005, EPA Region 5 officials held
conference calls with officials from the eight Great Lakes states,
resulting in an agreed approach for jointly populating and maintaining the
Clearinghouse. It is unclear, however, whether the Clearinghouse was
jointly developed as planned with the active participation of EPA Regions
2 and 3, headquarters, and the eight Great Lakes states. As of April 2005,
the Clearinghouse was still in the testing stage and, according to EPA
Region 5 officials, by July 2005, all

states had access to its information. However, currently, the states are
not able to make additions or modifications to the data in the
Clearinghouse. States were also providing comments to EPA Region 5 on the
Clearinghouse's operation, and EPA planned to make modifications based on
these comments. EPA has yet to determine the most efficient approach for
maintaining and updating information in the database. Until the database
is fully operational and utilized, however, EPA cannot be assured that the
Great Lakes states have adequate information for developing and updating
consistent water quality standards.

EPA Has Not Determined the Overall Impact of GLI or of PMPs in Reducing
Pollutant Loadings

While monitoring the impact of GLI on water quality and pollutant loadings
may be difficult and not required by the Critical Programs Act or GLI, it
is important to determine if progress is being made toward GLI goals and
the virtual elimination of toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin.
Currently, the effect of GLI in improving water quality and reducing
loadings of toxic pollutants is unclear because EPA has been unable to
assess GLI's impact with existing data sources and has not gathered
additional information to monitor progress on plans to reduce future
loadings. EPA's primary data source for the NPDES permits program is the
Permit Compliance System (PCS), an automated system used for tracking
compliance with individual permits. Information is entered into the system
by states administering the program, and the system tracks when a permit
is issued and expires, how much a facility is allowed to discharge, and
what a facility has discharged. The system is useful for identifying
noncompliance with GLI-based effluent limits by major NPDES dischargers
through quarterly noncompliance reports. However, the system is inadequate
for determining whether GLI has reduced pollutant loadings.

EPA Region 5 officials attempted to use PCS to estimate the trends of
point source loadings for specific pollutants in the Great Lakes Basin,
but frequent errors occurred because of system limitations. These errors
resulted from missing or inaccurate data, which distorted a clear estimate
of pollutant loadings by facilities. For example, discharge quantities for
some pollutants were reported as zero in some instances when they do not
require monitoring, resulting in lower estimated total discharges. In
addition, PCS data are primarily for major facilities, so calculated
pollutant loadings do not reflect the sizeable universe of minor
facilities. Inconsistencies in PCS also occur from the way state discharge
monitoring report data are entered into the system. Because of these data
limitations, EPA's attempt to identify trends in point source loadings did
not produce firm conclusions, rather, it produced only speculation as to
why actual

loadings increased or decreased in certain states. In addition, loading
data that compared the years 1999 through 2000 to the years 2000 through
2001 was considered too short a time frame for comparative analysis since
most of the permits had not been modified or reissued to reflect the new
GLI standards during these time periods. Further hampering this effort was
a lack of baseline data for loadings before GLI, which prevented
comparisons between pollutant loadings before and after GLI
implementation. The overall limitations of PCS to support the NPDES
program were first recognized by EPA as an agency weakness in 1999. While
EPA has attempted to modernize the system, the costs and time to complete
the project have escalated significantly, as reported by the EPA Office of
Inspector General.15 As of June 2005, the modernization project had not
been completed.

Officials from EPA Region 5 made two other attempts to determine GLI's
impact on Great Lakes water quality. One attempt involved using Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) data.16 However, EPA officials stated that for a
number of reasons TRI did not lend itself to assessing the changes in
water quality attributed to GLI. For example, TRI does not include
information from publicly owned treatment works (POTW). Based on this
effort, EPA concluded that any improvements in water quality resulting
from GLI could not be isolated from the many other initiatives undertaken
to improve water quality in the Great Lakes Basin. A second effort is
currently under way and involves comparing a sample of individual permits
before and after GLI implementation to determine its impact on permit
limits. However, this effort has yet to yield preliminary results.
Further, even when this effort is completed, EPA will only be able to make
limited conclusions about how certain permit requirements have changed,
and may incorrectly assume that the changes were a result of implementing
GLI. This latest effort will not provide an ongoing monitoring of the
impact of GLI, and EPA officials stated that in order to do a good
analysis of GLI, all relevant data would have to be stored in a central
database for analysis. Currently different types of information are stored
in a variety of areas.

15Memorandum Report: EPA Should Take Further Steps to Address Funding
Shortfalls and Time Slippages in Permit Compliance System Modernization
Effort, EPA, OIG Rpt. No. 2003-M-00014, May 20, 2003.

16TRI is a database that contains information on releases and transfers of
certain toxic chemicals from industrial facilities, and waste management
and source reduction activities.

In addition to attempts by EPA Region 5 to determine GLI's impact, as part
of its oversight of the NPDES program, regional staff review a sample of
major NPDES permits issued by the six Great Lakes states in the region.
The criteria for selecting permits for review varies from year to year and
is typically based on issues that concern EPA staff. One factor in the
selection of permits is whether the facility discharges within the Great
Lakes Basin, thus requiring compliance with GLI. EPA officials stated that
permits are reviewed in accordance with applicable federal rules and
policies, including GLI implementation procedures. For selected permits
issued by the state of Michigan, EPA specifically reviews the
implementation of GLI requirements. For the other states, compliance
reviews addressing GLI requirements are being phased in and will take
significant time to fully implement, according to EPA officials. EPA's
reviews have not included a determination of whether GLI is being
implemented consistently among states, but rather, focus on issues of
compliance.

Finally, EPA is not gathering information on how the implementation of
PMPs or other GLI provisions is reducing pollutant discharges in the
basin. EPA officials in Region 5 stated that GLI was intended to make the
standards and goals of the Great Lakes states more consistent and
implementing an elaborate monitoring scheme was not its intent. Without
some type of monitoring, however, it is difficult to determine whether the
standards and goals are having the desired environmental effect and
whether GLI is being implemented consistently. This is particularly
important because the use of flexible implementation procedures, such as
variances and PMPs, adds uncertainty as to when facilities' discharge
levels will ultimately attain GLI water quality standards. For PMPs, EPA
Region 5 and the states cooperatively developed mercury PMP guidance for
POTWs.17 This guidance was finalized in November 2004 and provides
information on what elements should be in PMPs, including reporting of
progress by the facility to the state in achieving PMP goals. The reported
information, however, is not reviewed by EPA, and, therefore, the agency
cannot determine what overall progress is being achieved. When EPA reviews
a state-issued permit under a compliance review the agency checks only to
see if PMP requirements are recorded appropriately in the permits

17POTWs collect wastewater from homes, commercial buildings, and
industrial facilities and transport it via a series of pipes, known as a
collection system, to the treatment plant. POTWs remove harmful organisms
and other contaminants from the sewage so it can be discharged safely into
the receiving stream. Generally, POTWs are designed to treat domestic
sewage only. However, POTWs also receive wastewater from industrial
(nondomestic) users.

and it does not determine if progress is being made to reduce pollutants
under PMPs. EPA Region 5 officials stated that they could get a better
understanding of GLI implementation if PMP data were collected and
analyzed. Region 5 has not yet initiated a regional review process for
these programs, but it will be developing a strategy to do so in its NPDES
Program Branch. This strategy would involve working with the states on
review criteria and compliance determination issues. Region 5 officials
stated that their efforts are for the six states in their region. They do
not have responsibility to gather information on PMPs or other activities
regarding GLI implementation for New York or Pennsylvania, which are in
EPA regions 2 and 3, respectively.

Conclusions While GLI has limited potential to improve overall water
quality in the Great Lakes Basin because of its focus on point source
pollution, it is important that GLI's goals be achieved because they
assist in the virtual elimination of toxic pollutants called for in the
GLWQA. Several factors, however, have undermined progress toward achieving
GLI's goal of implementing consistent water quality standards. First, EPA
has taken steps to implement GLI by ensuring that states adopt GLI
standards or by issuing federal rules in the absence of state standards
but has yet to resolve long-standing issues with the state of Wisconsin
regarding the state's adoption and implementation of GLI provisions.
Second, EPA chose not to issue a mercury permitting strategy that it
committed to do in GLI, and subsequently mercury was addressed in NPDES
permits in different ways. Third, EPA's efforts to complete the
development of the GLI Clearinghouse have only recently been renewed,
reflecting a lethargic approach to implementing actions it committed to in
GLI. Finally, while EPA has made efforts to assess GLI's impact on water
quality, we believe additional efforts are needed to obtain information on
the progress in implementing GLI and on reducing pollutant discharges from
point sources in the Great Lakes Basin. In particular, information is
needed to gauge dischargers' progress in using PMPs to address pollutants
that are exceeding GLI standards.

Recommendations for To better ensure the full and consistent
implementation of the Great Lakes Initiative and improve measures for
monitoring progress toward achieving

Executive Action GLI's goals, we are recommending that the EPA
Administrator direct EPA Region 5, in coordination with Regions 2 and 3,
to take the following three actions:

o issue a permitting strategy that ensures a more consistent approach to
controlling mercury by the states,

o ensure the GLI Clearinghouse is fully developed, maintained, and made
available to the Great Lakes states to assist them in developing water
quality standards for pollutants covered by GLI, and

o gather and track information that can be used to assess the progress of
implementing GLI and the impact it has on reducing pollutant discharges
from point sources in the Great Lakes Basin. In particular, EPA should
consider collecting better information on the impact of discharger
programs to minimize pollutants that are exceeding GLI standards.

In addition, we recommend that the EPA Administrator direct EPA Region 5
take the following action:

o increase efforts to resolve the disagreements with the State of
Wisconsin over the implementation of provisions to ensure the equitable
and timely implementation of GLI among all Great Lakes states.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

GAO 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, but stated that our draft report has overlooked significant
results or benefits of GLI, such as establishing a consistent and
scientifically sound method to derive point source permit limits for
mixtures of toxicants. We acknowledge the many benefits of GLI in our
report, however, our review focused on the potential impact of GLI on
water quality, implementation of GLI, and the steps taken by EPA to ensure
consistent implementation and assessing progress toward achieving GLI
goals. EPA also stated that while our report recognizes that many of the
Great Lakes water quality problems are due to nonpoint sources, the
benefits from GLI point source implementation procedures are not fully
recognized in the report. Further, EPA stated that it was never expected
that GLI would address nonpoint source discharges, and it is not
authorized to develop and implement programs for nonpoint discharges.
However, our report recognizes the importance of controlling point source
pollution and that under the GLWQA of 1978, the United States and Canada
agreed to a policy of prohibiting harmful pollutants in toxic amounts and
virtually eliminating the discharge of such pollutants. GLI was an effort
by the United States to further control these substances. Moreover, as we
note above, our review

focused on the potential impact of GLI on water quality and therefore, we
note as a factual matter in our report that nonpoint sources are not
addressed.

Regarding the differences in the Great Lakes states approaches to mercury
and our recommendation for EPA to develop a mercury permitting strategy,
the agency stated that some differences exist in mercury requirements for
individual facilities. However, EPA did not believe these differences
represented an unacceptable level of inconsistency and believed that state
approaches were similar. Further, EPA compares pre-GLI standards to
post-GLI standards to illustrate the consistency in addressing mercury.
While consistent standards are an expected outcome of GLI, the guidance
does not ensure consistent implementation, particularly with the use of
variances and PMPs by states in lieu of compliance with the stringent GLI
water quality standards. EPA Region 5 has issued guidance for consistency
in development of PMPs by the states for publicly owned treatment works,
but states are not required to follow the guidance, and the regional
guidance does not apply to the two Great Lakes states that are outside of
the geographic boundaries of Region 5. EPA further states that mercury
variances are temporary measures allowing time to transition to the
stringent GLI standards. However, facilities with NPDES permits can apply
to have a variance renewed with a permit renewal and, therefore, variances
can be approved by the states for a 5-year period, which may be in
addition to a previous 5-year variance. It is also not evident that time
frames exist for when facilities are to meet these stringent GLI
standards. EPA stated that a mercury permitting strategy would not improve
consistency and, rather than focusing on a strategy, it would work with
the states and provide assistance on the most effective approaches for
reducing mercury loadings by point source dischargers. The agency,
however, committed itself in the GLI to developing a strategy. An overall
goal of GLI is to have consistency among the Great Lakes states, and
mercury is clearly the most important pollutant regulated in NPDES
permits.

Regarding our recommendation on the GLI Clearinghouse, EPA stated that the
Clearinghouse has a vital role to play in the GLI implementation. In early
2005, Region 5 and the eight Great Lakes states reached agreement for
populating and maintaining the Clearinghouse. After further information
updates and revisions by EPA, the states will review the Clearinghouse for
accuracy and thoroughness, and then it will be functional, according to
EPA.

Regarding our recommendation on the need to gather and track information
to assess the implementation of GLI, EPA stated that it will be working
with the states to develop PMP oversight tools, and it will be tracking
the permits issued for mercury requirements and biosolids data regarding
trends in mercury levels. For resolving its differences with the state of
Wisconsin regarding GLI, EPA stated that Region 5 is working with the
state to resolve outstanding issues. Further, the state is evaluating its
whole effluent toxicity reasonable potential procedures, and then EPA will
work with the state to ensure that its procedures are at least as
protective as EPA's. EPA also provided specific comments on the draft
report, and we have made changes in our report to reflect many of these
comments. The full text of EPA's comments is included in appendix III.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from
the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
appropriate Congressional Committees, the EPA Administrator, various other
federal and state departments and agencies. We also will make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841.
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made
major contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.

John B. Stephenson Director, Natural Resources

and Environment

List of Congressional Requesters

The Honorable Mike DeWine The Honorable Russell D. Feingold The Honorable
Carl Levin The Honorable Debbie Stabenow The Honorable George V. Voinovich
United States Senate

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. The Honorable John D. Dingell The
Honorable Rahm Emanuel The Honorable Vernon J. Ehlers The Honorable Marcy
Kaptur The Honorable Dale Kildee The Honorable Ron Kind The Honorable Mark
Kirk The Honorable Dennis Kucinich The Honorable Steven C. LaTourette The
Honorable Sander M. Levin The Honorable Candice S. Miller The Honorable
James Oberstar The Honorable Bart T. Stupak House of Representatives

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

To determine the focus and its potential to affect water quality in the
Great Lakes Basin we analyzed the published final rule on the Great Lakes
Initiative (GLI), including its methodologies, policies, and procedures.
Specifically, we reviewed the flexible implementation procedures allowed
under GLI, such as those allowed for mercury, the most common
bioaccumulative chemical of concern (BCC) regulated in permits for point
sources of pollution. We also obtained opinions on GLI's impact from
officials representing environmental organizations that were involved in
the formulation of GLI, such as the Lake Michigan Federation and the Great
Lakes Water Quality Coalition. We also gathered and analyzed available
data on the major sources of toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes Basin
from water quality permit officials in the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Region 5, and state environmental agency officials in each
of the Great Lakes states-Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Specifically, for each state
agency, we obtained information from state National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit databases regarding the location and
number of NPDES permits covered under GLI in each state, including those
permits that included BCCs. We questioned officials knowledgeable about
the data and systems that produced them and determined the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. In two instances
where we noticed inconsistencies in the data, we verified with state
officials the correction of the data.

To determine the status of GLI's adoption by the states, we analyzed the
Clean Water Act, as amended by the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of
1990, and its requirements for the Great Lake states to adopt standards,
policies, and procedures consistent with GLI. We also gathered and
analyzed documentation from EPA on its approval process for states'
submissions of their standards, policies, and procedures and whether they
reflected GLI requirements; and we interviewed EPA Region 5 and Great
Lakes states' officials on any unresolved matters regarding EPA's rulings
on state submissions. To identify any challenges that might exist to
achieving GLI's intended goals, we reviewed the water quality criteria
established for pollutants in the GLI, particularly BCCs, and interviewed
EPA Region 5 and state officials to determine how many pollutants covered
by GLI did not have methods and water quality criteria yet developed. We
also collected and analyzed data from officials of EPA's Office of Science
Technology to determine EPA's current efforts in developing new methods
for BCCs.

To identify the steps EPA has taken for ensuring the full and consistent
implementation of GLI, we reviewed the GLI to see what actions EPA had

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

committed itself to taking. We obtained information from EPA Region 5 and
EPA Headquarters on the status of these activities, such as the
establishment of a database clearinghouse and mercury permitting strategy.
We collected and analyzed opinions from several of the eight Great Lakes
states on the need for these GLI requirements and any consequences
resulting from delays in their implementation. To determine the steps EPA
has taken for assessing progress toward achieving GLI's goals, we
interviewed EPA Region 5 officials on its processes for determining
progress made under GLI in improvements to water quality, including the
agency's use of available databases in this exercise, and its monitoring
of the states' implementation of GLI.

We performed our work from October 2004 to June 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II

Purpose and Status of Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern (BCC) Identified in
GLI

Chemical Purpose Status

Chlordane Pesticide Uses banned

4,4'-DDD; p,p'-DDD; 4,4'-TDE Pesticide Uses banned

4,4'-DDE; p,p'-DDE No commercial use Chemical by-product-not deliberately
manufactured

4,4'-DDT; p,p'-DDT Pesticide Uses banned

Dieldrin Pesticide for crops like cotton and corn Uses banned

Hexachlorobenzene Pesticide, fireworks, synthetic rubber No longer used
commercially

Hexachlorobutadiene; hexachloro-1, 3-To make rubber compounds and
lubricants; used Still in use butadiene as a solvent

Hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCH); benzene hexachlorides or BHCs

Insecticide No longer produced or used in the United States

alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane; alpha-One of eight chemical forms that comprise No
longer produced in the United States

BHC

technical grade HCH

beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane; beta-One of eight chemical forms that comprise
No longer produced in the United States BHC technical grade HCH

delta-Hexachlorocyclohexane; delta-One of eight chemical forms that
comprise No longer produced in the United States BHC technical grade HCH

gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane; Insecticide on fruit and vegetable crops.
Still used Not produced in the United States since

gamma BHC or Lindane as a treatment for lice 1977, but is still imported
to the United States

Mercury Metallic mercury to produce Still in use
chlorine gas and
caustic soda and used in
thermometers, dental
fillings, and batteries
Mirex Control of fire ants; flame No longer manufactured or
retardant in plastics, used
rubber, paint, paper and
electrical goods
Not available Chemical by-product-not
Octachlorostyrene deliberately
manufactured

PCBs; polychlorinated biphenyls Products made before 1977 that may still
contain Manufacture and certain uses banned PCBs include electrical
equipment, such as transformers and capacitors

Pentachlorobenzene Used to make pentachloronitrobenzene, a Still in use
fungicide and used as a fire retardant

Photomirex Created from the decomposition of mirex when Chemical
by-product-not deliberately exposed to sunlight manufactured

2,3,7,8-TCDD; dioxin Formed during chlorine bleaching process at pulp
Chemical by-product-not deliberately and paper mills, during chlorination
by water manufactured treatment plants, and are released in emissions from
municipal and industrial incinerators

1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene Used as a dielectric fluid and as an organic
Still in use intermediate

Appendix II
Purpose and Status of Bioaccumulative
Chemicals of Concern (BCC) Identified in
GLI

(Continued From Previous Page)

Chemical Purpose Status

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene Used as an intermediate or building block to
make Still in use herbicides, insecticides, defoliants, and other
chemicals

Toxaphene Insecticide primarily used on agricultural crops Banned and
livestock and to kill unwanted fish in lakes

Sources: GAO, EPA, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, Center for Disease Control.

Appendix III

Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Appendix III
Comments from the Environmental
Protection Agency

Appendix IV

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact John Stephenson (202) 512-3841 ([email protected])

Staff In addition to the individual named above, Kevin Averyt, Greg
Carroll, John Delicath, John Wanska, and Amy Webbink made key
contributions to

Acknowledgments this report.

GAO's Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and 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.

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost

is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to

www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone 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. Government Accountability 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

To Report Fraud, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***