Great Lakes Initiative: EPA and States Have Made Progress, but	 
Much Remains to Be Done If Water Quality Goals Are to Be Achieved
(23-JAN-08, GAO-08-312T).					 
                                                                 
Millions of people in the United States and Canada depend on the 
Great Lakes for drinking water, recreation, and economic	 
livelihood. During the 1970s, it became apparent that pollutants 
discharged into the Great Lakes Basin from point sources, such as
industrial and municipal facilities, or from nonpoint sources,	 
such as air emissions from power plants, were harming the Great  
Lakes. Some of these pollutants, known as bioaccumulative	 
chemicals of concern (BCC), pose risks to fish and other species 
as well as to the humans and wildlife that consume them. In 1995,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Great Lakes 
Initiative (GLI). The GLI established water quality criteria to  
be used by states to establish pollutant discharge limits for	 
some BCCs and other pollutants that are discharged by point	 
sources. The GLI also allows states to include flexible permit	 
implementation procedures (flexibilities) that allow facilities' 
discharges to exceed GLI criteria. This testimony is based on	 
GAO's July 2005 report, Great Lakes Initiative: EPA Needs to	 
Better Ensure the Complete and Consistent Implementation of Water
Quality Standards (GAO-05-829) and updated information from EPA  
and the Great Lakes states. This statement addresses (1) the	 
status of EPA's efforts to develop and approve methods to measure
pollutants at the GLI water quality criteria levels, (2) the use 
of permit flexibilities, and (3) EPA's actions to implement GAO's
2005 recommendations.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-312T					        
    ACCNO:   A80076						        
  TITLE:     Great Lakes Initiative: EPA and States Have Made	      
Progress, but Much Remains to Be Done If Water Quality Goals Are 
to Be Achieved							 
     DATE:   01/23/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Environmental monitoring				 
	     Lakes						 
	     Nonpoint source pollution				 
	     Performance management				 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Pollutants 					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Standards						 
	     Toxic substances					 
	     Wastewater treatment				 
	     Water pollution					 
	     Water pollution control				 
	     Water quality					 
	     Water quality standards				 
	     Canada						 
	     EPA Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative		 
	     Great Lakes					 
	     Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control		 
	     Agreement						 
                                                                 
	     National Pollutant 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-08-312T

   

     * [1]Progress Made in Developing Analytical Methods Will Ultimate
     * [2]Permit Flexibilities Allowing Discharges in Excess of GLI Wa
     * [3]EPA Has Taken Some Actions to Ensure Consistent Implementati
     * [4]GAO Contacts

          * [5]Order by Mail or Phone

                 United States Government Accountability Office

GAO                          Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Water    
                                Resources and Environment, Committee on       
                                Transportation and Infrastructure, House of   
                                Representatives                               
For Release on Delivery                             GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE 
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST                                                 
Wednesday, January 23, 2008                                                
                                                     EPA and States Have Made 
                                Progress, but Much Remains to Be Done If      
                                Water Quality Goals Are to Be Achieved        
                                Statement of David Maurer Acting Director,    
                                Natural Resources and Environment             

                                  GAO-08-312T

                             GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE

EPA and States Have Made Progress, but Much Remains to Be Done If Water Quality
Goals Are to Be Achieved

  What GAO Found

As GAO reported in 2005, developing the sensitive analytical methods
needed to measure pollutants at the GLI water quality criteria level is a
significant challenge to achieving GLI's goals. Of the nine BCCs for which
criteria have been established, only two--mercury and lindane--have
EPA-approved methods that will measure below those criteria levels.
Measurement methods for the other BCCs are either not yet approved or
cannot reliably measure to GLI criteria. Without such measurement, it is
difficult for states to determine whether a facility is exceeding the
criteria and if discharge limits are required in the facility's permit. As
methods become available, states are able to include enforceable discharge
limits in facilities' permits. For example, since EPA approved a more
sensitive method for mercury in 1999, the number of permits with mercury
limits has increased from 185 in May 2005 to 292 in November 2007. EPA and
state officials expect this trend to continue. Similar increases may occur
as more sensitive analytical methods are developed and approved for other
BCCs.

Flexibilities included in permits allow facilities' discharges to exceed
GLI water quality criteria. For example, one type of
flexibility--variances--will allow facilities to exceed the GLI criteria
for a pollutant specified in their permits. Moreover, the GLI allows the
repeated use of some of these permit flexibilities, and does not set a
time frame for facilities to meet the GLI water quality criteria. As a
result, EPA and state officials do not know when the GLI criteria will be
met.

In the 2005 report, GAO made a number of recommendations to EPA to help
ensure full and consistent implementation of the GLI and to improve
measures for monitoring progress toward achieving GLI's goals. EPA has
taken some actions to implement the recommendations. For example, EPA has
begun to review the efforts and progress made by one category of
facilities--municipal wastewater treatment plants--to reduce their mercury
discharges into the basin. However, until EPA gathers more information on
the implementation of GLI and the impact it has had on reducing pollutant
discharges from point sources, as we recommended, it will not be able to
fully assess progress toward GLI goals.
F
igure 1: Area Comprising the Great Lakes Basin: 

This figure is a map of the area comprising the Great Lakes Basin. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO (MapArt). 

[End of figure] 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-312T]. For more information, contact 
David Maurer at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on the Great Lakes 
Initiative (GLI), and its impact on water quality in the Great Lakes 
Basin.[Footnote 1] As you know, 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. During the 1970s, it became apparent that pollutants 
discharged into the basin from point sources, such as industrial and 
municipal facilities, or from nonpoint sources, such as air emissions 
from power plants and agricultural runoff, were harming the Great 
Lakes. Because less than 1 percent of the Great Lakes' water recycles 
or turns over each year, on average, many of these pollutants stay in 
place, settling in sediments or bio-accumulating in fish and other 
aquatic species. As a result, some of these pollutants, such as mercury 
and dioxin, known as bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCC), pose 
risks to those species as well as to the humans and wildlife that 
consume them. 

In 1990, following a series of binational agreements aimed at improving 
environmental conditions in the Great Lakes Basin, the Congress passed 
the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act. This act, which amended the 
Clean Water Act, required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 
publish water quality guidance on minimum water quality standards and 
antidegradation policies for protecting existing water quality. In 
response, in 1995, EPA published the Final Water Quality Guidance for 
the Great Lakes System, otherwise known as the GLI, to control over 100 
toxic pollutants and protect aquatic life, wildlife, and human health. 
Through the GLI, EPA established stringent water quality criteria-- 
numeric values to be used by states to set pollutant discharge limits 
for point sources--for 9 BCCs and 20 other pollutants found in the 
basin. In addition, the GLI established methodologies that the states 
are to use in developing criteria for the remaining pollutants. Meeting 
the criteria established by GLI requires sensitive analytical methods 
that allow measurement of pollutant concentrations at or below the 
level established by GLI water quality criteria. These methods allow 
states to determine if a facility is exceeding the criteria and if a 
discharge limit is required in the facility's permit as well as to 
assess the facility's compliance. The Great Lakes Critical Programs Act 
required that the eight Great Lakes states--Illinois, Indiana, 
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin--adopt 
provisions consistent with GLI into their environmental regulations and 
point source permit programs within 2 years of issuance of GLI 
guidance. 

As you requested, my testimony today focuses on (1) the status of EPA's 
efforts to develop and approve methods needed to measure pollutants at 
the GLI water quality criteria level, (2) the use of permit 
flexibilities, and (3) the actions EPA has taken to implement the 
recommendations we made in our 2005 report on the GLI to better ensure 
full and consistent implementation of GLI and monitor progress in 
meeting GLI goals.[Footnote 2] My testimony is based on the 2005 report 
and additional information we have obtained from EPA and the Great 
Lakes states. Our testimony primarily focuses on the nine BCCs for 
which EPA has developed GLI water quality criteria. Most of these BCCs 
are responsible for fish consumption advisories in the Great Lakes. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2007 through January 
18, 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 
determined that the data provided were sufficiently reliable for 
purposes of this testimony. 

In summary: 

* As we reported in 2005, developing the sensitive analytical methods 
needed to determine whether GLI water quality criteria are being met is 
a significant challenge to fully achieving GLI's goals. At the time of 
our report, a method that allowed measurement of the pollutant at or 
below the GLI criteria had been developed and approved for only two of 
the nine BCCs--mercury and lindane. Mercury and lindane remain the only 
BCCs for which an approved method is available that measures pollutant 
concentrations below the GLI criterion. Once EPA approves an analytical 
method, Great Lakes states are able to issue point source permits that 
require facilities to use that method unless an alternative procedure 
has been approved by the EPA region. Methods have been developed for 
the remaining seven BCCs, but these methods either have not yet been 
approved or only allow for measurement above the GLI criteria. For 
example, because chlordane has a water quality criterion of 0.25 
nanograms per liter but can only be measured down to a level of 14 
nanograms per liter, it cannot always be determined if the pollutant is 
exceeding the criterion. When methods are developed that can measure 
pollutant concentrations at or below the level established by GLI water 
quality criteria, a more pervasive problem of high pollutant levels in 
the Great Lakes Basin waterbodies than previously recognized may be 
revealed and could result in additional permits with discharge limits. 
For example, the number of permits with mercury limits increased from 
185 in May 2005 to 292 in November 2007. EPA officials attribute this 
increase to the development of a more sensitive method for mercury in 
1999 and EPA and state officials expect this trend to continue. Similar 
increases may occur as more sensitive analytical methods are developed 
and approved for other BCCs. 

* Although permits may include BCC discharge limits, the GLI authorizes 
states to use flexibilities that allow facilities' discharges to exceed 
GLI water quality criteria. For example, one type of flexibility-- 
variances--will allow facilities to exceed the GLI criteria for a 
particular pollutant specified in their permits. Furthermore, the GLI 
allows the repeated use of some of these flexibilities and does not set 
a time frame for facilities to meet the GLI water quality criteria. As 
a result, EPA and state officials could not tell us when the use of 
these flexibilities will be discontinued or when the GLI criteria will 
be met. 

* EPA has taken some actions to implement the recommendations we made 
in our 2005 report to help ensure the full and consistent 
implementation of the GLI and to improve measures for monitoring 
progress toward achieving GLI's goals. First, EPA implemented our 
recommendation to fully develop the GLI Clearinghouse and make it 
available to the Great Lakes states. Second, as we recommended, EPA is 
beginning to gather and track information to assess the progress of GLI 
implementation although the information collected is limited to 
municipal wastewater treatment plants. Third, to ensure the equitable 
and timely implementation of GLI among all the Great Lakes states, EPA 
has increased its efforts to resolve disagreements with the state of 
Wisconsin on the adoption and implementation of GLI provisions. 
Finally, although EPA disagreed with our recommendation to issue a 
permitting strategy for mercury to ensure a more consistent approach 
for controlling mercury by the states, it has continued to support 
state implementation efforts by assessing which approaches are most 
effective in reducing mercury discharges by point sources. 

Progress Made in Developing Analytical Methods Will Ultimately Result 
in More Permits with BCC Discharge Limits: 

The ability to accurately and reliably measure pollutant concentrations 
is vital to successfully implementing GLI water quality criteria. 
Without this ability, it is difficult for states to determine if a 
facility's discharge is exceeding GLI water quality criteria and if a 
discharge limits are required. For example, because chlordane has a 
water quality criterion of 0.25 nanograms per liter but can only be 
measured down to a level of 14 nanograms per liter, it cannot always be 
determined if the pollutant is exceeding the criterion. As we reported 
in 2005, developing the analytical methods needed to measure pollutants 
at the GLI water quality criteria level is a significant challenge to 
fully achieving GLI goals. Although methods have been developed for the 
nine BCCs for which GLI water quality criteria have been established, 
EPA has only approved the methods to measure mercury and lindane below 
GLI's stringent criteria levels. Analytical methods for the other BCCs 
either have not received EPA approval or cannot be used to reliably 
measure to GLI criteria levels. Once EPA approves an analytical method, 
Great Lakes states are able to issue point source permits that require 
facilities to use that method unless the EPA region has approved an 
alternative procedure. According to EPA officials, specific time frames 
for developing and approving methods that measure to GLI criteria have 
not yet been established. EPA officials explained that developing EPA- 
approved methods can be a time-consuming and costly process. Table 1 
shows the status of the methods for the nine BCCs. 

Table 1: Status of BCC Analytical Methods: 

BCC: Chlordane; 
Status of method to measure GLI water quality criteria: Measures above 
the GLI criterion. 

BCC: Dieldrin; 
Status of method to measure GLI water quality criteria: Measures above 
the GLI criterion. 

BCC: DDT; 
Status of method to measure GLI water quality criteria: Measures at the 
GLI criterion but not yet approved by EPA[A]. 

BCC: Hexachlorobenzene; 
Status of method to measure GLI water quality criteria: Measures above 
the GLI criterion. 

BCC: Lindane; 
Status of method to measure GLI water quality criteria: Measures below 
the GLI criterion and approved by EPA. 

BCC: Mercury; 
Status of method to measure GLI water quality criteria: Measures below 
the GLI criterion and approved by EPA. 

BCC: PCBs; 
Status of method to measure GLI water quality criteria: Measures above 
the GLI criterion. 

BCC: 2,3,7,8-TCDD; 
Status of method to measure GLI water quality criteria: Measures above 
the GLI criterion. 

BCC: Toxaphene; 
Status of method to measure GLI water quality criteria: Measures above 
the GLI criterion. 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA information. 

[A] An analytical method exists for DDT; however, this method does not 
measure this pollutant at the GLI criterion level. A more sensitive 
method has been developed but it is in draft and EPA has not yet 
approved it. 

[End of table] 

As we reported in 2005, if pollutant concentrations can be measured at 
or below the level established by GLI water quality criteria, 
enforceable permit limits can be established on the basis of these 
criteria. The Great Lakes states' experience with mercury illustrates 
the impact of sufficiently sensitive measurement methods on identifying 
pollutant discharges from point sources. Methods for measuring mercury 
at low levels were generally not available until EPA issued a new 
analytical method in 1999 to measure mercury concentrations below the 
GLI water quality criterion of 1.3 nanograms per liter of water. This 
more sensitive method disclosed a more pervasive problem of high 
mercury levels in the Great Lakes Basin than previously recognized and 
showed, for the first time, that many facilities had mercury levels in 
their discharges that were exceeding water quality criteria. Since this 
method was approved, the number of permits with discharge limits for 
mercury rose from 185 in May 2005 to 292 in November 2007. Moreover, 
EPA and state officials are expecting this trend to continue. As EPA 
officials explained, it may take up to two permit cycles--permits are 
generally issued for 5-year periods---to collect the monitoring data 
needed to support the inclusion of discharge limits in permits. EPA 
officials are expecting a similar rise in permits with discharge limits 
for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) when detection methods are 
approved. 

Permit Flexibilities Allowing Discharges in Excess of GLI Water Quality 
Standards Delay Achievement of GLI Goals: 

Permit flexibilities often allow facilities' discharges to exceed GLI 
water quality criteria. These flexibilities can take several forms, 
including the following: 

* Variance. Allows dischargers to exceed the GLI discharge limit for a 
particular pollutant specified in their permit. 

* Compliance schedule. Allows dischargers a grace period of up to 5 
years in complying with a permitted discharge limit. 

* Pollutant Minimization Program (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 criterion. A 
PMP is often used in conjunction with a variance. 

* Mixing Zone. Allows dischargers to use the areas around a facility's 
discharge pipe where pollutants are mixed with cleaner receiving waters 
to dilute pollutant concentrations. Within the mixing zone, 
concentrations of pollutants are generally allowed to exceed water 
quality criteria as long as standards are met at the boundary of the 
mixing zone. This flexibility expires in November 2010 with some 
limited exceptions. 

These flexibilities are generally only available to permit holders that 
operated before March 23, 1997, and are in effect for 5 years or the 
length of the permit.[Footnote 3] GLI allows states to grant such 
permit flexibilities under certain circumstances, such as when the 
imposition of water quality standards would result in substantial and 
widespread economic and social impacts. Table 2 shows the number and 
type of BCC permit flexibilities being used as of November 2007 in the 
Great Lakes Basin for mercury, PCBs, and dioxin, as well as BCC 
discharge limits contained in permits. 

Table 2: Number and Type of BCC Permit Flexibilities Used and BCC 
Discharge Limits in Great Lakes Basin Permits: 

Mercury: Variance; 
IL: 0; 
IN: 2; 
MI: 136; 
MN: 0; 
NY: 0; 
OH: 15; 
PA: 0; 
WI: 2; 
Total as of: Nov. 2007: 155. 

Mercury: PMP; 
IL: 0; 
IN: 2[A]; 
MI: 136[A]; 
MN: 3[B]; 
NY: [C]; 
OH: 25[D]; 
PA: 0; 
WI: 31[E]; 
Total as of: Nov. 2007: 197. 

Mercury: Compliance Schedule; 
IL: 0; 
IN: 12; 
MI: 0; 
MN: 3; 
NY: [C]; 
OH: 48; 
PA: 0; 
WI: 0; 
Total as of: Nov. 2007: 63. 

Mercury: Mixing Zone; 
IL: 0; 
IN: 0; 
MI: 0; 
MN: 0; 
NY: [C]; 
OH: 20; 
PA: 0; 
WI: f; 
Total as of: Nov. 2007: 20. 

Mercury: Mercury discharge limits contained in permits; 
IL: 0; 
IN: 16; 
MI: 136; 
MN: 4; 
NY: 49; 
OH: 83; 
PA: 0; 
WI: 4; 
Total as of: Nov. 2007: 292. 

PCBs: Variance; 
IL: 0; 
IN: 0; 
MI: 0; 
MN: 0; 
NY: 0; 
OH: 0; 
PA: 0; 
WI: 0; 
Total as of: Nov. 2007: 0. 

PCBs: PMP; 
IL: 0; 
IN: 0; 
MI: 0; 
MN: 1; 
NY: c; 
OH: 0; 
PA: 0; 
WI: 0; 
Total as of: Nov. 2007: 1. 

PCBs: Compliance Schedule; 
IL: 0; 
IN: 0; 
MI: 0; 
MN: 1; 
NY: c; 
OH: 0; 
PA: 0; 
WI: 0; 
Total as of: Nov. 2007: 1. 

PCBs: Mixing Zone; 
IL: 0; 
IN: 0; 
MI: 0; 
MN: 0; 
NY: c; 
OH: 1; 
PA: 0; 
WI: 0; 
Total as of: Nov. 2007: 1. 

PCBs: PCB discharge limits contained in permits; 
IL: 0; 
IN: 2; 
MI: 7; 
MN: 1; 
NY: 39; 
OH: 1; 
PA: 0; 
WI: 0; 
Total as of: Nov. 2007: 50. 

2,3,7,8-TCDD; Dioxin: Variance; 
IL: 0; 
IN: 0; 
MI: 0; 
MN: 0; 
NY: 0; 
OH: 0; 
PA: 0; 
WI: 0; 
Total as of: Nov. 2007: 0. 

2,3,7,8-TCDD; Dioxin: PMP; 
IL: 0; 
IN: 0; 
MI: 0; 
MN: 1; 
NY: c; 
OH: 0; 
PA: 0; 
WI: 0; 
Total as of: Nov. 2007: 1. 

2,3,7,8-TCDD; Dioxin: Compliance Schedule; 
IL: 0; 
IN: 0; 
MI: 0; 
MN: 1; 
NY: c; 
OH: 0; 
PA: 0; 
WI: 0; 
Total as of: Nov. 2007: 1. 

2,3,7,8-TCDD; Dioxin: Mixing Zone; 
IL: 0; 
IN: 0; 
MI: 0; 
MN: 0; 
NY: c; 
OH: 0; 
PA: 0; 
WI: 0; 
Total as of: Nov. 2007: 0. 

2,3,7,8-TCDD; Dioxin: Dioxin discharge limits contained in permits; 
IL: 0; 
IN: 0; 
MI: 2; 
MN: 1; 
NY: 0; 
OH: 0; 
PA: 0; 
WI: 0; 
Total as of: Nov. 2007: 3. 

2,3,7,8-TCDD; Dioxin: Total Flexibilities Used[A]; 
IL: 0; 
IN: 16; 
MI: 272; 
MN: 10; 
NY: c; 
OH: 109; 
PA: 0; 
WI: 33; 
Total as of: Nov. 2007: 440. 

BCC discharge limits for mercury, PCBs, and dioxin contained in 
permits; 
IL: 0; 
IN: 18; 
MI: 145; 
MN: 6; 
NY: 88; 
OH: 84; 
PA: 0; 
WI: 4; 
Total as of: Nov. 2007: 345. 

Source: GAO analysis of state permit data. 

[A] These PMPs are used as a condition of a variance in a permit. 

[B] These PMPs are associated with compliance schedules. 

[C] Currently, no variances have been granted by the New York State 
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). However, the 
department was unable to determine the number of permitted facilities 
that had other flexibilities, and the number of flexibilities used. 
According to NYSDEC, 51 facilities could use these permit 
flexibilities. 

[D] These 25 PMPs are used as both a condition of a variance (15) and 
associated with compliance schedules (10). 

[E] Two of these PMPs are used as a condition of a variance in a 
permit. In general, Wisconsin officials are using PMPs in lieu of 
discharge limits to address mercury. 

[F] Wisconsin officials were unable to provide data on the number 
mixing zones used for mercury. 

[End of table] 

According to EPA and state officials, in many cases, facilities cannot 
meet GLI water quality criteria for a number of reasons, such as 
technology limitations, and the flexibilities are intended to give the 
facility time to make progress toward meeting the GLI criteria. With 
the exception of compliance schedules, the GLI allows for the repeated 
use of these permit flexibilities.[Footnote 4] As a result, EPA and 
state officials could not tell us when the GLI criteria will be met. 

EPA Has Taken Some Actions to Ensure Consistent Implementation of the 
GLI as Recommended in Our 2005 Report: 

In our 2005 report, we described several factors that were undermining 
EPA's ability to ensure progress toward achieving consistent 
implementation of GLI water quality standards. To help ensure full and 
consistent implementation of the GLI and to improve measures for 
monitoring progress toward achieving GLI's goals, we made a number of 
recommendations to the EPA Administrator. EPA has taken some actions to 
implement the recommendations contained in our 2005 report, as the 
following indicates: 

* Ensure the GLI Clearinghouse is fully developed. We noted that EPA's 
delayed development of the GLI Clearinghouse--a database intended to 
assist the states in developing consistent water quality criteria for 
toxic pollutants--was preventing the states from using this resource. 
To assist Great Lakes states in developing water quality criteria for 
GLI pollutants, we recommended that EPA ensure that the GLI 
Clearinghouse was fully developed, maintained, and made available to 
Great Lakes states. EPA launched the GLI Clearinghouse on its Web site 
in May 2006 and in February 2007, EPA Region 5 provided clearinghouse 
training to states. The clearinghouse currently contains criteria or 
toxicity information for 395 chemicals. EPA officials told us that the 
clearinghouse is now available to the states so they can independently 
calculate water quality criteria for GLI pollutants. EPA officials told 
us that some states, including Ohio, Wisconsin, and Illinois, plan on 
updating their water quality standards in the near future and believe 
that the clearinghouse will benefit them as well as other states as 
they update their standards. 

* Gather and track information to assess the progress of GLI 
implementation. In 2005, we reported that EPA's efforts to assess 
progress in implementing the GLI and its impact on reducing point 
source discharges have been hampered by lack of information on these 
discharges. To improve EPA's ability to measure progress, we 
recommended that EPA gather and track information on dischargers' 
efforts to reduce pollutant loadings in the basin. EPA has begun to 
review the efforts and progress made by one category of facilities-- 
municipal wastewater treatment facilities--to reduce their mercury 
discharges into the basin. However, until EPA develops additional 
sources of information, it will not have the information needed to 
adequately assess progress toward meeting GLI goals. 

* Increase efforts to resolve disagreements with Wisconsin. Although we 
found that the states had largely completed adoption of GLI standards, 
EPA had not resolved long-standing issues with Wisconsin regarding 
adoption and implementation of GLI provisions. To ensure the equitable 
and timely implementation of GLI by all the Great Lakes states, we 
recommended that that the EPA Administrator direct EPA Region 5, which 
is responsible for Wisconsin, to increase efforts to resolve 
disagreements with the state over inconsistencies between the state's 
and the GLI's provisions. Wisconsin officials believe the GLI 
provisions are not explicitly supported by Wisconsin law. Subsequently, 
EPA and Wisconsin officials have held discussions on this matter, and 
neither Wisconsin nor EPA officials believe that these disagreements 
are significantly affecting GLI implementation. However, they have been 
unable to completely resolve these issues. We found that similar issues 
have also surfaced with New York. 

* Issue a permitting strategy for mercury. Because we found that Great 
Lakes' states had developed inconsistent approaches for meeting the GLI 
mercury criterion, including differences in the use of variances, we 
recommended that EPA issue a permitting strategy to ensure a more 
consistent approach. EPA disagreed with this recommendation, asserting 
that a permitting strategy would not improve consistency. Instead, the 
agency continued to support state implementation efforts by developing 
guidance for PMPs, evaluating and determining compliance, and assessing 
what approaches are most effective in reducing mercury discharges by 
point sources. One such effort is EPA Region 5's review of mercury PMP 
language in state-issued permits for wastewater treatment facilities. 
This review resulted in recommendations to the states in May 2007 to 
improve the enforceability and effectiveness of PMP provisions. 
However, additional efforts will be needed to ensure consistency at 
other types of facilities, such as industrial sites, across the Great 
Lakes states. 

In closing, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, although 
progress has been made with mercury detection and increased knowledge 
of wastewater treatment facilities' pollutant discharges to the Great 
Lakes, information is still lacking on the full extent of the problem 
that BCCs pose in the Great Lakes. As methods are developed to 
determine whether facilities' discharges for other BCCs meet GLI 
criteria and EPA approves them, and as more permits include discharge 
limits, more information will be available on pollutant discharges in 
the basin. Even with these advances, however, extensive use of permit 
flexibilities could continue to undercut reductions in pollution levels 
and the ultimate achievement of GLI's goals. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to 
any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have at this 
time. 

GAO Contacts: 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 
Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. For further 
information about this testimony, please contact David Maurer at (202) 
512-3841 or [email protected]. Key contributors to this testimony were 
Greg Carroll, Katheryn Summers Hubbell, Sherry L. McDonald, and Carol 
Herrnstadt Shulman. Other contributors included Jeanette Soares and 
Michele Fejfar. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The Great Lakes Basin 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. 

[2] GAO, Great Lakes Initiative: EPA Needs to Better Ensure the 
Complete and Consistent Implementation of Water Quality Standards, GAO-
05-829 (Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2005). 

[3] Mixing zones are available for facilities that were discharging the 
pollutant or facilities that were under construction on the date that 
the GLI took effect in that state. 

[4] The GLI does not provide a sunset date for permit flexibilities 
other than mixing zones, which are set to expire in 2010 with limited 
exceptions. Individual compliance schedules cannot be used for more 
than the 5-year period they establish; however, after the schedules 
expire, facilities may use other permit flexibilities such as variances.

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 GAO Reports and Testimony:  

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:  

Contact:  

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:  

Congressional Relations:  

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, 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. ***