Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

June 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

Wider Use of

Advanced

Technologies Can

Improve Emissions

Monitoring

GAO-01-313
Page i GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Letter 1

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 Introduction 11

Monitoring Facility Emissions Under the Clean Air Act 12

Monitoring Discharges Under the Clean Water Act 12

The Search for Improved Monitoring Technologies 14

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 15

Chapter 2 Technologies for Measuring Emissions From

Stationary Air Sources 18

Compliance Monitoring Under the Clean Air Act 18

Available Technologies That Can Improve Monitoring of Air

Emissions 21

Extent to Which Improved Air Monitoring Technologies Are Being

Used 25

Factors That Influence Development of New Air Monitoring

Technologies 32

Conclusions 34

Recommendations 35

Agency Comments 35

Chapter 3 Technologies for Measuring Wastewater Discharges 37

Monitoring Wastewater Discharges Under the Clean Water Act 37

Available Technologies That Can Improve Wastewater Monitoring 39

Extent to Which Improved Wastewater Monitoring Technologies

Are Being Used 41

Factors That Influence Development of Improved Wastewater

Monitoring Technologies 42

Conclusions 50

Recommendations 50

Agency Comments 51

Chapter 4 Technologies for Measuring Emissions From

Nonpoint Water Sources 52

Monitoring and Assessing Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution 52

Contents
Page ii GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Available Technologies That Can Improve Monitoring and

Assessment 55

Extent to Which Improved Nonpoint Source Monitoring

Technologies and Assessment Techniques Are Being Used 62

Factors That Influence Development of Improved Nonpoint Source

Monitoring Technologies and Assessment Techniques 66

Conclusions 67

Recommendations 68

Agency Comments 68

Appendix I Comments From the Department of the Interior 69

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 72

Tables

Table 1: Largest Stationary Sources of Criteria Pollutants

(excluding lead) and Volatile Organic Compounds, 1998 19

Table 2: Five Largest Major Stationary Source Emitters of Toxic Air

Emissions, 1996 20

Table 3: Industrial Sources of Conventional and Toxic Pollutants 38

Table 4: Examples of EPA Test Method Categories 39

Table 5: Validation and Approval of Proposed Methods 44

Figures

Figure 1: Sources of Pollution 11

Figure 2: Example of a Continuous Emissions Monitor 22

Figure 3: Overview of Advanced Air Monitoring Technologies 24

Figure 4: EPA’s Office of Water Method Development Budget for

Wastewater Monitoring 42

Figure 5: Nonpoint and Point Source Water Pollution 54

Figure 6: Examples of In-person Water Sampling Methods 57

Figure 7: Examples of Remote Sensing 60
Page iii GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Abbreviations

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ETV Environmental Technology Verification

GAO General Accounting Office

GIS Geographic Information Systems

ICP/MS Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometer

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PEMS Predictive Emissions Monitoring Systems

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Page 1 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

June 22, 2001

The Honorable Sherwood L. Boehlert

The Honorable Cal Dooley

The Honorable James Greenwood

House of Representatives

As requested, we are reporting on the use and development of monitoring

technologies for measuring emissions from stationary air, point water, and

nonpoint water sources of pollution.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate

congressional committees; the Honorable Christine Todd Whitman,

Administrator, EPA; the Honorable Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior;

and the Honorable Mitchell Daniels, Director, Office of Management and

Budget. We will also post this report on the Internet at www.gao.gov and

make copies available to others upon request.

Please call me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any questions.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.

John B. Stephenson

Director, Natural Resources

 and Environment

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Executive Summary

Page 2 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established in 1970

to consolidate in one agency a variety of federal research, monitoring,

standard setting, and enforcement activities to ensure environmental

protection. EPA’s mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the

natural environment. This includes regulating pollution generated by

facilities such as sewage treatment plants, power generation plants,

chemical manufacturers, and pulp and paper mills. Pollution can pose

serious threats to human health, wildlife, and other natural resources, and

degrade overall environmental conditions. Monitoring is a key component

of the efforts by both the government and private parties to address these

threats. Effective monitoring is critical to ascertain where the key

pollution problems exist, what their consequences may be, and how they

can be most effectively remedied. It is also an essential element of the

government’s efforts to determine compliance with existing laws and

regulations. In addition, monitoring has served in recent years as an

essential ingredient in regulatory flexibility efforts. Such efforts are

intended to provide regulated entities the flexibility to determine how they

meet limits on the pollutants they discharge, while ensuring through

effective monitoring that environmental standards are still met.

Many of the technologies that are currently used to monitor environmental

conditions have been in use for several decades. In recent years, however,

a number of technologies have been identified that may offer improved

measurement and performance capabilities. Concerned that many of these

improved technologies are not being used to their full potential, GAO was

asked to (1) identify technologies whose wider use can improve the

monitoring of pollutants entering the nation’s air and water; (2) determine

the extent to which these improved technologies are being used and steps

that EPA can take to encourage their wider use; and (3) identify the

factors that influence the development of new technologies and steps that

EPA can take to encourage greater development of new technologies. As

agreed with the Offices that requested this report, GAO focused its review

on monitoring technologies associated with air emissions from stationary

sources, wastewater discharges from “point” water sources, and pollution

from diffused “nonpoint” water sources.

While the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act each require facilities to

limit their pollutant discharges, the two federal environmental laws

address pollutant monitoring very differently. Under the Clean Air Act,

EPA requires about 20,000 of the largest pollution sources to obtain

permits that consolidate all applicable air pollution control requirements.

Each permit contains all required monitoring and analysis procedures. A

Executive Summary

Purpose

Background
Executive Summary

Page 3 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

limited number of facilities in certain industries must continuously

measure their emissions of some pollutants. Most other facilities, however,

do not and rely instead on short-term tests and other indicators of

compliance. As a result, regulators and regulated entities sometimes lack

certainty about whether these facilities maintain continuous compliance

with clean air regulations.

Facilities that discharge pollutants, or wastewater, into waters of the

United States from a discrete point, such as a pipe, are regulated by a

Clean Water Act program that requires facilities to monitor their

discharges in order to ensure compliance with pollutant discharge limits.

Regulated entities must use only EPA-approved test methods. The degree

of monitoring required depends on the type and amount of pollution that a

facility emits. However, there is a much greater degree of monitoring of

pollutant discharges from wastewater sources than from stationary air

sources, mainly because all wastewater sources that discharge into a body

of water, regardless of size, are required to have a pollutant discharge

permit. There are about 96,000 facilities that have a pollutant discharge

permit under this program.

Water pollution that cannot be traced to a pipe or other discrete

conveyance is known as “nonpoint source” pollution. Nonpoint source

pollution is caused by such activities as agriculture, forestry, and urban

development. The diffuse nature of nonpoint sources makes their direct

measurement exceedingly difficult. Therefore, measuring nonpoint source

pollution entails analyses of multiple types of data, including water quality

conditions, land use, climate, and soil type. Mathematical models are often

used to translate these data into probable pollutant contributions from

individual sources or groups of similar types of sources. While nonpoint

sources, in general, are identified as contributors to most of the nearly

300,000 miles of rivers and streams and about 8 million acres of lakes that

do not meet water quality standards, there is no estimate for how many

sources actually contribute pollutants.

Efforts have long been underway to develop improved technologies to

enhance the monitoring of air and water quality. These efforts have

generally sought to (1) better enable regulators and regulated parties to

detect pollution problems and ascertain whether pollutant levels exceed

regulatory standards, (2) ascertain whether emitters are complying with

specific limitations listed in their permits, and/or (3) reduce monitoring

costs. Recent proposals to allow regulated parties greater flexibility in

achieving emissions or discharge limitations have given the search for

improved monitoring technologies added impetus. One such proposal
Executive Summary

Page 4 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

introduced in the 106th Congress was entitled, “The Second Generation of

Environmental Improvement Act” (H.R. 3448). Among other things, the bill

would allow EPA to enter into “innovative strategy agreements” with

states, companies, or other interested parties in order to achieve

environmental standards more efficiently and effectively. Such agreements

could involve the modification or waiver of agency regulations. Noting that

such regulatory flexibility should be accompanied by “greater

accountability through enhanced monitoring and data reporting,” the bill

contained a number of provisions intended to improve monitoring and

other measurement methods.

A number of monitoring technologies exist that can improve the capability

to measure the emission or discharge of pollutants from stationary air

sources, wastewater sources, and nonpoint water sources. These

technologies offer improvements over older, more commonly used

methods by detecting pollutants at lower levels, reducing monitoring

costs, and/or increasing the reliability of monitoring results. For example,

Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) continuously measure

pollutants released by stationary air sources. EPA officials consider CEMS

to be the most reliable method for determining emissions. Promising

wastewater monitoring technologies include inductively coupled

plasma/mass spectrometry (ICP/MS) and ion chromatography, both of

which can (1) detect pollutants at significantly lower levels than

commonly used monitoring technologies and (2) reduce costs for users by

rapidly analyzing multiple pollutants in a single sample rather than

analyzing them one at a time.

Most improved monitoring technologies have existed for years but are not

widely used. The primary barriers preventing wider use of these

technologies differ considerably across stationary air, wastewater, and

nonpoint water sources. Regarding emissions from stationary air sources,

a major disincentive to wider use of advanced technologies by regulated

entities is their potential to identify instances of noncompliance and

violations. To date, EPA requires only a limited number of industries

(primarily electric utilities) to use continuous emissions monitors.

Regarding monitoring of wastewater discharges, GAO found that the

majority of dischargers are unable to use advanced technologies, such as

ICP/MS, because EPA has yet to specifically approve the technologies for

Clean Water Act compliance monitoring. Users cited a lengthy and

cumbersome EPA approval process and EPA’s funding constraints as the

principal reasons why they do not more widely use technologies such as

the ICP/MS and the ion chromatograph. Regarding monitoring

Results in Brief
Executive Summary

Page 5 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

technologies for nonpoint water sources, while federal approval is not

needed, wider use of these technologies has been discouraged by concerns

over the cost of purchasing some of the technologies and the expertise

required to use them.

Equipment manufacturers develop new technologies only when strong

prospects exist for a return on their investments. Accordingly, many of the

constraints that impede the use of existing advanced monitoring

technologies have limited such investments. In the case of air monitoring

technologies, equipment manufacturers and regulators said that, without

regulatory requirements, manufacturers have little incentive to bring new

technologies to market. In the absence of private investment, government

agencies, including EPA, the Department of Defense, and the Department

of Energy, have sponsored some research in this area, but EPA has limited

resources and research conducted by other agencies does not always

provide results that are acceptable for regulatory purposes. Developers of

wastewater monitoring technologies have had some success in obtaining

approval for minor modifications to existing EPA methods as well as

proposed methods to be used by individual facilities. However, the

approval process for major advances with nationwide application has

deterred investment in these more far-reaching technologies.

Stationary sources of air pollution vary in the extent to which they

monitor their compliance with clean air regulations. Some of the largest

emitters, such as many electric utilities, must continuously monitor their

emissions of certain pollutants. Many sources, however, rely on other

indicators of compliance, such as short-term tests or periodic monitoring.

As a result, regulators and regulated entities sometimes lack certainty

about whether these facilities continuously comply with clean air

regulations. Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) are

capable of continuously measuring and recording emissions of certain air

pollutants using a variety of sampling and analytical methods. EPA

officials consider CEMS to be the most reliable method for determining

emissions. In addition to providing a continuous indication of a facility’s

compliance status, these devices can provide facilities with information

that enables them to identify process improvements that could save them

money and reduce emissions.

Principal Findings

Available Technologies

Can Often Improve

Monitoring and Reduce

Costs
Executive Summary

Page 6 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

In the case of wastewater discharges, ICP/MS has long been recognized for

its potential to provide greater accuracy and, in some cases, to

dramatically lower costs. In fact, a 1988 EPA report predicted that during

the 1990s, “the application of inductively coupled plasma/mass

spectrometry to environmental analyses could result in the single greatest

impact on the analysis of metals.” Ion chromatography provides similar

benefits when measuring inorganic substances, such as nitrates and

phosphates. Like ICP/MS, it can rapidly analyze multiple pollutants in a

single sample, as opposed to methods currently used for wastewater

monitoring that can analyze only one pollutant at a time. As a result, ion

chromatography can reduce costs at commercial laboratories or large

regulated facilities that test numerous samples. In addition, ion

chromatography has detection levels in the parts-per-billion range, which

is considerably lower than methods currently in use.

The importance of identifying and measuring nonpoint sources of

pollution stems from intense pressure on the states and EPA to address

the thousands of waters that do not meet water quality standards as a

result of these sources. However, traditional water quality monitoring

techniques, such as in-person sampling, are too costly and labor-intensive

to monitor a sufficient number of waters. Technologies are available,

however, that can increase the amount of sampling that can be done and

provide water quality measurements more quickly. For example, some

“field-based” tools can take measurements of various water quality

parameters on-site, which eliminates certain laboratory analyses and

provides more immediate information. In addition, computerized models,

which automate the analysis of the complex relationships that define how

water pollutants move through the environment (an extremely difficult

and time-consuming analysis if conducted manually), have been made

easier to use so that more entities conducting nonpoint assessments can

utilize these tools.

Many improved technologies have been used to only a limited extent

despite their proven track record. The reasons for this, however, vary

among air, wastewater, and nonpoint water monitoring technologies. A

major barrier to voluntary use of air emissions monitoring technologies by

regulated entities is the concern that improved monitoring will reveal

violations of clean air regulations that will result in punitive action. As a

result, regulated entities perform monitoring only when required to do so.

EPA, however, typically does not require emitters to use these

technologies, due primarily to time and resource constraints in issuing

new regulations, as well as the perception that they are too expensive.

Improved Monitoring

Technologies Used to a

Limited Extent
Executive Summary

Page 7 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

The direct measurement of pollutant discharges from wastewater sources

is significantly greater than from stationary air sources, stemming largely

from a Clean Water Act program’s requirement that virtually all

wastewater sources that discharge pollutants into U.S. waters monitor

their compliance with a discharge permit. Yet, while this more

comprehensive monitoring framework would appear to encourage use of

improved technologies for monitoring Clean Water Act compliance, GAO

found that few regulated dischargers use ICP/MS or the ion

chromatograph for this purpose, despite the fact that these technologies

are routinely used to monitor compliance with the Safe Drinking Water

Act. The main reason that many dischargers do not use these technologies

is because the monitoring methods are not yet approved for use by EPA,

meaning that a facility could be found in noncompliance for using an

unapproved method. And while EPA had proposed approving the use of

ICP/MS and the ion chromatograph for wastewater compliance monitoring

in the mid-1990s, agency officials said that funding constraints prevented

the agency from doing the additional validation studies needed to support

an approval decision. In particular, they pointed out that the amount of

funding devoted to developing and validating methods for use in

compliance monitoring has declined by over 50 percent since fiscal

year 1997.

It is difficult to determine the extent of a particular nonpoint source water

monitoring technology’s use because (1) the different entities doing

nonpoint assessments are free to use any technology they choose and

(2) there is a multitude of ongoing nonpoint source pollution assessments

across the country. However, based on discussions with a diverse group of

participants in this type of monitoring and assessment, it appears that cost

and simplicity are major factors that influence their use. Hence, most

states are using automatic samplers and field-based analytical devices to

meet at least some of their monitoring and assessment requirements

because the technologies are relatively affordable and easy to use.

Similarly, states doing nonpoint source water assessments use simplified

models that have been enhanced in recent years with improved interfaces

and graphical output.

On the other hand, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), remote

sensing, and highly complex models, are used to a much lesser extent.

Many officials that GAO contacted cited the cost of purchasing such

technologies and the skills needed to operate and maintain them as major

barriers. Some officials added that states may be unwilling to experiment

with less-proven technologies because of their programmatic demands to

conduct a large number of assessments within fairly tight timeframes.
Executive Summary

Page 8 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Thus, the most advanced nonpoint source monitoring technologies are

used more frequently by research organizations or in special projects

conducted by states or interagency programs. Many officials noted the

benefits of using any of these advanced technologies include collecting

more reliable information or conducting more complex analyses, which

will ultimately help them make more informed decisions regarding needed

pollution controls.

According to air monitoring equipment manufacturers and regulators,

manufacturers have little incentive to bring new monitoring technologies

to market in the absence of an identified need to satisfy a regulatory

requirement. As a result, most improvements focus on making existing

monitoring methods more reliable and less expensive. Given the limited

private investment in this area, EPA’s Science Advisory Board

recommended in 1995 that the agency support the development and

commercialization of more innovative CEMS and other technologies.

According to agency officials, EPA devotes a limited amount of funding to

the development of advanced technologies, but this focuses on agency

research objectives rather than bringing promising technologies to market.

Other federal agencies also perform research and development, but these

efforts do not always provide results that are acceptable for regulatory

purposes.

Manufacturers and vendors of wastewater monitoring technologies cited

as their primary deterrent the time required to navigate their most

significant technological proposals—those involving major modifications

or new monitoring methods with nationwide application—through a

complicated EPA technical and administrative rulemaking process.

Between fiscal years 1993 and 2000, EPA approved two such “nationwide

use” methods, taking about 3 years for one and about 3-1⁄2 years for the

other. The sponsor of a third case, currently in the rule making process,

projects that the total period of review will be about 5 years before the

proposed method is published as a final rule. A wide variety of

organizations GAO contacted, including state regulatory authorities,

regulated entities, and equipment manufacturers, voiced concern over the

length of this process. Equipment manufacturers told GAO that the EPA

review process had at least partly influenced their decision to apply their

water monitoring technologies to other markets, such as the

pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. Others told GAO that they

are focusing more of their attention on overseas markets.

Factors Influencing the

Development of New

Technologies
Executive Summary

Page 9 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Several factors limit the market for advanced technologies for use in

nonpoint source assessments. In particular, manufacturers told GAO that

since there are no specific requirements regarding how states must

monitor their waters, there is no clearly defined market for their products.

Compounding this risk is the relative scarcity of shared information

between the users and the developers of these technologies. Several

officials that GAO interviewed consistently stated that information sharing

about past successes and failures using certain technologies and

techniques needs to be improved. Without such information, it is difficult

to know where additional technologies are needed. Finally, investment in

nonpoint source pollution monitoring by the largest group of users—the

states—has historically been light, given their water programs’ historic

focus on wastewater sources. Consequently, instrument manufacturers

told GAO that they believe the market for new products in this area is

relatively limited.

Because monitoring requirements vary considerably for air, wastewater,

and nonpoint source water pollution, GAO makes separate

recommendations to the Administrator, EPA, at the end of chapters 2, 3,

and 4, respectively. The recommendations in chapter 2 identify steps that

EPA should take to encourage wider use of advanced air monitoring

technologies. Recommendations in chapter 3 focus on improving and

maintaining EPA’s process for approving new monitoring methods or

modifications to existing ones for use in wastewater compliance

monitoring. The recommendation in chapter 4 addresses the need for

improved information sharing regarding successes and failures of new

monitoring technologies and assessment techniques given the

decentralized nature of nonpoint source pollution management.

GAO provided EPA and the Department of the Interior with a draft of this

report for review and comment. In its letter dated June 12, 2001, Interior

said that it agreed with the recommendation in chapter 4 that EPA develop

a clearinghouse and/or locator for monitoring technologies and

assessment techniques that are used for assessing pollutant contributions

from nonpoint water pollution sources and developing Total Maximum

Daily Loads. It suggested, however, that the report note that to some

extent, several agencies have already moved in this direction through the

establishment of a National Environmental Monitoring Index, which falls

under the auspices of the interagency National Water Quality Monitoring

Council. GAO added language to this effect in chapter 4 and incorporated

Recommendations

Agency Comments
Executive Summary

Page 10 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

several other technical comments and clarifications suggested by the

Department.

EPA did not submit a formal letter but supplied GAO with individual

comments from several of the offices with jurisdiction over the issues

discussed in the report. Commenting on the report’s discussion of air

monitoring technologies, the Office of Air and Radiation said it believed

that “the subject is covered accurately and the conclusions are fair.” The

Office provided a number of editorial comments, which were incorporated

as appropriate. The Office of Research and Development provided input

from several individuals within the office. Among the key themes from

these comments were that the report should provide more detailed

information on the range of available monitoring technologies, the type of

improvements that are necessary, and the benefits of improved

monitoring. GAO believes that it was limited in the level of detail the

report should devote to these matters by (1) the enormous range of

technologies that address air, wastewater, and nonpoint source water

monitoring and (2) the need to devote sufficient attention in the report to

the legal and regulatory barriers inhibiting wider use and development of

such technologies, which was the primary focus of the report. Other

comments by reviewers from the Office of Research and Development are

discussed at the end of chapter 2. The EPA Offices of Water and of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance also reviewed the draft report

but did not provide comments.
Chapter 1: Introduction

Page 11 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Sewage treatment plants, power generation plants, chemical

manufacturers, and pulp and paper mills are among the facilities that emit

or discharge various pollutants into the air and water. Urban development

and agriculture also contribute pollutants to our environment, although

often in a much more “diffused” manner (see fig. 1.) Pollutants from all of

these facilities and activities can pose serious threats to human health—

sometimes immediately upon contact when encountered in sufficient

quantities; other times through long-term exposure to smaller quantities.

Many pollutants also damage wildlife and other natural resources, and

degrade overall environmental conditions. The primary purpose of the

Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act is to regulate emissions of these

pollutants.

Figure 1: Sources of Pollution

Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1: Introduction

Page 12 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

The systematic monitoring of pollutants is an essential function under

both statutes. It is particularly critical in determining where the key

pollution problems lie, what their consequences may be, and how they can

be most effectively remedied through pollution control strategies. It is also

an essential element of the government’s efforts to determine compliance

with existing laws and regulations. In addition, monitoring has served in

recent years as an essential ingredient in innovative environmental

protection programs, such as emissions trading. Such efforts are intended

to provide regulated entities with flexibility in how they meet limits on the

pollutants they discharge, while ensuring through effective monitoring that

environmental standards are still met. While the monitoring requirements

of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act share some similarities, there

are also important differences.

Facilities that emit pollutants into the air—generally referred to as

“stationary air sources”—must comply with the emissions limitations and

other provisions of the Clean Air Act. Under the act, EPA requires some

facilities to limit or control their emissions of certain pollutants and

monitor their compliance with applicable clean air regulations.

Compliance monitoring requirements for individual facilities depend on

factors such as the type of facility and the amount of pollution it emits.

Some sources, such as many electric utilities, must continuously monitor

their emissions of certain pollutants. Most sources, however, instead

perform temporary emissions tests when they first install pollution control

equipment. Some of these facilities may, but do not necessarily, undergo

additional temporary monitoring (or “periodic monitoring”) at the

discretion of their state air pollution control agency. As a result, regulators

and regulated entities sometimes lack the certainty that these facilities

maintain continuous compliance with clean air regulations. An EPA

enforcement official said that, in general, regulated entities must maintain

continuous compliance with applicable requirements adopted and

approved under the Clean Air Act.

Facilities that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States from a

discrete point, such as a pipe, are referred to as “wastewater dischargers.”

Facilities include industrial operations, such as coal mining or iron

manufacturers, or other operations, such as sewage treatment facilities.

These three categories of dischargers account for 95 percent of all

discharges. Under a Clean Water Act program, all wastewater dischargers

Monitoring Facility

Emissions Under the

Clean Air Act

Monitoring

Discharges Under the

Clean Water Act
Chapter 1: Introduction

Page 13 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

must obtain a permit that generally includes effluent limitations and

monitoring requirements. Regulated entities must use approved EPA

methods for monitoring that describe procedures for measuring

pollutants. The degree to which monitoring is required depends on the

type and amount of pollution a facility emits. Overall, wastewater

dischargers are more likely to regularly measure their emissions than are

regulated air pollution sources. This more comprehensive monitoring

framework stems largely from the Clean Water Act program’s requirement

that virtually all wastewater sources discharging pollutants into U.S.

waters have a pollutant discharge permit, regardless of size.

In addition to facilities that discharge pollutants directly to waters,

pollutants may also be discharged into waters by a wide variety of

“nonpoint sources” of pollution. Nonpoint sources are diffused sources

associated with land-based activities such as agriculture, timber

harvesting, and urban development. While these activities generate and

eventually discharge pollutants to waters, unlike wastewater sources, their

discharges do not go through a pipe or other discrete conveyance. The

Clean Water Act directs states to develop programs that address nonpoint

source pollution but provides no direction for the establishment of

minimum national controls and/or monitoring that must be implemented,

such as it does for the control of wastewater. As a result, state laws and

programs bearing on nonpoint source water pollution vary widely.

Without a clearly identified source of discharge, the direct measurement of

pollutant contributions from nonpoint sources remains exceedingly

difficult. Assessing nonpoint source pollution entails synthesizing and

analyzing multiple types of data, including water quality conditions, land

use, climate, and soil type. Mathematical models are often used to

translate these data into probable pollutant contributions from individual

sources or groups of similar types of sources.

State agencies that regulate water quality typically take the lead in

monitoring for nonpoint source pollution. Because no specific program

requirements exist regarding monitoring, assessing, or controlling

nonpoint sources, the use of particular monitoring technologies or

assessment techniques is not strictly controlled—a major difference

between this and the monitoring of stationary air emissions and

wastewater discharges. In addition, numerous federal, state, local, and

other organizations often monitor water quality conditions and generate

other types of data used in nonpoint source analyses.
Chapter 1: Introduction

Page 14 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Efforts have long been underway to improve the ability of regulators and

regulated parties to detect pollution problems, ascertain whether pollutant

levels exceed regulatory standards, and reduce monitoring costs. Research

and development of advanced monitoring technologies is conducted by

many different organizations such as federal agencies, universities and

other research-oriented institutions, and private vendors of such

technologies.

According to a 1998 Department of Commerce report, the business sectors

most related to environmental monitoring—analytical services,

instruments, and information systems—accounted for about 2 percent of

the U.S. environmental industry’s revenues ($4.3 billion out of $181 billion)

in 1996. In that year, these sectors included 2,100 companies and over

42,000 employees. Air and water monitoring revenues accounted for a

little more than one-half of overall revenues for these sectors, about

$0.9 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively in 1996. The report noted that

investment in the environmental industry posed significant risks, stating

that “most investors perceive the risks of environmental investment as

especially difficult to overcome, and believe that the environmental

market is riskier than others.”

1

Recognizing the need to accelerate the development and

commercialization of improved environmental technologies, EPA

established the Environmental Technology Verification program in 1995.

This program verifies the performance of commercially ready technologies

and, according to EPA, provides independent and credible assessments to

potential buyers. EPA relies on various stakeholder groups to prioritize the

technologies to be analyzed. As of September 2000, the program had

verified 111 technologies.

Recent proposals to allow regulated parties greater flexibility in achieving

emissions or discharge limitations have given added impetus to the search

for improved monitoring technologies. One such proposal, “The Second

Generation of Environmental Improvement Act” (H.R. 3448), was

introduced in the 106th Congress. H.R. 3448 noted that “Numerous studies

have recommended experimenting with performance-based regulatory

approaches that provide regulated entities with greater flexibility in

 1

 See Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Industry Faces the 21st Century; The U.S.

Environmental Industry, Office of Technology Policy, U.S. Department of Commerce

(Sept. 1998).

The Search for

Improved Monitoring

Technologies
Chapter 1: Introduction

Page 15 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

determining how to meet environmental standards.” The bill stated,

however, that such flexibility should be accompanied by “greater

accountability through enhanced monitoring and data reporting.” Toward

this end, the bill contained a number of provisions intended to improve

monitoring and other measurement methods.2

Members of Congress Boehlert, Dooley, and Greenwood asked us to

(1) identify technologies whose wider use can improve the monitoring of

pollutants entering the nation’s air and water; (2) determine the extent to

which these improved technologies are being used and steps that can be

taken to encourage their wider use; and (3) identify the factors that

influence the development of new technologies and steps that can be

taken to encourage greater development of new technologies. As agreed,

our review focused on monitoring technologies associated with stationary

air emissions and both wastewater and nonpoint source water discharges.

To address the first two objectives, we interviewed numerous

representatives of relevant government agencies and private organizations,

reviewed existing literature, and analyzed available EPA data. Of

particular note, we interviewed officials from EPA’s Offices of Water, Air

and Radiation, and Research and Development who are responsible for

conducting research in monitoring technologies, evaluating technologies

developed by private organizations, and implementing clean air and clean

water programs. We also obtained and analyzed available EPA data on the

timeframes for making decisions on proposals for using alternative

technologies for compliance monitoring. We also spoke with officials from

EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to better

understand the effect of the agency’s enforcement regulations and policies

on the use of improved monitoring technologies. In addition, we contacted

officials from the U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of Energy

who are involved in conducting environmental monitoring and sponsoring

research in environmental monitoring technologies.

 2

 Among other things, the bill’s section 106 provided that the EPA Administrator establish a

program to publicly recognize efforts to develop and make more effective use of improved

monitoring technologies and to develop technologies and other methods that reduce the

costs of collecting or disseminating monitoring data. The bill also contained other

requirements intended to encourage EPA to reduce the time required to approve new

monitoring technologies and to expedite their deployment.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology
Chapter 1: Introduction

Page 16 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

We also contacted many public and private organizations that have either

developed improved monitoring technologies or have participated in

decisions affecting their use by regulated emitters of air and water

pollutants. These organizations include state environmental regulatory

agencies, academic and research institutions, standards boards, such as

the American Society of Testing and Materials, industry associations, and

technology manufacturers or vendors.

To obtain further insights into the extent to which these technologies are

being used, we obtained data from relevant agency databases that contain

information on regulated entities and, in some cases, monitoring

requirements and the technologies being used to meet them. We also

interviewed state and federal regulatory agencies and regulated entities to

gain their perspective on this issue.

We also interviewed representatives of regulated entities to better

understand the incentives and disincentives surrounding the use of

improved air and water monitoring technologies. In selecting these

organizations, we sought diversity in the size and type of facility and the

nature of the emissions discharged. To obtain more detailed insights and

“hands-on” information, we visited the Hampton Roads Sanitation District

in Hampton, Virginia, and Dominion Power’s Possum Point Power Plant in

Dumfries, Virginia. At each location, we examined the monitoring

instruments currently in use, and discussed with company officials the

factors that affected their decisions and their ability to use more advanced

monitoring methods.

To address the factors that affect the development of new monitoring

technologies, we concentrated mainly on the views of the instrument

manufacturers, public and private research organizations, and other

organizations whose decisions most directly influence the nature and

extent of investment in developing new monitoring technologies. We

identified the factors affecting their investment decisions, as well as the

implications these decisions would likely have on the future availability of

improved monitoring technologies. We also attended EPA’s annual

conference on monitoring technologies for various media, EPA’s national

conference on nonpoint source monitoring, and a conference on air

monitoring technologies.

We conducted our work from September 2000 through May 2001 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Chapter 1: Introduction

Page 17 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Most GAO reports are organized in a manner that addresses each

evaluation question sequentially (as is done in the executive summary of

this report). However, the detailed information in the chapters of this

report has been structured somewhat differently because of the

complexity of the technologies discussed and the relatively unique issues

concerning the monitoring technologies associated with air, wastewater,

and nonpoint source water pollution. Accordingly, chapter 2 addresses the

three evaluation questions as they relate to stationary air pollution

sources; chapter 3 addresses the three questions as they relate to

wastewater pollution sources; and chapter 4 addresses the questions as

they relate to nonpoint water pollution sources.

Organization of This

Report
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 18 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Regulated stationary sources of air pollution vary in the extent to which

they must monitor their emissions. Some sources, such as many electric

utilities, must continuously monitor their emissions of certain pollutants.

Most other facilities, however, do not and rely instead on short-term tests

and other indicators of compliance. As a result, regulators and regulated

entities sometimes lack certainty about whether these facilities maintain

continuous compliance with clean air regulations. Technologies are

available that could improve these facilities’ capacity to monitor their air

emissions and their compliance with clean air regulations. Accordingly,

our discussion of advanced air monitoring technologies focuses on

commercially available technologies that can assist regulated entities in

monitoring compliance. These technologies can also help facilities better

understand their processes and identify opportunities to improve

productivity and reduce waste.

Despite these incentives, we found that regulated facilities generally utilize

advanced technologies only when required for regulatory purposes.

However, EPA rarely requires continuous compliance monitoring because

of time and resource constraints in issuing new rules, as well as the

perception that advanced monitoring technologies are too expensive.

Voluntary use of advanced technologies by regulated entities is also rare

because of the concern that improved monitoring will reveal violations of

clean air regulations. These factors limit not only the use of advanced

technologies, but also corporate investments in research and development

of new technologies.

The Clean Air Act is a comprehensive environmental law that regulates air

emissions from stationary and mobile sources. Under the act, EPA

regulates six “criteria” pollutants to protect public health: carbon

monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and

ground-level ozone. (The latter is not directly emitted by stationary

sources, but forms through the airborne reaction of heat and sunlight with

nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds.) In addition to the six

criteria pollutants, EPA regulates 188 hazardous air pollutants known as

air toxics. People exposed to toxic air pollution—which can be highly

localized near industrial sources—have an increased chance of getting

cancer and other serious health effects.

For the purposes of the Clean Air Act, stationary air pollution sources fall

into two categories: major sources and minor sources. Generally, major

sources are facilities that annually emit or have the potential to emit

Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Compliance

Monitoring Under the

Clean Air Act
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 19 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

annually (1) 10 or more tons of any one toxic air pollutant; (2) 25 tons of

any combination of toxic air pollutants, or (3) 100 or more tons of any of

the six criteria pollutants.1 An EPA official said that, as of January 2001,

there were approximately 20,000 major sources; EPA data show that there

were about 53,000 facilities classified as point sources in 1996.2

Each year, industrial operations in the United States emit nearly

100 million tons of pollutants into the air. Table 1 shows the five largest

industrial sources of criteria pollutants (excluding lead) and volatile

organic compounds in 1998 (the most recent data available). Large

stationary sources accounted for 19 percent of total criteria pollutant

emissions (excluding lead) in 1998. Small stationary sources and mobile

sources such as cars, trucks, and buses accounted for the remaining

81 percent.

Table 1: Largest Stationary Sources of Criteria Pollutants (excluding lead) and

Volatile Organic Compounds, 1998

Source

Level of emissions

(tons)

Proportion of total

from large stationary

sources

(percentage)

Coal-powered electric utilities 18,377,073 52

Industrial fuel combustion (coal, gas,

and other)

5,333,899 15

Chemical manufacturing 1,961,876 6

Ferrous metal processing 1,756,146 5

Mineral products 1,004,962 3

Other sources 6,739,181 19

Total 35,173,137 100

Source: EPA

Table 2 identifies the five largest major source emitters of toxic air

emissions in 1996 (the most recent data available). Major sources

accounted for about 24 percent of the emissions of toxic air pollutants in

1996.

 1

The definition of a major source also depends on the air quality in its geographic area. For

example, sources that emit as little as 10 tons a year of volatile organic compounds may be

classified as major sources in areas with poor air quality.

2

EPA officials said that the agency does not maintain complete information on the total

number of minor sources.
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 20 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Table 2: Five Largest Major Stationary Source Emitters of Toxic Air Emissions, 1996

Source

Level of emissions

(tons)

Proportion of total from

major sources

(percentage)

Utility boilers 408,747 36

Petroleum refineries 80,369 7

Pulp and paper production 59,810 5

Metal parts coating 50,921 5

Polymer and resin

manufacturing

35,546 3

Other major sources 492,407 44

Total 1,127,800 100

Source: EPA

Some sources, such as many electric utilities, must measure their

emissions of certain pollutants continuously. Most sources, however,

instead perform temporary emissions tests to verify performance when

they first install pollution control equipment. Some of these facilities may,

but do not necessarily, undergo additional ongoing monitoring (or

“periodic monitoring”) of the pollution control measures at the discretion

of their state air pollution control agency. As a result, regulators and

regulated entities sometimes lack certainty about whether these facilities

maintain continuous compliance with clean air regulations. According to

EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, in general,

regulated entities must maintain continuous compliance with applicable

requirements adopted and approved under the Clean Air Act.

According to EPA officials, when facilities are required to measure

emissions for regulatory compliance, they must use EPA developed and

approved test methods (for periodic or continuous monitoring) or

performance specifications (for continuous monitoring). As of August

2000, EPA had developed and approved 11 performance specifications

covering a variety of pollutants and continuous monitoring technologies.

In addition, EPA has developed and made available over 100 approved test

methods that address the criteria air pollutants and certain air toxics, such

as mercury.3

 An EPA official said that the agency also allows the submittal

 3

 According to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, methods for certain pollutants do not

apply to all sources. EPA said that, for example, the agency has an approved method for

monitoring mercury emitted by waste combustors, but not from electric utilities.
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 21 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

of alternative test procedures and will approve these alternatives if the

agency determines that they provide an adequate level of certainty.

Overall, we found that commercially available technologies could assist in

monitoring compliance with clean air regulations and in identifying

process and efficiency improvements that could lead to decreased use of

raw materials and reduced emissions. Many of these technologies,

including those that monitor criteria and toxic air pollutants, provide

continuous measurement of emissions or operating parameters that

correlate to emissions.

EPA officials consider Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS)

to be the most reliable method for determining emissions. In contrast to

periodic monitoring, these devices continuously measure pollutants

released by a source. Some CEMS extract a gas sample from a facility’s

exhaust and transport it to a separate analyzer while others allow effluent

gas to enter a measurement cell inserted into a stack or duct (see fig. 2).

Available

Technologies That

Can Improve

Monitoring of Air

Emissions

Continuous Emissions

Monitoring Systems
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 22 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Figure 2: Example of a Continuous Emissions Monitor

According to EPA officials, CEMS that can measure certain pollutants,

such as carbon monoxide, hydrochloric acid, nitrogen oxides, sulfur

dioxide, and total organics, are commercially available and can meet

requirements for regulatory purposes. Continuous opacity monitors are

also commercially available and EPA has promulgated a performance

Evaluation of pollutant

data for compliance

Pollutant

analysis

Pollutant

extraction
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 23 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

specification for their use. In addition, EPA has proposed, but not yet

promulgated, performance specifications for continuous measurement of

multiple metals, particulate matter, and mercury.4 CEMS that monitor

multiple metals and particulate matter are commercially available in the

United States, while mercury CEMS are available in Asia and Europe.

Predictive emissions monitoring systems (PEMS) utilize data on operating

parameters (such as temperature, pollutant flow rates, and oxygen levels)

along with modeling software to predict emission levels. If predicted

emissions remain below allowable levels, it is then assumed that actual

emissions will remain under those levels. PEMS do not directly measure

emissions as CEMS do, but they do provide a continuous indication of a

facility’s compliance status. According to EPA officials responsible for

developing performance specifications, the agency allows the use of

predictive systems to demonstrate compliance with certain nitrogen oxide

regulations and the agency currently is developing a performance

specification for generic PEMS use.

At certain industrial facilities, such as petroleum refineries, fumes leaking

from pipes and other equipment (often referred to as fugitive emissions)

can account for a significant portion of overall emissions. EPA requires

almost all refineries to implement leak detection and repair programs.

Facilities that implement such programs must check for leaks using a

portable hydrocarbon monitor and repair the leaks that exceed specified

thresholds. Because of recent interest that government, industry, and

environmental groups have shown in identifying lower cost leak detection

programs, an EPA contractor recently prepared a report identifying

alternative technologies that could drastically lower implementation

costs.5

 Some of the reviewed technologies involved remote detection

rather than use of portable monitors. The study found that annual costs of

leak detection programs using traditional portable monitors ranged from

 4

 According to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, the mercury specification applies to

municipal waste combustors, but not to coal-burning sources.

5

See Compendium of Sensing Technologies to Detect and Measure VOCs and HAPs in the

Air, Final Report, ICF, Inc., prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the

Equipment Leaks Project Team (June 1999). These technologies include Backscatter

Absorption Gas Imaging, the Image Multi-Spectral Sensing Infrared Camera, Open-Path

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy, Differential Optical Absorption Spectrometry,

Tunable Diode Laser Absorption Spectroscopy, and Light Detection and Ranging.

Predictive Emissions

Monitoring Systems

Leak Detection

Instruments
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 24 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

$90,000 (for two small refineries) to $344,000 (for a large refinery), while

the estimated annual costs associated with certain alternative technologies

ranged from $9,600 to $41,000.

Figure 3 provides an overview of these advanced monitoring technologies.

Figure 3: Overview of Advanced Air Monitoring Technologies
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 25 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

We found that regulated facilities typically utilize advanced air monitoring

technologies only when the regulations require them. While regulated

entities have some incentive to use these technologies, such as the ability

to optimize their processes, the fear that improved monitoring will reveal

violations of clean air regulations often cancels out the incentives. While

EPA generally requires facilities to maintain continuous compliance with

air regulations, air emissions standards issued by the agency rarely require

facilities to perform continuous monitoring due to time and resource

constraints in issuing new rules, as well as the perception that available

technologies are too expensive.

EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation reported that most advanced monitoring

technology use stems from regulatory requirements. According to EPA

officials, the most widespread requirements for using advanced

monitoring technologies—specifically CEMS—stem from EPA’s Acid Rain

program. This program, established by title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments, requires reductions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide

emissions from electric utilities. The program also established an

allowance trading system that permits electric utilities to trade sulfur

dioxide allowances. The utilities must own enough allowances at the end

of each year to cover the emissions from the affected units. The program

currently affects over 2,300 electric utility units nationwide. Between 1990

and 1999, facilities participating in the program reduced their sulfur

dioxide emissions by approximately 21 percent. EPA describes the use of

CEMS to measure nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions as critical

to instilling confidence in the program and ensuring that emissions

reductions are met.

A similar trading program, which the South Coast Air Quality Management

District operates in Los Angeles, requires major sources to use CEMS to

determine their nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide emissions. This program

has reduced the emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides from

participating facilities by about 17 and 6 percent, respectively, between

1994 and 1998. A recent program audit described CEMS as the most

accurate and reliable method for direct determination of emissions.

Lending further support to the importance of CEMS in the success of

emissions trading programs, a recent National Academy of Public

Administration study found that the lack of CEMS use in trading programs

involving volatile organic compounds led to difficulty ensuring the

certainty of emissions reductions.

Extent to Which

Improved Air

Monitoring

Technologies Are

Being Used

Most Use of Advanced

Technologies Stems from

Regulatory Requirements
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 26 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Certain federal requirements not associated with trading programs also

mandate CEMS use. For example, regulations that apply to some chemical

plants, incinerators, petroleum refineries, pulp mills, and sulfuric and

nitric acid plants require the use of CEMS. EPA has also required the use

of continuous opacity monitors in regulations for a variety of combustion,

materials handling, and smelting processes. EPA data show that at least

6,750 CEMS are used nationwide.6

 Approximately 80 percent of these are

used to monitor carbon monoxide, opacity, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur

dioxide. Less than 1 percent are used to monitor hydrocarbons and air

toxics.

States also require advanced monitoring in certain circumstances. For

example, a Pennsylvania official said that the state requires 445 CEMS in

addition to 327 required by federal regulations. In addition, states can

foster the use of advanced technologies by specifying the technologies that

facilities can use to demonstrate compliance with certain regulations. For

example, Texas allows regulated entities to use CEMS or PEMS to monitor

compliance with certain regulations for nitrogen oxide emissions. A Texas

official said that this has led to the use of more than 100 PEMS in the

Houston area.

In addition, EPA and state agencies can, and sometimes do, require the use

of advanced monitoring technologies as part of settlement agreements at

facilities found noncompliant with air regulations. For example, in

November 2000, EPA, the U.S. Justice Department, and the State of New

York reached an agreement with an electric utility to resolve Clean Air Act

violations. In addition to paying a $5.3 million civil penalty and reducing its

emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, the utility agreed to install

advanced particulate matter continuous emission monitors.

In addition to their important role in emissions trading programs,

advanced monitoring technologies can help facilities better understand

their processes and identify opportunities to improve productivity and

reduce waste. For example, a monitoring consultant described a

magnesium casting company that monitored the loss of a sulfur compound

(used to insulate molten magnesium) in its processes using CEMS.

 6

EPA officials said that this is the number of CEMS in use, not the number of facilities using

them. EPA’s compliance data administrator said that states voluntarily report CEMS use

data and that the actual number of CEMS in use exceeds that reported.

Use of Advanced

Technologies Can Lead to

Cost Savings, Emissions

Reductions, and Increased

Compliance
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 27 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Through a 4-hour test, the company identified opportunities for increased

process efficiency that saved it hundreds of thousands of dollars per year

because of increased efficiency and decreased loss of raw materials.

Use of advanced monitoring technologies can also help facilities avoid

regulatory requirements. For example, an equipment vendor said that

facilities sometimes voluntarily use improved technologies to demonstrate

that their emissions remain below the thresholds that would otherwise

categorize them as a major (rather than a minor) air pollution source. Such

a demonstration allows these facilities to avoid the regulatory

requirements associated with major source status.

In addition to the benefits that advanced monitoring technologies can

provide regulated entities, their use in compliance monitoring has been

associated with increased rates of compliance and emissions reductions.

For example, a study conducted by EPA’s Midwest regional office

involving data from more than 1,100 facilities using advanced monitoring

technologies, such as CEMS and continuous opacity monitors, found that

(1) these facilities achieved a reduction in the number of instances where

they reported excess emissions and (2) the use of these technologies

resulted in emissions reductions.

Voluntary use of advanced technologies by regulated entities is a doubleedged sword. On the one hand, it may reap cost savings and other benefits.

On the other hand, the technologies have the potential to reveal instances

of noncompliance and violations that could lead to punitive action by EPA

or interest groups. In particular, EPA officials told us that improved

monitoring technologies could identify violations of emissions limits as

well as the presence of pollutants that the regulated entity is not allowed

to emit.

At a recent conference on air pollution monitoring technologies, a

regulated entity and a monitoring consultant said that the “Credible

Evidence” rule discourages the voluntary use of monitoring technologies.

The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to bring an administrative, civil, or

criminal enforcement action “on the basis of any information available to

the [EPA] Administrator.” According to an EPA enforcement official, in

promulgating the Credible Evidence rule in 1998, EPA sought to clarify the

range of information that regulators and regulated entities could use in

determining compliance with emissions limits. Importantly, this includes

the use of information obtained through advanced monitoring

technologies such as CEMS and PEMS.

Increased Chance of

Identifying Violations

Discourages Voluntary Use

of Advanced Technologies
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 28 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

According to an EPA enforcement official, the agency has attempted to

mitigate these concerns about the voluntary use of monitoring

technologies and has offered reduced penalties for facilities that

self-disclose violations. In addition, EPA states in the rule’s preamble that

the agency focuses its judicial enforcement resources on large, significant

cases rather than relatively minor matters. Specifically, it said that the

agency focuses enforcement resources on violations that (1) may threaten

or harm public health or the environment, (2) are of significant duration or

magnitude, (3) represent a pattern of noncompliance, (4) involve a refusal

to provide requested compliance information, (5) involve criminal

conduct, or (6) allow a source to reap an economic windfall. The preamble

also said that EPA does not intend to foster frivolous lawsuits, and that it

does not expect that such lawsuits would result from the rule’s adoption.

Despite this, many of those we interviewed conveyed a widespread belief

that the rule continues to place emitters at risk for enforcement action.

For example, a monitoring consultant said that the rule stands as a major

barrier to more widespread voluntary use of advanced technologies, even

though certain technologies can help identify process improvements that

achieve cost and environmental benefits. He said that lawyers representing

regulated entities are concerned that data gathered through voluntary

monitoring could be used to show noncompliance. Similarly, a regulated

entity said that the Credible Evidence rule stands as the single biggest

barrier to performing voluntary monitoring with advanced technologies.

EPA Office of Air and Radiation officials agreed that the potential for a

facility to learn that it violates permit limits remains a major disincentive

to continuous monitoring. They also said that regulated entities have little

incentive to upgrade their monitoring technology and that improved

monitoring will not occur without regulatory requirements.

For EPA to require the use of monitoring technologies, it must first

develop approved test methods (for periodic or continuous monitoring)

and performance specifications (for continuous monitoring). According to

the Office of Air and Radiation, the development of performance

specifications requires data from field tests, which they do not have the

resources to conduct. Between 1995 and 2001, EPA’s annual budget to

develop, evaluate, and support emission testing and monitoring tools

dropped from about $3,947,000 to $1,440,000; a 64 percent reduction.7

 As a

 7

Budget data were adjusted to account for inflation. All figures are in 2000 dollars.

Cost Concerns Also Hinder

Use of Advanced

Monitoring Technologies
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 29 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

result, EPA must rely on outside parties to provide the necessary data.

However, because EPA does not always participate directly in the testing,

the results may not be suitable for regulatory purposes. The official said

that EPA is still “feeling its way” through its reliance on data from external

parties. An EPA official said that information gathered through the

agency’s ETV program can sometimes assist in developing performance

specifications and test methods.

In accordance with Executive Order 12866 and the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995, EPA analyzes the costs, benefits, and alternatives to,

certain proposed regulations. However, according to an EPA air program

official, the agency does not have formal cost-benefit criteria for use in

selecting the compliance monitoring requirements that will accompany

new rules. This official and another EPA air official who commented on a

draft of this report said that the agency evaluates the costs of different

compliance monitoring options, and that agency staff use their judgment

to determine whether certain options impose excessive costs on affected

sources.

The first official also said that when EPA promulgates many of its rules,

such as Maximum Achievable Control Technology regulations for certain

emitters of air toxics, it determines the level of pollution control that

facilities can achieve using available technologies.8

 It then generally

requires the affected facilities to control their emissions at certain levels

and monitor their compliance using the test method EPA used when it

originally tested facilities; in most cases, stack tests. While EPA’s

preference is for facilities to continuously monitor their compliance, EPA

officials said that, given the time and resource constraints associated with

the issuance of air quality regulations, the agency has decided not to spend

resources to evaluate alternative compliance monitoring options. EPA’s

Office of Air and Radiation said that the agency encounters less resistance

from industry when promulgating rules if it requires compliance

monitoring via the test method that the agency used to set the standard.

EPA air program officials also expressed concern over the reaction of the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to requirements to use advanced

technologies. They maintained that OMB generally views monitoring

 8

 The Clean Air Act specifies the methodology for determining the level of pollution control

that affected facilities must achieve to comply with Maximum Achievable Control

Technology standards.
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 30 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

requirements as a cost rather than a benefit, and that taking such

requirements out of rules can reduce drastically the overall costs to

industry. An EPA enforcement official said that, in promulgating rules, the

agency often has to compromise with OMB, and drops the monitoring

requirements as a result; despite the fact that emissions reductions have

been achieved at facilities required to use advanced monitoring

technologies. According to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, the agency

has yet to conduct a cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the advantages of

using CEMS rather than higher levels of control devices to achieve

marginal emissions reductions.

A monitoring consultant disagreed with the perception that CEMS cost too

much for facilities to use, stating that EPA’s requirements for daily

equipment calibration adds to the cost of CEMS. An EPA air program

official said that the agency’s data quality and daily calibration

requirements provide certainty of facility emissions, which he views as

critical to the integrity of emissions trading programs. The monitoring

consultant estimated that the average capital cost of a CEMS for facilities

participating in the Acid Rain program—including daily calibration—

ranged between $150,000 and $200,000, with annual operating costs of

$50,000. Similarly, an industry group estimated in 1998 that the total

capital investment for a nitrogen oxide CEMS similar to those used in a

California emissions trading program would range between $71,500 and

$127,500, and that the total annual cost of owning and operating the

system would be approximately $24,000 to $38,000.

The consultant said that regulated facilities not participating in trading

programs could lower the costs of continuous monitoring if they had less

rigorous calibration requirements. He said, for example, that facilities in

Germany perform tests to determine how often the equipment needs

calibration, and then work with the regulatory agency to arrive at an

agreed-upon calibration schedule. In some cases, facilities only need to

calibrate their equipment monthly. The consultant suggested that

disseminating information on the true costs of CEMS would demonstrate

that they are not as expensive as believed, thereby making it easier for

EPA to require their use. For example, he stated that simple systems used

in Canada and Norway cost between $30,000 and $50,000.

Thus, there may well be situations where the costs of CEMS are lower

than perceived, and in fact are lower than their potential benefits. There

may also be ways in which EPA itself could lower CEMS’ costs by, for

example, adjusting its requirements for daily equipment calibration at
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 31 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

facilities that do not participate in trading programs. We believe such

situations can best be identified through systematic cost-benefit analysis.

While regulated facilities must adhere to EPA’s approved test methods and

performance specifications, EPA will conditionally approve alternative

methods that still meet the agency’s data requirements, and sometimes

receives and approves requests to use advanced monitoring technologies.

For example, in 2000, the agency approved a request to use a PEMS for

compliance monitoring at an industrial boiler.

Between June 1996 and November 2000, EPA received 115 requests to use

alternative methods. Of these, 54 were approved, 3 were denied, and 2

were later withdrawn by the submitter. Approximately 83 percent of the

approvals were issued in less than six months. An EPA official said that

the remaining submittals were either (1) never listed in the agency’s

database as an approval or disapproval, (2) lacked additional information

requested of the submitter, or (3) were determined not to be an alternative

test method or monitoring request under federal regulations.

According to the president of a monitoring company, conditional approval

does not necessarily lead to the widespread acceptance of promising

technologies. He discussed the time, cost, and limited benefit associated

with conditional approval of alternative methods. He cited the example of

a technology that monitors volatile organic compounds and hazardous air

pollutants using gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy. The device,

which costs between $60,000 and $80,000 provides results about every ten

minutes. He said the manufacturer has spent millions of dollars developing

the technology and between $300,000 and $400,000 trying to get EPA

approval. He said that he could not get EPA to identify a testing protocol

to demonstrate the technology’s equivalency to the approved method, so

his company designed its own. EPA accepted the protocol, but was still

hesitant to approve the technology even after it met the testing

requirements. After the manufacturer contacted one of its Members of

Congress, who in turn contacted the EPA Administrator, EPA finally

offered conditional approval. He described this outcome as “totally

unacceptable” because it required the manufacturer to request approval

from the relevant state agency or EPA each time a facility wants to use the

technology. He said that state agencies, which implement clean air

Conditional Approval of

Alternative Methods Can

Foster Use of Advanced

Technologies
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 32 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

programs, generally prefer for regulated entities to use methods that have

more widespread acceptance by EPA.9

The presence or absence of regulatory requirements not only influences

the use of existing technologies, but also the research and development of

new technologies. An equipment manufacturer and regulators said that

without regulatory requirements, manufacturers have little incentive to

bring new technologies to market. As a result, more of the research and

development burden falls to government agencies, which generally can

devote limited resources to this purpose.

In 1995, EPA’s Science Advisory Board characterized the use of CEMS for

measuring air toxics as a problem of what must come first: the regulatory

mandate for CEMS that drives the market or commercially available CEMS

that allow regulators to mandate their use. The Board said that EPA must

have the confidence that a technology can fulfill the agency’s needs before

it can write a rule requiring its use. It also noted that instrument

developers and manufacturers were unlikely to conduct the expensive

research and development required to make technologies available unless

EPA mandated their use. The Board suggested that EPA try to break the

deadlock and recommended that EPA identify all of the barriers to the

availability of commercial, cost-effective CEMS and address them in a

systematic manner. Officials in EPA’s research and development office

said that the development and implementation of advanced emissions

monitoring technologies has no clear starting point. EPA’s Acid Rain

program suggested that a cost-benefit analysis would be a logical first step.

In a similar vein, equipment manufacturers and regulators told us that

regulatory requirements define the market for advanced monitoring

technologies, such as CEMS. An industry consultant said that equipment

developers seldom pursue new technologies unless they see the potential

for a regulation that would require monitoring. He noted that, a developer

who saw an opportunity would try to determine the size of the market and

the number of monitoring units that will be needed. It will then evaluate

the competition and try to estimate its potential share of the market. After

 9

 EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation said that the device does not satisfy the data collection

requirements necessary to obtain approval as an alternative to an EPA test method.

However, EPA also said that the device collects data often enough to meet CEMS

performance specifications, for which no EPA approval would be necessary.

Factors That

Influence

Development of New

Air Monitoring

Technologies

Lack of Regulatory

Requirements Discourages

Development of New

Technologies
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 33 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

evaluating this information, it will seek to determine the appropriate level

of investment the opportunity justifies. As an example, he said that several

companies which have recently developed particulate matter monitoring

technologies face significant financial risk if EPA delays or decides not to

impose monitoring requirements as part of its new particulate matter

rules.

EPA officials said that technologies exist to monitor most of the pollutants

that are not monitored, and that additional monitoring of these pollutants

does not require “leaps of science.” Similarly, a representative of an

equipment industry trade association stated that “if regulations are

imposed, the technology will follow.” He also said that the trade

association had once asked its members for case study examples of their

new technologies and most had responded that they did not pursue new

technology without a potential or existing market. An equipment vendor

said that most improvements involve incremental changes that lower costs

and enhance performance.

The lack of incentives for private research and development leaves some

of the burden on government. According to agency officials, EPA devotes

a limited amount of funding to the development of advanced monitoring

technologies, but this focuses on supporting agency research objectives,

such as improving the scientific understanding of pollutants, rather than

bringing promising technologies to market. For example, we interviewed

an official in EPA’s Office of Research and Development who is pursuing a

technology that measures air toxics, such as dioxin. The official described

this technology as providing versatile measurement –-in terms of the range

of pollutants detected and the levels at which it detects them–-and as a

significant advance in monitoring technology, but it would take an

additional $5 million to make this technology commercially available.

Given EPA’s resource constraints, the funds would have to come from the

private sector. In fiscal year 2001, EPA devoted $247,900 to the research

and development of point source air monitoring technologies, such as

CEMS. The official stated, however, that the lack of regulatory

requirements and the high cost of bringing technologies to market make

the research and development of this and other technologies a very risky

venture for equipment manufacturers.

According to EPA’s Office of Research and Development, the agency’s

ETV program can assist in overcoming the barriers to the introduction of

new monitoring technologies developed by the private sector. As of June

2000, ETV had completed performance testing or verification of over 30 air

EPA and Other Federal

Agencies Perform Limited

Research and

Development
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 34 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

monitoring technologies, including mercury and multiple-metals CEMS,

particulate matter monitors, and portable nitrogen oxide analyzers.

Other federal agencies, including the Department of Energy (DOE) and

Department of Defense (DOD), also research and develop monitoring

technologies. DOE targets its efforts on the continuous monitoring of

pollutants, including mercury, arsenic, and lead, at contaminated DOE

sites. Through its Strategic Environmental Research and Development

Program, DOD develops improved monitoring tools for environmental

compliance. For example, DOD has developed a laser technology that

allows near-real-time in-stack analysis of a range of metal and gas

pollutants. An EPA official said, however, that the research and

development performed by external parties, such as DOD, does not always

provide results that are acceptable for regulatory purposes.

The compliance monitoring that stationary air pollution sources perform

varies considerably. As a result, regulators and regulated entities

sometimes lack certainty about whether air pollution sources maintain

continuous compliance with clean air regulations.

Advanced monitoring technologies, particularly CEMS, can provide

facilities with information that enables them to improve the efficiency of

their processes, thereby reducing emissions and providing cost savings.

EPA officials consider CEMS to provide the greatest certainty of a

facility’s emissions. In addition, EPA data show that use of advanced

technologies correlates with emissions reductions at regulated entities.

However, there are powerful disincentives to the voluntary use of

technologies. Among the greatest disincentives is EPA’s Credible Evidence

rule, which enables the use of data derived from use of advanced

technologies as the basis for enforcement actions. EPA has indicated that

it does not plan to use this rule in cases of minor violations identified

through the use of these technologies. Nonetheless, EPA air program

officials and others that we interviewed conveyed a widespread belief that

the rule continues to place emitters at risk for enforcement action. Largely

as a result of these concerns, emitters generally use advanced monitoring

technologies in circumstances in which they are required to do so by

regulations, such as the requirements for CEMS use at facilities

participating in the Acid Rain program.

An additional disincentive for the wider use of CEMS is the perception

that CEMS’ costs are unacceptably high. However, EPA does not regularly

Conclusions
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 35 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

evaluate the costs and benefits of alternative compliance monitoring

options. Such an evaluation would involve analyzing data on (1) the costs

of purchasing and operating monitoring equipment, taking into

consideration different equipment calibration and performance

requirements, and (2) the benefits of using these technologies, such as

their value in facilitating emissions trading programs, as well as the ability

to achieve increased compliance and emissions reductions.

We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, direct the agency’s Office of

Air and Radiation, to develop a strategy that would address the barriers

that impede wider use of advanced monitoring technologies. As a part of

this strategy, EPA should:

• Identify ways to alleviate the widespread view among emitters that it will

use the Credible Evidence rule in enforcement cases where voluntary use

of such technologies may reveal minor violations.

• Undertake an analysis of the costs and benefits associated with different

compliance monitoring options in a manner that would help to identify

additional opportunities for the expanded use of advanced monitoring

technologies.

EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation provided comments on the material

covered in this chapter. The Office said that, overall, we accurately

covered the issues and reached fair conclusions. The comments provided

were generally editorial or intended to clarify the material presented, and

we incorporated them as appropriate. For example, we added text to

clarify that EPA’s approved methods and performance specifications for

monitoring individual pollutants do not apply to all types of regulated

entities or industrial air pollution sources.

EPA’s Office of Research and Development provided comments from

several individuals responsible for the development and validation of

monitoring technologies. These comments covered a wide range of issues,

but generally suggested that we (1) clarify our definition of “advanced”

monitoring technologies, (2) more comprehensively discuss several issues

relating to the development of new monitoring technologies, and

(3) enhance our discussion of the role that the agency’s ETV program can

play in addressing barriers to the introduction of new monitoring

technologies.

Recommendations

Agency Comments
Chapter 2: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Stationary Air Sources

Page 36 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Regarding (1), we clarified that our discussion of advanced monitoring

technologies focuses on those that can improve regulated entities’ ability

to monitor their compliance with air regulations. Regarding (2), the Office

of Research and Development suggested that we more comprehensively

discuss the available monitoring technologies, the improvements that are

necessary, and the benefits of improved monitoring. We believe that it was

limited in the level of detail the report should devote to these matters by

the enormous range of technologies that address air monitoring and the

need to devote sufficient attention to the legal and regulatory barriers

inhibiting wider use and development of such technologies, which was the

primary focus of the report. Regarding (3), we expanded our discussion of

ETV as it relates to the development of performance specifications and

test methods, as well as to bridging the gap between commercial

availability of technologies and their use for regulatory purposes. We also

made suggested editorial changes where appropriate.

EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance did not provide

comments on the material covered in this chapter.
Chapter 3: Technologies for Measuring

Wastewater Discharges

Page 37 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

For decades, wastewater treatment plants and industrial facilities have

been required to monitor the concentrations of pollutants in their

wastewater. Consequently, technologies have been developed to measure

hundreds of pollutants of interest. Many of these technologies, however,

are over 15 years old. A number of newer technologies can monitor

pollutants in a manner that is more cost-effective and/or more accurate

than those that are currently in use. However, because EPA has not

approved these technologies for monitoring compliance with wastewater

discharge permits, they are not widely used for this purpose.

EPA is quick to approve requests to use alternative methods intended for

use by a single entity, and has significantly expedited its response time in

reviewing minor modifications to existing methods. However, a lengthy

and cumbersome approval process has served as a major disincentive to

equipment manufacturers seeking to develop innovative monitoring

technologies with nationwide application. EPA has tried to address the

problem through a streamlined “performance-based” approval process, but

the agency has not implemented this process because it has not resolved

all the issues impeding its use.

As noted in chapter 1, a Clean Water Act program requires regulated

facilities to monitor their wastewater discharges to ensure their

compliance with pollutant discharge limits. Currently, there are about

96,000 facilities that are regulated under the act’s pollutant discharge

program. Of these, about 6,600 discharge in quantities sufficient enough to

be deemed “major” dischargers. These facilities include (1) sewage

treatment facilities with a design discharge daily flow greater than one

million gallons of effluent—a mix of domestic and industrial wastewater,

(2) certain classes of industrial facilities, and (3) industrial facilities that

discharge a certain amount or concentration of pollutants. In general,

major dischargers may be required to report the quantity and content of

their discharge to EPA or a state regulatory agency on a monthly basis,

although they may monitor their effluent on a daily or more frequent basis.

Other dischargers may monitor and report on a less frequent basis. Table 3

identifies the industrial facilities that discharge the greatest quantity of

conventional and toxic pollutants.1

 1

 Conventional pollutants include those typically found in municipal sewage, such as fecal

coliform bacteria, oil and grease, and pH. Toxic pollutants include metals and manmade

organic compounds.

Chapter 3: Technologies for Measuring

Wastewater Discharges

Monitoring

Wastewater

Discharges Under the

Clean Water Act
Chapter 3: Technologies for Measuring

Wastewater Discharges

Page 38 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Table 3: Industrial Sources of Conventional and Toxic Pollutants

Source Category

Quantity of Discharges

(in tons)

Proportion of Total

(percentage)

Coal Mining 1,069,764,866 85

Primary Metal Industries 128,853,898 10

Electric, Gas, and Sanitary

Services

 39,448,827 3

Other* 21,190,169 2

Total 1,259,257,760 100

Note: Other includes more than 70 individual source categories.

Source: EPA

While the monitored pollutants and the frequency of the monitoring may

vary among regulated facilities, regulated entities must use EPA-approved

test methods. Test methods describe the analytical procedures for

measuring the presence and concentration of pollutants. In promulgating

guidelines for its test methods, EPA has issued regulations that reference

specific test methods and, in some cases, the actual text of a test method.

Since the 1970s, EPA and consensus standards organizations, such as the

American Society for Testing and Materials, have developed most of the

currently approved 710 test methods for the monitoring of over 400

pollutants.2

 (Examples of test method categories are summarized in

table 4.) In addition, EPA allows the regulated community, instrument

manufacturers, and other entities to apply for agency permission to use an

alternative test method in the place of an EPA-approved method.

According to EPA, these alternative test methods are either modifications

to approved test methods or new test methods. Applicants seek approval

for an alternative test procedure when the alternative procedure improves

some aspect of method performance, such as reducing analytical costs,

improving laboratory productivity, or reducing the amount of hazardous

materials used in the laboratory.

 2

 Consensus standards organizations include groups such as the American Society for

Testing and Materials and the publishers of Standard Methods for the Examination of

Water and Wastewater. These organizations develop voluntary consensus standards for

monitoring through the participation of all interested stakeholders, including producers,

users, consumers, and representatives of government and academia.
Chapter 3: Technologies for Measuring

Wastewater Discharges

Page 39 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Table 4: Examples of EPA Test Method Categories

Test Method Category Pollutant Measured Technology/Instrument Used

Bacteria (fecal coliform) Human observation of bacteria

present

Biological methods

Aquatic toxicity Human observation of fish

mortality rates

Oil and grease Hexane extraction and

gravimetry

Nitrate Colorimetric

Inorganic methods

Metals Graphite furnace atomic

absorption

PCBs Gas chromatograph/mass

spectrometer

Non-pesticide organic

methods

Dioxin Gas chromatograph/mass

spectrometer

Pesticide methods Pesticides (e.g., DDT) Gas chromatograph/mass

spectrometer

Source: Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 136

According to EPA, improvements in instrumentation, the quality of test

methods, and the number of laboratories capable of performing analyses

for environmental monitoring have grown substantially since the 1970s.

However, according to officials with EPA and other organizations that we

interviewed, while many methods exist to measure pollutants in

wastewater, approximately one-third of EPA-approved methods are over

15 years old.

In a 1988 report to the Congress on the availability of monitoring

technologies and methods, EPA cited several examples of new

technologies that could exceed the performance of existing methods in

terms of better sensitivity, lower cost, and more reliable identification of

regulated pollutants.3

 For monitoring inorganic pollutants, EPA cited two

technologies—inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry (ICP/MS)

and ion chromatography—that could (1) decrease the cost of analyses,

(2) increase laboratory productivity and the quality of the analytical data,

and (3) lower the effective detection limits in a wide variety of samples.

Other experts we interviewed, including representatives of consensus

 3 Availability, Adequacy, and Comparability of Testing Procedures for the Analysis of

Pollutants Established Under Section 304(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,

Report to Congress, Office of Research and Development, EPA (EPA/600/9-87/030. Sept.

1988).

Available

Technologies That

Can Improve

Wastewater

Monitoring
Chapter 3: Technologies for Measuring

Wastewater Discharges

Page 40 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

standards boards, state regulatory agencies, regulated entities, and

commercial laboratories, also cited these two technologies as among the

most significant improved technologies available.

Inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry (ICP/MS) is used to

measure inorganic elements (e.g., metals) and provides significant

improvements over currently approved technologies in terms of lower

detection levels and reduced cost per sample. The ICP/MS first became

commercially available in the early 1980s and has been continuously

improved, according to one manufacturer we interviewed. A 1988 EPA

report recognized the potential improvement offered by ICP/MS, stating

that “in the next decade, the application of inductively coupled

plasma/mass spectrometry to environmental analyses could result in the

single greatest impact on the analysis of metals.” An ICP/MS instrument

currently costs between $150,000 and $200,000, according to one

manufacturer we interviewed.

An ICP/MS can detect the concentrations of pollutants down to the parts

per trillion range, while a comparable technology approved by EPA (i.e., a

graphite furnace) can only detect down to parts per billion. Measuring to

such levels is important when regulated entities are discharging to waters

that are impaired by certain pollutants. For example, in cases where

certain waters are impaired by mercury or lead, the regulated entities

discharging to these waters must reduce their discharges of these

pollutants to very low levels (i.e., lower than what is normally required). In

its 1988 report, EPA specifically recommended that efforts to develop

ICP/MS test methods consider monitoring toxic metals at low

concentration levels.

An additional key benefit of the ICP/MS is that it can rapidly analyze

multiple elements in a single sample, as opposed to many current

EPA-approved test methods, which use technologies that analyze only one

element at a time. Accordingly, the ICP/MS can reduce costs to users such

as commercial laboratories or large sewage treatment plants that test

numerous samples. Representatives of one wastewater treatment plant

told us that using the ICP/MS could reduce their analysis costs by about

20 percent below the cost of current EPA-approved methods.

Ion chromatography is used to measure inorganic substances, such as

nitrates and phosphates. Like the ICP/MS, it can reduce costs incurred by

facilities that must process and analyze numerous samples. Furthermore,

Inductively Coupled

Plasma/Mass Spectrometry

Ion Chromatography
Chapter 3: Technologies for Measuring

Wastewater Discharges

Page 41 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

EPA recognized ion chromatography’s potential in its 1988 Report to

Congress, calling it an important technology that would become more

routinely used for monitoring pollutants in the future. This technology was

first commercially available in the mid-1970s and currently costs between

$14,000 and $60,000, according to one manufacturer we interviewed.

The major benefit of ion chromatography is that it can rapidly analyze

multiple pollutants in a single sample, as opposed to current

EPA-approved methods for wastewater monitoring that analyze one

pollutant at a time. As a result, ion chromatography can reduce costs to

users, such as commercial laboratories or large sewage treatment plants

that test numerous samples. In addition, ion chromatography can detect

levels of pollutants in the parts-per-billion range, which is considerably

more sensitive than current EPA-approved test methods for wastewater.

Representatives of the commercial laboratories we interviewed said that

they routinely use ICP/MS and ion chromatography to monitor pollutants

regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (these technologies are

approved for use in this program). However, according to EPA officials,

the majority of regulated entities do not use these technologies for

compliance monitoring under the Clean Water Act because EPA has yet to

formally approve them for that purpose. Since regulated entities may only

use an approved monitoring method, a facility could be found in

noncompliance if it uses an unapproved technology or method.

EPA proposed approving the use of ICP/MS and ion chromatography for

wastewater compliance monitoring in the mid-1990s. However, agency

officials noted that funding constraints prevented them from performing

additional validation studies, which were needed to demonstrate the

reliability of the ICP/MS method for use in wastewater monitoring

(additional studies were not needed for the ion chromatography method,

but EPA is waiting to promulgate these methods as a single rule). They

pointed in particular to the over 50 percent decline in funding devoted to

method development and validation over the past 4 fiscal years (see fig. 4).

According to these officials, this area lost much of its funding when

resources were shifted to other priority activities, such as the development

of effluent limitations and guidelines with court-ordered deadlines.

Because of these delays, EPA’s Office of Water has authorized regional

offices, upon request, to give approval to any facility that requests to use

either the ion chromatograph or ICP/MS method. To date, four regional

offices have requested this authority.

Extent to Which

Improved Wastewater

Monitoring

Technologies Are

Being Used
Chapter 3: Technologies for Measuring

Wastewater Discharges

Page 42 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Figure 4: EPA’s Office of Water Method Development Budget for Wastewater

Monitoring

Note: In constant dollars, base year 2000.

Source: EPA

EPA is quick to approve methods intended for use by a single entity, and

has significantly expedited its response time in reviewing minor

modifications to existing methods. EPA’s recent changes to streamline its

approval process were viewed very favorably by two instrument

manufacturers who had recently been through the process. However,

EPA’s review process for major modifications or new methods developed

by outside organizations for nationwide use remains time-consuming and

discourages some manufacturers from pursuing innovations for

wastewater monitoring. EPA has acknowledged the problem and proposed

a “performance-based” approval process, but has not implemented this

process due to unresolved issues within the agency.

Until the mid-1990s, EPA usually initiated work on all new test methods

used in monitoring wastewater compliance. EPA maintained a program for

organizations outside the agency to apply for the approval of major or

minor modifications to existing EPA methods. However, EPA officials

associated with the program, and organizations that went through its

Factors That

Influence

Development of

Improved Wastewater

Monitoring

Technologies

EPA’s Approval Process for

New or Modified Test

Methods
Chapter 3: Technologies for Measuring

Wastewater Discharges

Page 43 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

process, described it as lengthy and hard to use. Furthermore, EPA

recognized in 1996 that the requirement to use prescriptive test methods

and technologies had unintentionally imposed a significant regulatory

burden and created a barrier to the use of innovative environmental

monitoring technology.

To encourage the development of new and innovative technologies by

outside organizations, and to expedite approval of major or minor

modifications to existing EPA methods, EPA revamped its process for

approving methods developed by outside organizations for wastewater

compliance monitoring. EPA’s process requires varying levels of

validation, review, and approval of proposed methods, depending on the

method’s intended use (use by only the applicant as opposed to use by any

monitoring entity).4 The organization submitting a proposed method is

responsible for conducting the necessary validation studies. EPA reviews

the results of these studies to determine the applicability and performance

of a proposed method before making an approval decision. In general, the

process requires organizations to perform more testing if they are

proposing more significant changes and/or a method for nationwide use,

rather than simply for use by an individual facility. Table 5 highlights the

varying levels of validation and approval required for different types of

proposed methods.

 4

 The most recent guidelines are found in Protocol for EPA Approval of Alternate Test

Procedures for Organic and Inorganic Analytes in Wastewater and Drinking Water

(March 1998) and Protocol for EPA Approval of New Methods for Organic and Inorganic

Analytes in Wastewater and Drinking Water (March 1999).
Chapter 3: Technologies for Measuring

Wastewater Discharges

Page 44 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Table 5: Validation and Approval of Proposed Methods

Type of Proposed

Method Intended Users

Level of Validation

Required Type of Approval

Minor

Modifications

(for very minor

modifications to EPA

approved methods)

Applicant only or

anyone

Little or no formal

validation

Approval by EPA

Headquarters

through approval

letter

Limited Use

(for both major

modifications to EPA

approved methods

and for new

methods)

Applicant only 1 lab validation study Approval by EPA

Regional Office

through approval

letter (may consult

with EPA

Headquarters)

Nationwide Use

(for both major

modifications to EPA

approved methods

and for new

methods)

Anyone 3 to 9 lab validation

study

Approval by EPA

Headquarters

through formal

rulemaking

Source: GAO analysis of EPA’s process

Minor Modifications. While proposals for minor modifications are not

likely to result in major improvements for users, commercial laboratories

and equipment manufacturers depend on EPA approval. According to one

EPA official, older EPA approved methods are very specific. They may

prescribe, for example, the size of glassware (e.g., a 100-milliliter beaker)

that must be used when performing the test method. This official noted

that in some instances, state compliance officials have questioned minor

deviations that commercial laboratories have made from these methods.

As a result, laboratories have had to submit applications to EPA seeking

approval for very minor modifications. In addition, as one equipment

manufacturer noted, potential buyers are reluctant to use any monitoring

methods for compliance purposes that have not been certified by EPA out

of fear that they may be found in noncompliance with their wastewater

monitoring requirements.

Limited Use. Unlike applications for minor modifications, proposals for

limited use applications—those for use by a single entity—are for

significant changes to existing EPA-approved test methods or entirely new

methods. According to EPA, the “limited use” distinction is used primarily

by regulated facilities, commercial laboratories, or other entities that

routinely monitor samples from the same site or sites. However, EPA only

allows the facility or laboratory that applies for a limited-use approval to
Chapter 3: Technologies for Measuring

Wastewater Discharges

Page 45 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

use the test method. Consequently, EPA does not require these applicants

to perform extensive validation studies involving multiple laboratories.

Nationwide Use. In contrast to applications proposing minor

modifications or changes for which use is limited to a single facility,

proposals for new methods or major modifications intended for

nationwide use have a greater potential to affect the entire regulated

community because these methods, if approved, will be available for

nationwide use. Consequently, EPA requires nationwide-use applications

to undergo a validation study in which the performance of the proposed

method is verified by three to nine independent laboratories. If necessary,

EPA may ask applicants to revise their proposed methods before deciding

that a method is acceptable.

In addition to the technical review—the process by which EPA examines

an application and determines the applicability and performance of a

proposed method—EPA requires all new methods or major modifications

intended for nationwide use to go through the rulemaking process. During

the rulemaking process, a method is published as a proposed rule in the

Federal Register, public comments are received and addressed, and the

method is published as a final rule.

Our analysis of EPA data for applications for minor modifications—

including 40 applications submitted between fiscal years 1993 and 2000—

shows that EPA took an average of about 1.4 years to review and issue a

decision. However, the timeliness of EPA’s responses has improved

significantly in recent years. For example, agency data show that it took an

average of 4.5 months to reach a decision on applications received during

fiscal year 1999, the last year for which complete data are available. Two

equipment manufacturers that recently went through EPA’s approval

process substantiated the process’ expedited response time. They noted

that, as a result of the changes made to the approval process by the

agency, EPA’s performance improved substantially during the past few

years.

EPA data show that the agency’s quickest response time came when

reviewing and issuing an approval decision for limited-use applications.

Our analysis of EPA data for 26 limited-use applications submitted

between fiscal years 1993 and 2000 shows that EPA took an average of

about 4 months to review the applications (including reviewing the results

of the required single-lab validation study) and to issue a decision.

EPA Has Streamlined Its

Process for Approving

Minor Modifications
Chapter 3: Technologies for Measuring

Wastewater Discharges

Page 46 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

While EPA has received considerable praise for its improved performance

in processing proposals for minor modifications, this improvement may be

short-lived, according to both the agency officials and potential applicants

we interviewed. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, EPA supplemented its own

staff resources with an allocation of $75,000 per year for a contractor to

perform reviews and assist in administrative duties. However, in fiscal

year 2001, no such funds have been provided because all available

contract dollars are being used to fund programs that directly support

court-ordered deadlines and schedules. Instead, the agency is performing

all work with internal resources equivalent to one full-time staff person.

EPA officials acknowledge that this funding cut will slow the approval

process down, and two equipment manufacturers we interviewed

expressed concern that the program may cease to function altogether.

While EPA has improved its process for approving minor modifications, its

approval process for the most promising methods—those involving major

modifications or new monitoring methods with nationwide application—

continues to be time-consuming. Our analysis of EPA data on nationwide

use applications shows that between fiscal years 1993 and 2000, EPA

approved two nationwide use methods out of the total 101 applications it

received.5

 It took about three years for one of the approved methods to go

through both the EPA technical review process and the formal rulemaking

process, while the other method took about 3.6 years.6

 In a third case that

is currently going through the rulemaking process, the sponsor projects

that it will take a total of 5 years before the method would be approved

and published as a final rule. A wide variety of the organizations that we

interviewed, including state regulatory authorities, regulated entities, and

equipment manufacturers, expressed concern over EPA’s lengthy approval

and rulemaking process.

The National Water Quality Monitoring Council, a federal advisory

committee, has voiced similar concerns about EPA’s approval process. In

a 1999 position paper on environmental monitoring, the Council stated

 5

 Of the other 99 applications received for nationwide use, 8 were disapproved, 3 were

cancelled by the applicant, 16 were closed by EPA, 2 were not sent to the proper state or

EPA Regional authority, 42 are awaiting additional data from the applicant, 26 are still

under review by EPA, and 2 are awaiting rulemaking.

6

 The length of time to obtain EPA approval cannot be solely attributed to EPA’s technical

review or the rulemaking process. For example, 42 applications are awaiting action by the

applicant.

Nationwide-Use Methods

Are Hindered by Lengthy

EPA Approval Process
Chapter 3: Technologies for Measuring

Wastewater Discharges

Page 47 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

that, “Due to current bureaucratic and administrative constraints, it is time

consuming, resource intensive, and cumbersome to modify existing

methods or add new improved methods to the Federal Register. The result

is that more sensitive, less expensive, faster, or more modern methods—

developed either by federal agencies or consensus organizations—have

not been easily implemented or encouraged in compliance or ambient

monitoring.”

7

According to the EPA officials that we interviewed, the requirements of

the rulemaking process prolong the agency’s timeframes for approving

nationwide-use methods. EPA officials estimated that the rulemaking

process—which includes proposing a rule in the Federal Register,

receiving and responding to comments on the proposed method, sending

the final rule through EPA’s internal review process (which includes a

review by the Office of General Counsel), and publishing the final rule—

can take from 1 to 3 years. Another factor contributing to the length of the

process is EPA’s shift of resources away from the development and

approval of innovative test methods to other priority activities, such as

development of effluent limitations and guidelines with court-ordered

deadlines. As noted previously, EPA funding to support the approval

process for methods developed by outside organizations was eliminated in

fiscal year 2001.

Competing priorities within the EPA Office of Water are not the only

problem. Other EPA offices also have to prioritize their work, which can

slow down the approval of test methods. For example, an EPA official told

us that higher priorities in the Office of General Counsel have left an

ICP/MS method waiting 6 months for review—an essential step before it

can be issued as a final rule.

In light of these difficulties, several equipment manufacturers who have

been through EPA’s approval process, told us that EPA’s lengthy approval

process has dissuaded them from pursuing both EPA approval of new

wastewater monitoring methods and significant modifications to existing

ones. For example, one equipment manufacturer told us that his company

may only have a limited time to recoup its investments in patented

technologies once they are finally approved for use. This manufacturer

pointed out that, by the time EPA approves its technology for nationwide

 7

 Methods & Data Comparability Board, National Water Quality Monitoring Council,

position paper on a Performance-Based Measurement System.
Chapter 3: Technologies for Measuring

Wastewater Discharges

Page 48 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

use, his company will only have 4 years left on its 17-year patent to

exclusively manufacture its technology.

Two manufacturers spoke of opportunities to introduce innovative

monitoring technologies that had been frustrated by the approval process.

One noted that his company had invested in the development of “clean”

monitoring methods that, unlike many current approved methods, do not

require the use of toxic materials in analyzing samples. Another cited a

monitoring technology that is already approved for drinking water

monitoring. In each case, however, the sponsors said that the lengthy

approval process deterred them from seeking EPA approval. These

manufacturers also told us that they have chosen to pursue the sales of

their monitoring technologies in other markets. For example, one

manufacturer told us that she prefers to sell her equipment in the more

profitable pharmaceutical market. Another manufacturer told us that he

prefers to invest in developing new methods for the biotechnology or

pharmaceutical monitoring market rather than the environmental market.

In addition, two of the equipment manufacturers that we interviewed said

that they are also focusing more of their attention on overseas markets.

This tendency is consistent with the findings in the 1998 U.S. Department

of Commerce report, which observed that “U.S. environmental instrument

manufacturers have generated over half of their revenues from outside the

United States since 1994.”

Since the mid-1990s, EPA has recognized the need to streamline its

approval process to decrease the amount of time and agency resources

required to approve new and modified test methods. According to EPA,

“Because advances in analytical technology continue to outpace the

capacity of [the Office of Water’s] method approval program, the program

has been under-utilized and slow to respond to emerging technologies.”

8

EPA made changes to streamline its process in 1995, which improved its

response time in approving minor modifications to existing methods, but

the approval of major modifications and new methods for nationwide use

still remains problematic. EPA proposed a plan in 1997 to implement a

performance-based system for environmental monitoring in all of its

programs, to the extent feasible, which would address some of these

 8 Protocol for EPA Approval of New Methods for Organic and Inorganic Analytes in

Wastewater and Drinking Water (March 1999).

EPA Recognizes the

Problem but Has Yet to

Implement a Solution
Chapter 3: Technologies for Measuring

Wastewater Discharges

Page 49 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

continuing problems.9 Such a system would convey “what” needs to be

accomplished (i.e., what information a test method should yield), but not

prescriptively convey “how” to do it.

To implement such a system, EPA stated that it would specify what

questions the measurement must answer, what decisions the resulting data

are to support, what level of uncertainty is acceptable for making the

decisions, and what documentation is required. EPA would specify

performance criteria for the measurements, and data producers would be

required to demonstrate that their proposed test method meets these

criteria.10 According to EPA, such a performance-based approach would

provide the regulated community more flexible and less costly approaches

to conducting required monitoring, and importantly, would expedite the

use of new and innovative technologies.

A large number of the organizations we interviewed—including

representatives from equipment manufacturers, state regulatory agencies,

regulated entities, commercial laboratories, and consensus standard

organizations—said that EPA should adopt a performance-based approach

to environmental monitoring. According to one equipment manufacturer, a

change to a performance-based approach would be the single most

important thing that EPA could do to improve its approval process.

However, many of these organizations also said that EPA might have

problems implementing such a system.

This concern was echoed in our discussion with EPA enforcement

officials. Officials within EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance told us that under a performance-based system, regulated

facilities would be able to use new or modified test methods without

having to obtain an official review by EPA officials with the requisite

technical skills. They claimed that a performance-based system places

extra demands on federal and state inspectors to determine whether

alternative monitoring methods are technically acceptable. They also told

us that a performance-based system would make it harder to litigate cases

 9

 EPA notice in Federal Register, vol. 62, no. 193, Oct. 6, 1997. EPA defines a performancebased measurement system as a set of processes wherein the data quality needs, mandates,

or limitations of a program or project are specified, and serve as criteria for selecting

appropriate methods to meet those needs in a cost-effective manner.

10According to EPA, performance characteristics can include parameters such as detection

limits, precision, accuracy, analysis time, and analysis cost.
Chapter 3: Technologies for Measuring

Wastewater Discharges

Page 50 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

against facilities, since the validity of new or alternative methods would

have to be established in court.

According to officials in EPA’s Office of Water, the performance-based

approach in approving wastewater-monitoring technologies remains

unimplemented largely due to concerns of the enforcement office. They

told us that they held discussions with enforcement officials last year to

try to address their concerns. However, they stated that since the two

offices have not been able to reach a consensus on how to implement the

program, EPA’s Office of Water has postponed taking further actions.

Technologies exist that can monitor many of the pollutants of interest

found in wastewater discharges from sewage treatment plants and

industrial facilities. While incremental improvements to these technologies

continue to be made, more significant advances have been less frequent.

EPA’s lengthy approval process has dissuaded instrument manufacturers

from pursuing major innovations. Because instrument manufacturers are

reluctant to pursue major modifications or the development of new

methods, regulated entities may be missing opportunities to use

significantly improved technologies that can improve the accuracy of

monitoring or lower its cost.

EPA has taken steps to mitigate this problem by improving its approval

processes. The agency successfully streamlined its approval of methods

that are minor modifications to existing ones. However, in fiscal year 2001,

the agency eliminated the $75,000 in contractor funding that had

supported its process improvements. Such reductions threaten to reverse

the gains that have been achieved.

The approval of major modifications or new methods is particularly

problematic. The proposed use of a performance-based measurement

system by EPA’s Office of Water offers a promising alternative to the

review and rulemaking process, although there are implementation issues

that still must be resolved. If EPA wants to promote and embrace

innovative use of wastewater monitoring technology, the agency needs to

resolve these issues before implementing such a system.

To ensure that the applications for minor modifications or limited use

methods continue to receive timely review, we recommend that the

Administrator, EPA, direct the Office of Water to track the results of its

Conclusions

Recommendations
Chapter 3: Technologies for Measuring

Wastewater Discharges

Page 51 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

review and approval of these applications over the course of the coming

year. The Office should compare these results to those of recent years to

determine the impact of fiscal year 2001 funding reductions on the

timeliness of its reviews. If the agency determines that funding reductions

have had a significantly negative impact, it should consider restoring the

funding or taking other measures to compensate for the loss of such

funding.

To encourage the development of new or significantly improved test

methods for use in wastewater monitoring, we recommend that the

Administrator, EPA, direct the Office of Water and the Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to work together to resolve

remaining differences over the use of a performance-based measurement

system in wastewater monitoring, and to move forward with

implementation of the agreed-upon system.

EPA’s Offices of Water and of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance did

not provide comments on the material covered in this chapter. The

agency’s Office of Research and Development provided several comments,

which largely involved technical suggestions and clarifications. For

example, one official suggested we clarify that while technologies have

been developed to measure most classes of pollutants in wastewater,

practical detection techniques do not yet exist for some important

individual pollutants. We made revisions in response to this and other

comments as appropriate.

Agency Comments
Chapter 4: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Nonpoint Water Sources

Page 52 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Measuring pollutant discharges from nonpoint sources is very different

than measuring discharges from wastewater sources or emissions from

stationary air sources. Because of the diffused nature of nonpoint sources,

direct monitoring of pollutant contributions is exceedingly difficult and

resource intensive. Consequently, the measurement of nonpoint

discharges typically involves an analysis of various sources of data, such

as those on water quality conditions and land use practices, to estimate

potential pollutant contributions. We identified numerous technologies

that can aid in these estimates by obtaining more detailed data and

increasing analytical capability.

While most nonpoint source assessments are conducted by states,

research-oriented organizations, such as universities and the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS), are more likely to use advanced technologies

in water quality investigations. Lack of funding, expertise, and time limit

the more widespread use of advanced technologies and techniques. In

addition, there is no central repository for information on the development

and application of new technologies and techniques useful in nonpoint

source monitoring and assessment. As a result, users may be missing

opportunities to capitalize on lessons learned and to avoid duplication of

effort.

The diffused nature of nonpoint sources makes the direct measurement of

their individual pollutant discharges exceedingly difficult. However, the

importance of assessing pollutant contributions from nonpoint sources

has increased rapidly in recent years, given the intense pressure on the

states and EPA to develop pollutant reduction strategies for waters that do

not meet water quality standards. (These pollutant reduction strategies are

called “Total Maximum Daily Loads,” or TMDLs.) While there is no

estimate for the number of nonpoint sources affecting these waters given

their numerous and diffused nature, states reported in 1998 that almost

300,000 miles of rivers and streams and about 8 million acres of lakes were

not meeting water quality standards; nonpoint sources are cited as

contributors to most of these polluted waters.1

In a watershed with multiple sources of water pollution, it is often

difficult to determine the amount of a pollutant any given source has

contributed. For example, agriculture, pet waste, and homeowner lawn

 1

 These figures apply only to the minority of U.S. waters that have been assessed. For

example, 840,000 of the 3.6 million total miles of streams have been assessed.

Chapter 4: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Nonpoint Water Sources

Monitoring and

Assessing Nonpoint

Sources of Water

Pollution
Chapter 4: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Nonpoint Water Sources

Page 53 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

maintenance can all contribute nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) to

nearby waters, but most monitoring reveals only the level of nutrients

present and cannot identify the sources that contributed the nutrients or

the amounts they contributed. As a result, measuring nonpoint source

pollution often requires an analysis not only of water quality conditions,

but also of (1) the activities occurring on the land that could be potential

contributors of pollution and (2) the factors that influence the transport of

pollution to waters. Figure 5 illustrates the diffuse nature of nonpoint

sources of pollution as compared to point sources.
Chapter 4: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Nonpoint Water Sources

Page 54 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Figure 5: Nonpoint and Point Source Water Pollution
Chapter 4: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Nonpoint Water Sources

Page 55 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

The assessment of pollutant contributions from nonpoint sources relies on

many data types. In addition to monitoring data on water quality

conditions, information on land use/land cover (the vegetation or

suburban/urban development present), soil type, climate, and topography

all help to identify potential pollutant sources and to explain pollutant

transport dynamics (how quickly pollutants travel from their source to

receiving waters). Given the complex relationships among these various

factors, mathematical models are often used to translate these data into

probable pollutant contributions from individual sources or groups of

similar types of sources.

The Clean Water Act directs states to develop programs that address

nonpoint source pollution but it provides no direction for the

establishment of minimum national controls or monitoring that must be

implemented, such as it does for the control of wastewater dischargers. As

a result, there is no formal approval process for identifying acceptable

monitoring methods or techniques, such as the approval processes used in

the stationary air or wastewater programs. While states bear the

responsibility under the Clean Water Act for dealing with nonpoint source

pollution, numerous federal, state, local, and other organizations monitor

water quality conditions and generate other types of data used in nonpoint

source analyses.

Pollutant contributions from nonpoint sources are diffused, numerous,

and difficult to quantify. Traditional water quality monitoring techniques,

such as in-person sampling, are too resource intensive to monitor all the

areas needed. In addition, the availability of an increasing amount of

related (or ancillary) data requires the use of analytical tools to process

them. There are several areas where improved technologies can assist in

(1) the sampling and analysis of water quality and (2) the integration and

analysis of multiple sources of related information.

There are several improved technologies or methods for taking and

analyzing a water sample. While advances in laboratory-based

measurements, such as those discussed in chapter 3, will benefit nonpoint

source analysis, the users that we interviewed said that, in general, the

greatest benefits come from field-based monitoring and analysis devices.

Sampling Methods: Much of the data on water quality conditions that are

needed to assess nonpoint source pollution is collected manually—a

person physically collects water samples from a body of water. Such a

Available

Technologies That

Can Improve

Monitoring and

Assessment

Water Quality Sampling

and Analysis
Chapter 4: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Nonpoint Water Sources

Page 56 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

process is costly and time-consuming because staff must travel to the

location, follow certain protocols for collecting samples, and transport the

samples to a laboratory for analysis. In-person sampling can also

sometimes be hazardous because most nonpoint source pollution occurs

during high flow events, such as storms. Figure 6 shows several in-person

sampling methods. In certain situations, however, automatic sampling

devices can be used. These devices, which are triggered remotely by a user

or by the high flow event itself, collect water samples and store them for

later transport to a laboratory. While a person must still travel to the

sampling location, the device can take numerous samples over a period of

many days or weeks. This type of “remote sampling” provides significant

improvements over manual collection in terms of the number of areas that

can be sampled during a high flow event, the frequency of sampling, and

safety.
Chapter 4: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Nonpoint Water Sources

Page 57 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Figure 6: Examples of In-person Water Sampling Methods

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Geological Survey

Field-based Analytical Methods: Some monitoring technologies allow

users to measure various water quality parameters in the field. Obtaining

pollutant measurements in the field is helpful in (1) reducing monitoring

costs by eliminating certain laboratory analysis, (2) providing real-time
Chapter 4: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Nonpoint Water Sources

Page 58 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

results, and (3) enabling more efficient monitoring by facilitating decisions

about data adequacy and determining whether additional measurements

need to be taken—such a course of action is impossible when waiting for a

result from a lab analysis. Field-based technologies either provide results

instantaneously for manual recording, store results on disk within the

instrument for later downloading, or communicate results remotely via

telemetry, cellular phone, or satellite communications. In addition, some

of the field-based technologies can be left alone to analyze pollutant levels

continuously or at set intervals. This is particularly beneficial in measuring

pollutants like dissolved oxygen or nutrients, the concentrations of which

may vary throughout the day depending on temperature changes or flow

levels. Field-based “sensors” are considered reliable for several common

water quality measurements of interest, such as temperature, dissolved

oxygen, and conductivity. Field-based “analyzers” are generally more

sensitive than sensors and measure pollutants that are more complicated

to quantify, such as nitrates, although their reliability at low levels is not

yet well defined.2

Pathogen Source Detection: Methods exist that use DNA analysis to

identify the source species of fecal-related bacteria in water. For example,

a project in Arizona used this technique to determine what percentage of

fecal coliform came from human, pet, and wildlife sources in a stream

used heavily for recreation. Preliminary results of the analysis indicated

that the initial perceptions about the source that contributed the most

bacteria were not correct. Similarly, studies in Virginia and Washington

revealed surprising findings that animals were the primary source of fecalrelated bacteria in certain waters, not leaking sewers or septic systems as

researchers had originally suspected. Identifying sources of pollution in

cases like these is critically important to devising effective pollution

reduction strategies when the largest sources may not be obvious or easily

controlled.

While there are advances in taking water samples and conducting analyses

or measurements of pollutants, most of the individuals that we

interviewed also recognized the improvements in integrating and analyzing

multiple types of data as essential elements in nonpoint source

assessment. Understanding pollutant dynamics requires information about

 2

 Analyzers can take more precise measurements than sensors but can also be significantly

more expensive and difficult to maintain.

Information Integration

and Analysis
Chapter 4: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Nonpoint Water Sources

Page 59 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

a multitude of diverse but interrelated elements, such as hydrology, soil

type, climate, and land use/land cover. Obtaining information in all these

areas is resource-intensive and challenging. Without computers and other

analytical tools to assist in the management of this information, the

organization and interpretation of these disparate data would be resource

prohibitive.

Remote Sensing: Remote sensing technologies, such as satellite imagery

and aerial photography, observe characteristics without coming into direct

contact with them. Thus, remote sensing can provide the capability to

gather data about remote, hazardous, or inaccessible areas. Photographs

and images can be used to identify possible sources of pollution and can

be taken over time to track land use changes that may influence water

quality, such as rapid urbanization. Remotely-sensed data can also be used

to feed mathematical models or geographic information systems that aid in

nonpoint source assessments, such as in ranking watershed areas with the

highest potential for runoff. The interpretation of satellite imagery and

aerial photographs, however, is required to connect them to water quality

matters; this process requires specialized skills. In addition, some

fieldwork may be needed to verify the accuracy of image interpretation.

Figure 7 provides examples of remote sensing.
Chapter 4: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Nonpoint Water Sources

Page 60 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Figure 7: Examples of Remote Sensing

Source: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Lake Michigan photo) and the U.S.

Geological Survey (Boston Harbor photo).

Models: Computerized models and similar analytical tools can assist

nonpoint source assessment by automating the analysis of the complex

relationships that define how pollutants move through the environment—

Areas of Lake Michigan shown

in white indicate elevated pH
Chapter 4: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Nonpoint Water Sources

Page 61 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

analysis that would be extremely difficult and time-consuming to do

manually. Models can also simulate the potential effect of various control

actions on pollutant transport. Models have been used in hydrologic

applications for decades, although historically they have been largely

focused on (1) discrete pollutant transport (such as that used in analyzing

pollution impacts from wastewater sources) or (2) individual components

of watershed functioning, such as groundwater movement or urban

stormwater runoff. Recently, EPA has focused on expanding the use and

capability of models in order to meet the demands of assessing nonpoint

sources and developing TMDLs. Many of the improvements made in this

area have focused on making models “simple.” This simplification has

been accomplished by making the front or back end processing—the user

interfaces for data input and output—more user-friendly; for the most part,

improvements have not focused on modifying the model itself. Therefore,

some of the underlying models may still be complex, but the interface with

which a user interacts has been simplified.

Geographic Information Systems: Geographic information systems

(GIS) manage data according to their spatial or geographic location. GIS

can incorporate remote sensing information (such as land use information,

which is often generated via satellite imagery) and aid in modeling. For

example, the models may be simplified by providing (1) a GIS-based user

interface to assist in data entry and (2) the capability of generating easy-toread maps to present model results. GIS software is available in varying

levels of sophistication and computer resource capabilities. For example,

basic analytical and geographic capabilities can be performed on an

average stand-alone personal computer. GIS provides a powerful tool for

integrating large amounts of data that could otherwise be prohibitively

expensive. As such, these systems have revolutionized how water quality

data can be related to land use and have provided exponential

improvements over prior manual methods that were used to process and

interpret information. One official we interviewed said that GIS is the

“glue” that holds the data together for assessments of nonpoint source

pollution. Another noted that GIS has “endless” opportunities for analyzing

data.
Chapter 4: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Nonpoint Water Sources

Page 62 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

It is difficult to determine the extent to which a particular nonpoint

source-related technology is being used. The different entities that

conduct nonpoint assessments may use whatever technology they choose

and there is a multitude of these assessments taking place across the

country. However, based on our discussions with a diverse group of

individuals involved in nonpoint source monitoring and assessment, it

appears that the overall use of advanced technologies is limited. Less

expensive technologies or those that require less time and specialized

skills to use are more often used than their more expensive and complex

to use counterparts. In addition, the organizations that are most likely to

use advanced technologies focus on research or in-depth water quality

investigations rather than on regulatory requirements of the Clean Water

Act. Many officials that we interviewed told us that there is a pressing

need for better information sharing about the successes and failures of

technologies and techniques used in nonpoint source assessments.

Several officials we interviewed told us that the increased attention on

nonpoint sources, spurred by numerous TMDL lawsuits, has provided

states a strong incentive to use monitoring technologies and methods that

increase the amount and reliability of water quality information. Two state

officials told us that they expected that the public and pollutant

dischargers will impose increased scrutiny on states’ assessments of

nonpoint source pollution for development of TMDLs, and legal challenges

may be levied against some TMDLs. According to many officials we

interviewed, the use of advanced technologies or techniques will hopefully

yield a better understanding of water quality problems and more informed

decisions regarding the needed pollution controls.

Yet, however strong the benefits may be, most states have only capitalized

on a few advanced technologies. According to state officials that we

interviewed, most use automatic samplers and field-based analyzers for at

least some of their monitoring and assessment activities. They noted that

while they can afford to purchase at least some of these instruments and

already have expertise to operate and maintain them, they cannot afford to

buy enough of these instruments to use in the majority of their monitoring

activities. In addition, some officials we interviewed said that users are

sometimes reluctant to experiment with untested or unproven

technologies.

States also use “simple” models—those that have improved user interfaces

and graphic output—when conducting nonpoint source and TMDL

analysis. An EPA official told us that states increasingly use these models

Extent to Which

Improved Nonpoint

Source Monitoring

Technologies and

Assessment

Techniques Are Being

Used

Most Used Advanced

Technologies and

Techniques are the Most

Affordable and Easiest to

Use
Chapter 4: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Nonpoint Water Sources

Page 63 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

in cases where they must develop TMDLs quickly and where little sitespecific data exist. These simple models are easily accessible because

most of them are in the public domain, and given the advancements in

user interfaces, they are now easier to use than they were in the past.

However, the same advances that have increased the use of these models

also make it easier to misuse them. Some officials told us that users may

not fully understand the underlying model or know whether they are using

the model appropriately. In addition, an essential component to model

usage is calibration and validation—processes that must be done using

site-specific data. Unreliable and misleading results can be generated if a

model is not properly calibrated and validated. However, as noted above,

these models are increasingly being used in cases were little site-specific

data exist. Several individuals we interviewed expressed great concern

over the use of models in these cases and expected to see challenges to

resulting TMDLs. These concerns were echoed at a recent conference

focused on the science needed to support TMDL development.

While states have limited abilities to use advanced technologies, we found

that research-oriented organizations use advanced technologies and

techniques more frequently in their monitoring and assessment activities.

Research organizations, such as USGS and universities, use automatic

samplers, field-based analyzers, and simple models in their water quality

investigations and devote resources specifically to develop and

experiment with new technologies and techniques. Consequently, they are

able to develop and maintain the specialized expertise needed to use many

advanced technologies.3

The disparity between the abilities of states and research organizations to

obtain and use advanced technologies and techniques becomes much

greater with the more advanced technologies, such as GIS, remote sensing,

and complex models. In general, only research-oriented organizations and

a few high profile special projects use the most advanced technologies;

states rarely use them for routine assessments.

States’ use of GIS, remote sensing, and complex models in their nonpoint

source and TMDL analyses is very limited. Equipment purchases and

 3

 USGS also cautions that the range of water quality issues these tools can address is

limited. It notes, for example, that the tools do not apply well to bacteria and not at all to

bacteria source tracking.

Complex, Expensive

Technologies and

Techniques Are Used to a

Very Limited Degree
Chapter 4: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Nonpoint Water Sources

Page 64 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

training to use the advanced technologies require a significant

commitment of resources. However, water quality monitoring is often

found on the bottom rung of the funding ladder within state programs.

Many officials we interviewed cited the cost of purchasing advanced

technologies and the time needed to acquire the skills to operate and

maintain them as major barriers.

Organizations that conduct research or high profile water quality projects,

however, use GIS, remote sensing, and complex models more frequently.

For example, USGS uses these tools to collect, integrate, and analyze

water quality and related data in its water quality investigations. The

agency notes that the use of these techniques, even in limited situations,

can provide very important insights and information. Similarly, the

Chesapeake Bay Program (an interagency program led by EPA) uses these

tools to analyze pollutant dynamics within the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.

High profile state projects may also use GIS, remote sensing, and complex

models. For example, North Carolina has been using complex models to

study nutrients in the Neuse River—one of the state’s priority water

quality projects. These organizations and projects are focused on

obtaining a detailed understanding of complex water quality problems that

may require experimenting with advanced technologies.

However, research organizations or special projects do not always

routinely use advanced technologies. For example, an analyzer exists to

measure nutrients at low levels and has the potential to provide critical

needed data for the thousands of waters impaired by nutrients, yet its

reliability has not been accepted. Therefore, it is currently being tested at a

handful of universities and USGS. Even if the analyzer proves to be

reliable, however, it is unlikely that it will be used widely because it costs

about $20,000 and the skills of a trained chemist are needed to operate it

and understand its results. One USGS official testing the analyzer said that

he did not envision its widespread use across the agency because of its

cost and the level of specialized skill required to interpret the results.

Similarly, DNA source identification is very expensive and used in only a

limited number of projects.

Many officials that we interviewed recognized the need to improve

information sharing regarding technologies and techniques used in

nonpoint source assessments and TMDL development. Information

sharing is particularly important in an area as decentralized as nonpoint

source pollution, for which assessments tend to be more of an

interpretative exercise—often relying on best professional judgment—

Lack of Information

Sharing Misses

Opportunities for

Improved Efficiency
Chapter 4: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Nonpoint Water Sources

Page 65 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

rather than a simple monitoring exercise. While advanced technologies

provide many improvements to users, how these technologies are applied

in specific circumstances is often just as important. One official told us

that he believed that he had duplicated the work of others in his efforts to

modify a streamflow sensor to a particular application. Information

sharing is therefore all the more important in allowing users to capitalize

on lessons learned elsewhere, avoid duplication, and move forward with

their analyses more quickly.

EPA has facilitated some information sharing regarding nonpoint source

monitoring and assessment. For example, EPA holds an annual

conference to share lessons learned from its national nonpoint source

monitoring program—a program that focuses on long-term, intensive

monitoring in about 20 waters around the country. The program is

intended to evaluate the effectiveness of nonpoint source pollution

controls and improve the understanding of nonpoint source pollution. In

addition, EPA maintains a periodic newsletter on many aspects related to

nonpoint source pollution on the agency’s webpage. However, as one user

pointed out, there is no central clearinghouse for information about new

technologies for use in nonpoint source assessments. Such a

clearinghouse could help connect users who share common experiences

and reduce potentially duplicative efforts.4

 4

 In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of the Interior noted that the

interagency National Water Quality Monitoring Council has taken some steps toward

information sharing through development of a National Environmental Monitoring Index.

The index is intended to provide a comparison of water quality monitoring methods and

includes information such as the instrumentation employed, sample preservation and

storage requirements, and relative cost. However, information sharing is also needed

regarding analytical approaches and techniques useful in assessments of nonpoint source

pollution. The Department notes that the index could be expanded to include other

technologies and techniques mentioned in this report, such as GIS and mathematical

models.
Chapter 4: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Nonpoint Water Sources

Page 66 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Because many different types of technologies and techniques exist to aid

nonpoint source assessments, the development of improvements to them

may follow one of several different paths. The private sector conducts

some development, such as the case of the automated devices used to

sample and analyze water quality. Other development is primarily federally

conducted or sponsored, such as the case of many of the models in use

today. In addition, users often make refinements, enhancements, and other

modifications to technologies and techniques as more is learned in sitespecific projects.

Several factors make the development of nonpoint source monitoring

technologies or assessment techniques particularly challenging. The first is

the lack of specific monitoring requirements for this type of pollution. In

the past, explicit monitoring requirements for air and wastewater sources

led to a predictable and guaranteed market for individual monitoring

technologies. While states are required to monitor their waters and to

assess water quality, there are no specific requirements for how that

monitoring should occur and what technologies or methods should be

followed. Hence, as the instrument manufacturers we interviewed pointed

out, there is no clearly defined market for nonpoint source monitoring

technologies and assessment techniques.

A second challenging factor is the size of the potential market for nonpoint

source monitoring technologies and assessment techniques. Water quality

monitoring and assessment have historically received less funding than

other water and environmental programs. As such, instrument

manufacturers we interviewed acknowledged that the market for their

products was fairly small. For example, an official from a GIS developer

said that developments in GIS technology have largely been geared toward

well-funded applications, such as transportation planning and facilities

management, and not for natural resources management. In addition, the

president of one manufacturing company, who was modifying a defenserelated sensor to the water quality market, told us that the return on

investment takes longer in the environmental market than for other

technology markets. He said that unlike other technology areas where

users are quick to purchase new technologies, the environmental market is

generally not very responsive to new technologies, partially due to

resource constraints.

Modeling—an area in which much of the past development has been

federally conducted or sponsored—similarly suffers from a lack of

investment. While most needs are being met through existing models,

some users told us that solving very complex nonpoint source pollution

Factors That

Influence

Development of

Improved Nonpoint

Source Monitoring

Technologies and

Assessment

Techniques
Chapter 4: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Nonpoint Water Sources

Page 67 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

problems requires more advanced tools than exist today. In addition, some

users noted that the basic models have received no major modifications in

several decades. However, progress on improving the models themselves

is limited mainly because EPA—the agency that has traditionally

conducted or funded a large portion of water quality model development

in the past—has cut funding in this area by about 75 percent since the mid1990s. According to an official from an EPA laboratory primarily

responsible for this work, the agency plans to pursue improvements to

existing models and work on new models, but progress will be slow given

the limited funding devoted to this area.

The lack of information sharing—discussed earlier as a problem impeding

wider use of advanced technologies—is a third problem that constrains

development of new or improved technologies and techniques. As noted

previously, users are sometimes reluctant to experiment with new and

potentially unproven technologies. However, until users do so and

document their experiences, it is not clear what additional development is

needed or where it could be of most value. For example, according to

several of the users that we interviewed, information on the effectiveness

of various best management practices needs to be improved. While some

users thought that additional research was needed to determine the

effectiveness of such practices, others thought that inventorying the work

already done would yield most of the information needed. However, until

an inventory is done, it is not clear what needs for technology and tool

development remain.

Recent emphasis on addressing polluted waters has placed increased

importance on identifying nonpoint source pollutant discharges quickly,

accurately and at lower costs. However, the absence of explicit nonpoint

source pollution monitoring requirements, combined with the historically

low level of funding being devoted to nonpoint source monitoring, has

discouraged wider investment in this area.

We found these challenges to be further compounded by a scarcity of

information concerning the numerous data, technologies, and analytical

tools that are used in the multitude of nonpoint source assessments that

are being conducted each year. The scarcity of such information makes it

difficult to identify which tools are most useful under specific

circumstances. This additional complication, however, could be

substantially alleviated if a centrally situated organization—such as EPA—

routinely catalogued and publicized information about which monitoring

technologies and assessment techniques work, and why they work. We

Conclusions
Chapter 4: Technologies for Measuring

Emissions From Nonpoint Water Sources

Page 68 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

believe that doing so could go a long way in (1) maximizing the relatively

small investment currently being made in monitoring and assessing

nonpoint sources, (2) providing greater assurance that resulting

recommendations for pollutant controls are cost-effective and successful,

and (3) guiding the efforts of those attempting to identify the most

promising new technologies and other tools for investment.

To improve the sharing of information and reduce duplication, we

recommend that the Administrator, EPA, direct the Office of Water to

develop a clearinghouse and/or locator for monitoring technologies and

assessment techniques that are used for assessing pollutant contributions

from nonpoint sources and developing TMDLs. Such a clearinghouse

should include (1) a mechanism whereby users could obtain and update

information regularly and easily and (2) information provided by EPA and

the other federal agencies that collect and analyze water quality

conditions.

EPA did not comment on the material in this chapter. The Department of

the Interior said that it agreed with our recommendation that EPA develop

a clearinghouse and/or locator for monitoring technologies and

assessment techniques that are used for assessing pollutant contributions

from nonpoint water pollution sources and for developing Total Maximum

Daily Loads. It suggested, however, that the report note that the

interagency National Water Quality Monitoring Council has already made

some progress in this direction through the establishment of a National

Environmental Monitoring Index. We added language to this effect in this

chapter, and incorporated several other technical comments and

clarifications suggested by the agency. The text of Interior’s letter is

included in appendix. I.

Recommendations

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Comments From the Department

of the Interior

Page 69 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Appendix I: Comments From the Department

of the Interior
Appendix I: Comments From the Department

of the Interior

Page 70 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Now on p. 61.

Now on p. 59.

Now on p. 55.

Now on p. 53.

Now on p. 52.

Now on p. 52.
Appendix I: Comments From the Department

of the Interior

Page 71 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Now on p. 66.

Now on p. 63.

Now on p. 62.
Appendix II: GAO Contact and

Staff Acknowledgments

Page 72 GAO-01-313 Environmental Protection

Steven Elstein, Assistant Director, (202) 512-6515

In addition to the individual named above, Michael Hix, Jason Holliday,

and Patricia McClure made key contributions to this report. Important

contributions were also made by Chuck Bausell, Tim Guinane, Karen

Keegan, and Jonathan McMurray.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Acknowledgments

(160547)
The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are

$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the

Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also

accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St., NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To

receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days,

please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will

provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an

e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

Info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs