### United States Government Ac countabilit y Office 

# GAO Testimon y Before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives 

# GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE

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

Statement of David Maurer Acting Director, Natural Resources and Environment For R e lea s e on De live ry Expec t e d at 10 :0 0 a.m. EST Wedn esd a y, J a nu ar y 2 3 , 2 0 0 8



### GAO-08-312T

### What GAO Found

**United States Government Accountability Office** 

### Why GAO Did This Study 

# H ighlights **Accountability Integrity Reliability Januar**  **y 23,**  **200 8**  

# GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE

**EPA and S**  **tate s**  **H ave Made Pro**  **g re**  **ss , but Much**  **Remain s**  **to Be Done If Water Quality Goal s**  **Are to Be Achieved**  Highlights of GA O-08 -312 T , a te stimony before the Su bco mmittee on Wate r Resou r ces an d E n vironment, Com m ittee on Tran spo r tatio n and Infra s t r uct u re, House of Rep r esentative s

Millions of people in the Unite d St at es and Ca na d a depend on th e Gr eat L a k e s for drin king w a ter, recreation, an d eco nomi c livelihood

. During th e 1970s, i t became app a r e n t that pollu tants di sch a r g e d i n to th e Gr ea t L a k e s Basin from p o int s our ces , such as industri a l and muni cipal facilities, or from non p o int s our ces , such as air emissions from po wer p l ants
, wer e har m ing th e Gr eat Lakes. Som e o f th es e p o llutants

, know n as bi oa cc umul at i ve ch emi c al s of concern (BCC), pose risks to fish

a n d ot he r spec ie s a s w e ll as t o t h e hum ans an d wildlife that consum e th em. I n 19 9 5

, t h e Envi r o n m en tal Protection Agen cy (EPA) is sued th e Gre a t L a k e s In itiative (G LI). The GLI e s tablishe d wate r qua lity cri t eri a to b e used b y s t a t e s to establish pollutant dischar g e limits for some BCCs and othe r pollutants that are discharged by point sour ces

. Th e GL I also allows
state s to inc l ude flexible permit implementati on p r o c edur es (fle xibilitie s) tha t a llow fa cilitie s’ di sch a r g es to ex ce ed G L I cr i t eri a

.

This te stimony is ba se d on G A O ’ s July 2 005 re port
, Gre a t La kes Initiative: EPA Needs to Better Ensure the Complete an d Consiste nt I m

plementati on o f Water Quality Stan dards ( G AO- 05- 82 9) a nd upd at ed information from EPA an d t h e Gr ea t L a k e s s t a t es

. Thi s st at em en t addr ess e s ( 1 ) th e status of EPA’s efforts to develop and appr ove methods to m e as ur e polluta nts at the G L I water q u a lity

c r ite r ia lev e ls, (2 ) the use of pe rmit fle x ibilitie s, and (3 ) EPA’s a c tions to i m pl em ent GAO’s 2 0 0 5

recomm en dations. A s GAO repo rted in 2005, developing t h e sensitive an alytical methods needed
to measure pollutants at t h e GLI water qu al ity criter ia l e v e l is a si gnific ant chall e ng e to achi evin g GLI’s goa l s. Of the nine BCCs for which criteria have been est a blis hed, only tw o—mercury and lindane —have EPA- approved methods that will measure below those cr iteria levels. Me asurement methods for the other BCCs are eit h er not yet a pproved or cannot reliably measure to GLI criteria. Without such measurement, it is difficult for states to determine whether a fa cil i ty i s ex ce eding the crit er ia and if di scharge limit s are required in the facilit y’s permit. As methods be come available, st ates are able to include enforceable disch a rge li mits in faci liti e s’ p e rmits. For example, since EPA approved a more sen s itive method for mercury in 1999, the number of permits with mercury lim i t s has in cre a s ed from 1 8 5 in Ma y 20 05 to 292 in November 2 0 07. EPA and state offici al s e xpect this trend to cont inue. Similar increases may occur as mo re sensitive anal ytical methods are developed and approved for other BCCs.

Flexibil ities i n cluded in permits al low facil i tie s ’ dis c harg es to ex ce ed GLI water quality criter ia. For exampl e, on e type of fl exibility— var iances—wi ll allow fa cil i ti es to exc eed the GLI crit e r ia for a pol l u tant specifi ed in their permits. Moreover, the GLI allows the repeat ed use of some of these per m it flexibiliti e s , and does not set a tim e fr ame for faci li ties to m eet t h e GLI water qualit y cr iter ia. As a r e sul t , EPA and state offici al s do not know when the GLI
criteri a wi ll b e met.

In the 2005 report, GAO made a number of recommendations to EPA to help ensure full and consistent implemen tation of the G L I and to improve measures for monitoring progress toward achi e vin g GLI’s goals. EPA h a s taken some actions to imp l ement th e recommendations. For example, EPA has begun to revi ew the efforts and pro g ress made b y one category of facil i tie s —m unicipal w a st ewater tre a t m ent plants —to reduce t h eir mer c ury dischar ges in to the basin. However, un til EPA g a the r s more infor m ation on the implementation of GL I and the imp act it h a s had on reducing pollutant discharges from point sou r ces , as we recommended, it w ill not be abl e to fully

ass e ss progr e ss toward G L I goals.

**Fi g**  **ure 1: Area**  **Com p**  **ri s**  **in g**  **the Great Lake s**  **Ba s**  **in**

To view t he full product, including the scope and methodolog y, click on GA O-0 8 -312T

. For mo re informa t ion, conta c t Da vi d Maurer at (202) 512-3 8 4 1 or maurerd@ g ao.gov

.

### Madam Chairwo m an and Members of the Subcom mittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on the Great Lakes Initiative (G LI), and its i m pact on water qualit y i n the Great Lakes Basin. 1 

### As you know, millions of people in the United States and Canada depend on the Great Lakes—the largest system of freshwater in the w o rld—as a source of drinking water, recreation, and econ o mic livelih ood . During the 1970s, it bec a me appare nt that pollu tants discha rged into the basin from point sources, such as industrial and municipal facilities, or from nonpoint sources, such as air emissions from p o wer plants and agricult u ral runoff, were harming the Great Lakes. Beca use less than 1 perc ent of the Great Lakes’ water recycl es or turns over e ach y ear, on averag e, ma ny of these pollutants stay in pl ace, settling in se diments or bio-accumula ting in fish
and other a q u atic speci e s . As a result, some of these pollutan t s, such as mercury and dioxin, kno wn as bioa c c umulative chemicals of concern (BCC), pose risks to those species as well as to the humans and wildlife
that consume them.

In 199 0, foll owing a series of binatio n al agre e ments aimed at improving
environmental condition s in the Great Lakes Basin, the Congr e ss passed the Great La kes Critical Programs Ac t. This act, which amended the Cle a n Water Act, r equired the Environmental Protectio n Agency (EPA) to publish water quality gu idance o n minimum water quality st andards and antidegrad at ion policies for protecting existing w a ter qualit y. In response, in 1995, EPA published t h e Final Water Quality Guidance fo r the Gr eat Lakes Syste m , otherwise known as the GLI, to control over 100 toxi c pollutants and protect aquatic lif e, wildlife, and human heal th. Through the GLI, EPA established stringent water quality crite r ia—numeric valu e s to be used by s t ates to set p o llutant discharge limits for point sources—for 9 BCCs and 20 other pollut a nts found i n the basin. In addition, the GLI
established methodologies that the st ates are to u s e in develo ping criteria for the remaining pollutants. Meeting the criteria established by GLI requires sensitive anal yti cal methods that allow measurement of pollutant
concentratio ns at or belo w the level e s tablished by GLI water quality
criteria. These methods allow states to determine if a facility is exceed in g the criteria and if a discharge limit is required in t h e facilit y’s permit as
well as to assess the faci lity’s compliance. Th e G r eat Lakes C r itical

1 The Great Lake s Basin include s the five G r eat Lakes

— S uperi or, Michigan, H uro n, Onta rio, and E r ie—and a large land are a that e x tends beyon d the lak e s , including th eir w aters heds

, tributaries an d connecting cha nnels

.

Page 1 Great L a kes In i tiative

### Programs Act required t h at the ei ght Great Lakes states—Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wis c onsin— adopt provisions consistent with GLI into their environmental regulations and point so urce permit programs within 2 years of issuance of GLI guidanc e

.

As you requ ested, my te stimony today focuses o n (1) the stat us of EPA’s efforts to develop an d ap prove methods needed to measure pollutants at the GLI water quality cri t eria level, ( 2 ) the use of permit flexibilities, and (3) the actio ns EPA has taken to impl ement the recommendations we made in our 2005 report on the GLI t o better ens u re full and consistent implementation of GLI and monitor progress in meeting GLI goals. 2 

### My testimony is based on the 200 5 report and addition al information we have
obtained fro m EPA and the Great Lake s states. Our testimony primarily focuses on the nine BCCs for which EP A has developed GLI water qualit y criteria. Most of these B CCs are resp onsible for fish consump t ion advisories in the Great L a kes.

We conduct e d this perfo r mance audi t from Octo ber 2007 through Januar y 18, 2 008 in a ccordanc e with general ly ac cepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perfor m the audit t o obtain suffic i ent, approp riate evid e n ce to provid e a reasona b l e basis for our findings and conclusions based o n our audit objectives. We believe
that the evid ence obt ain e d provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based o n our audit objectives. We determined that the data provided were sufficiently reli ab le for purposes of this testimony.

In summary:

• 

### As we reported in 2005, developin g t h e sensitive analytical methods needed to d e termine whether GLI water qualit y criteria are being met is a significant challen ge to fully achi evi ng GLI’s goa l s. At the time of our report, a method that all o wed measurement of the pollutant at or below the GLI criteria h a d been developed and approved for only two of the nine BCCs—mercury and linda ne. Mercury and lindane remain the only BC Cs for which an approved method is availab l e that measures pollutant concentrations below the GLI criterion. Once EPA

approves an analytical method, Great Lakes states are able to issue

2 GAO, Grea t La kes I n i t i a t i v e: EPA Need s to Better Ens ure t h e Comp l ete a n d Consi st ent Imple m e n t atio n of Water Qu a l ity Stan dar ds
, GAO-05-829 (Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2005).

Page 2 Great L a kes In i tiative

### point source permits that require faci l i ties to use that method unless an alternative p r ocedure has been appr oved by the EPA region. Methods have b een d evelop ed for the remaini n g seven BC Cs, but these methods either hav e not yet be en approved or only allow f o r measurement above th e GLI criteria. F o r example, because chl o rdane has a water quality crite r ion of 0.25 nanograms per liter but can only be measured down to a le vel of 1 4 nan o grams per liter, it canno t always be determined if the pollutant is exceed i n g the criter ion. When methods are develop e d that can measure pollutant concentrations at or below the lev e l est a blished by GLI water quality criteri a , a more pe rvasive problem of high pollutant levels in t h e Great Lakes Basin waterbodies than previou sly recogniz ed may be r eveal ed and could result in additional p e rmits with discharge li mits. For example, the n u mber of permits with mercury limits increas ed from 185 in May 2005 to 292 in November 2007. EPA off i cials attribu t e this incre a se to the developmen t of a more sensitive method for mercury in 1999 and EPA and state off i cials expe ct this tre nd to continue. Similar increases may occur as more sensitive analyt ical methods are d evelop ed an d approved fo r other BCCs.

• 

### Although permits may include BCC disc harge limits, the GLI authorizes states to use flexibilities that allow facilities’ discharges to ex ceed GLI water qualit y criteria. For example, one type of f l exibility—variances— will allow facilities to ex ceed th e GLI criteria for a particular pollutant specified in their permits. Furthermore, the GLI allows the repeated use of some of these flexibilities and does not set a time frame for facilities to meet the GLI water quali t y criteria. A s a result, EPA and state official s could not t e ll us when the use of these flexibilit ies will be discontinued or when the GLI criteria will be met.

• 

### EPA has taken some acti ons to implement the recommendations we made in our 2005 report to help ensur e the full an d consistent implementation of the G L I and to improve measures for mo nitoring progress toward achieving GLI’s go als. First, EPA implemen ted our recommendation to fully develop the GLI Clearinghouse and make it availab l e to the Great Lakes states. Second, as we recommended, EPA is beginning to gather an d track infor m ation to assess the progress of GLI implementation alth ough the inf o rmation collected is limited to municipal wastewater treatment pla n ts. Third, to ensure the equitabl e and timely i m plementation of GLI among all the Great Lakes states, EPA has increased its ef forts to resolve disagre e m ents with the state of Wisconsin on the adopti on and implementation of GLI provisions. Finally, alth ough EPA disagreed with our recommendation to issue a permitting strategy for mercury to en sure a more consistent a pproach

Page 3 Great L a kes In i tiative

### for controlling mercury by the states , it has conti nued to support state implementation efforts by assessing which approaches are m o st effectiv e in r e ducing mer c ury dischar ges by point sources.

The ability t o accurat e ly and reliabl y m easure pollutant concentrations is vital to successfully implementing GL I water quality criteria. Without this ability, it is difficult for states to det e rmine if a f acility’s discharge is
exceed ing G L I water qua lity criteria a nd if a disch a rge limits are required. For example, because ch lordane has a water qual ity criterion of 0.25 nanograms per liter but can only be measured down to a level of 14 nanograms per liter, it cannot always be determined if the po llutant is
exceed ing t h e criterion. As we reported in 20 05, developin g t h e anal ytical methods needed to measure pollutants at the GL I water quali t y criteria level is a significant ch al lenge to f u ll y achi eving GLI goals. Although methods have been developed for t h e nine BCCs for which GLI water quality criteria have been established, EPA has only approved the methods to measure mercury and lindane b e l o w GLI’s stringent criteri a lev e ls. Analytical m e thods for the other BCCs either have not recei ved EPA approval or cannot be used to reliabl y measure to GLI criteria levels. Once EPA approves an anal yti cal method, Great Lakes states are ab le to issue point source permits that require faci l i ties to use that method unless the EPA region has approve d an altern at ive proced ure. According to EPA officials, specific time frames for developing and approving methods that measure to GLI criteria have not yet been establ i s hed. EPA officials explained th at developin g EPA-approved method s can be a ti meconsuming and costly pr ocess. Table 1 shows the status of the methods for the nine BC Cs. 

# Progress Made in Developing Anal ytical Methods W i l l Ultimately Result in More Permits with BCC Discharge Limits

**Table 1: Status of BCC Analytical Methods**

**BCC Status of method t**  **o measure GLI water quality criteria** 

Chlor da ne Measures abo ve the G L I criterion

Diel drin Measures abo ve the G L I criterion

DDT Measures at the G L I crit erion but not yet app roved by EPA a

Hexach lor obe n z ene Measures abo ve the G L I criterion

Lind an e Measures bel o w the GLI criterion a nd ap prov ed by EPA
Mercury Measures bel o w the GLI criterion a nd ap prov ed by EPA

PCBs Measures abo ve the G L I criterion

2

, 3

, 7

, 8

- T C D D M e a s u r e s abo ve the GLI criterion

T o xaph ene Measures abo ve the G L I criterion

Sour ce: GAO an al ysi s of EP A i n f o r m ati o n

.

Page 4 Great L a kes In i tiativea An analytical me thod exi s ts f o r D D T; how eve r , th i s method does n o t measu r e this p o llutant at the GLI criterion le ve l. A more sen s itive method ha s be en developed but it is in draft and EPA has not yet
appro v ed it.



### As we reported in 20 05, i f pollutant c oncentratio ns can be m easured at o r below the le vel establish e d by GLI water qualit y criteria, enf o rceable permit limits can be established on t h e basis of t h ese criteria . The Great Lakes states’ experience with mercury illustrates the impact of sufficiently
sensitive measurement methods on iden tifying p o llutant discharges from point sources. Methods for measur ing mercury at low levels were generall y no t avail a ble u n til EPA issued a n e w analytical method in 1999 to

measure me rcury concentrations below the GLI water qualit y criterion o f 1.3 nan o gra m s per liter of water. This more sensitive method disclosed a more pervasive problem of high merc ury levels in the Great La kes Basin than previou sly recogniz ed and showed, for the fi rst time, that many facilities had mercury levels in their discharges t h at were ex ceedin g water quality criteria. Since thi s method wa s approved, the number of permits with discharge limits for mercury rose from 185 i n May 200 5 t o 292 i n November 2007. Moreov er, EPA and state official s are expecti n g this trend
to continue. As EPA offic i als explained, it may tak e up to two permit cycles—per mits are generally issued for 5-year p e riods—-to collect th e monitoring data needed to support the inclusion of discharge limits in permits. EPA officials are expe cting a similar rise in permits with discharge li mits for poly c hlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) when detection methods are approved.

Permit flexibilities often allow facilit ie s’ discharges to exceed GLI water quality criteria. These fl exibilities ca n take several forms, including the following:

• 

### Variance . Allows dischargers to exce ed the GLI d i scharge limit for a particular pollutant specified in thei r permit.

• 

### Compliance schedule . Allows dischargers a grace period of up to 5 years in complying with a permitted discharge li mit.

• 

### Pollutant Minimization Program (PMP). Sets fo rth a series of actions by the disch a rger to improve water q u ality when the pollutan t concentratio n cannot b e measured dow n to the water qualit y criterion. A PMP is often used in c onjunction with a variance. 

# Permit Flexibilities Allowing Discharges in Excess of GLI W a

ter Quality Standards Del a y Achi evement of GLI Goals

• 

### Mixing Zon e . Allows dischargers to use the areas around a f acility’s discharge pi pe where po llutants are mixed with cleaner re ce iving waters to dilute pollutan t concentrat ions. Within the mixing zone, concentratio ns of polluta nts are gene r ally allowe d to exc eed water quality criteria as long as standards are met at th e boundary of the

Page 5 Great L a kes In i tiative

### mixing zone. This flexibil ity expires i n November 201 0 with some limited exce ptions.

These flexib ilities are generally onl y availab l e to permit holders that operated bef o re March 23, 19 97, and are in effe ct for 5 years o r the length of the permit. 3 

### GLI allows states to grant such per m it flexibilities under
certain circu m stances, such as when the imposition of water quality
standards would result in substantia l and widespread econo mic and soci al impacts. Table 2 shows the number and type of BCC permit flexibilities being used a s of November 200 7 in th e Great Lake s Basin for mercury, PCBs, and dioxin, as well as BCC discharge limit s contained i n permits.

**Table 2: Number and Type of BCC Permit**  **Flexibilities U sed and BCC Discharge Limits in**  **Great Lakes B asin Permits** 

**I L**  **IN MI**  **MN NY**  **O H**  **P A**  **WI T**  **o t**  **al as o f** 

**No v. 2007** 

**Mercu ry** 

Varianc e 0 2 136 0 0 15 0 2 155

PMP 0 2 a 136 a 3 b c 25 d 0 31 e 197
Compl ianc e Sc hed ule 0 1 2 0 3 c 4 8 0 0 6 3
Mixing Z o n e 0 0 0 0 c 2 0 0 f 20
Mercury disch a r ge limits cont a ined i n perm i ts 0 1 6 136 4 4 9 83 0 4 292

**PCBs**

Varianc e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

P M P 0 0 0 1 c 0 0 0 1
Compl ianc e Sc hed ule 0 0 0 1 c 0 0 0 1
Mixing Z o n e 0 0 0 0 c 1 0 0 1

PCB disch arge limits contain e d in permits 0 2 7 1 39 1 0 0 5 0
**2,3,7,8-TCDD; Dioxin** 

Varianc e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

P M P 0 0 0 1 c 0 0 0 1
Compl ianc e Sc hed ule 0 0 0 1 c 0 0 0 1
Mixing Z o n e 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0

Dioxi n disch ar ge limits cont ai ned i n permits 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3

T o tal F lexibi liti e s Used a 0 1 6 272 10 c 1 0 9 0 33 440

3 Mixing zones a r e available for facilitie s that were discharging the pollutant or facilities that were under construction on t h e date tha t the GLI t o ok effect in that state.

Page 6 Great L a kes In i tiative**I L**  **IN MI**  **MN NY**  **O H**  **P A**  **WI T**  **o t**  **al as o f** 

**No v. 2007**  **BCC discharg e limits for mercury, PCB**  **s , and**  **diox in**  **c onta**  **i n**  **e d in**  **pe r**  **m its**  0 18 145 6 88 84 0 4 **345**

Sour ce: GAO an al ysi s of sta t e per m i t da ta.

a These PMPs a r e used a s a cond ition of a varian ce in a permit.

b These PMPs a r e associated with compliance sch edules.

c Currently, no va riances have bee n granted b y th e New York State Department of E n vironment a l Conse r vation (N YSDEC). How e ver, the dep artme n t was unable to determine the nu mber of pe rmitte d fac ilities that had other flex ibilities

, and the numbe r of flex ibilities us e d . Acc o rding to N Y SDEC, 51 fac ilities c ould use thes e per mit flex ibilities

.

d These 25 PMP s are u s ed a s both a condition of a va rian ce (1 5) an d associated with compliance sch edules (10).

e Two of th ese P M Ps are used as a condition of a vari an ce in a pe rmit. In general, Wiscon s in officials

are u s ing PMPs i n lieu of discha r g e limits to addre s s mercu r y.

f Wisconsin offi cials were u nable to provide d a ta on the number mi xing zone s u s ed fo r mercu r y.



### According t o EPA and state officials, in many cases, facilities cannot meet GLI water quality criteri a for a number of reason s, such as technology limitations, and the fl exi b ilities are i n tended to give the f acili ty time to make progress toward meeting th e GLI criteria. With the ex c e ption of compliance schedules, t h e GLI allows for the repeated use of these permit
flexibilities. 4 

### As a result, EPA and state officials c ould not tell us when the GLI criteria will be met.

In our 2005 report, we described seve ral factors that were un dermining EPA’s ability to ensure progress toward achieving consistent implementation of GLI water qualit y standards. To help ensur e full and consistent implementation of the GL I and to improve measures for monitoring progress toward achieving GLI’s go als, we made a number of
recommend ations to the EPA Admin i stra tor. EPA has taken some actions to implement the recommendations cont ained i n our 200 5 re port, as the following indicates: 

# EP A Has T a ken Some Actions to Ensure Consistent Implem entation of the GLI as Recom m ended in Our 2005 Report

• 

### Ensure th e GLI Clea rin g house is fu lly developed . We noted that EPA’s delayed development of the GLI Clearinghouse—a datab a se i n tended

4 The GLI does not provide a sunset date f or pe rm it flexibilitie s other than mi xing zones, which are set to expire in 201 0 with limi ted e x ceptions. Individual complia nce schedules
cannot be us ed for more tha n the 5-year peri od t h ey es tablis h; h o w ever, af ter the s c hedul es expire, facilitie s may use ot he r pe rmit flexibilities such as variances.

Page 7 Great L a kes In i tiative

### to assist the states in dev e loping c onsistent water quality crite r ia for toxic polluta nts—was preventing the st ates from using this resource. To assist Gr eat Lakes states in deve l oping water quality crite r ia for GLI pollutants, we recommended that EPA ensure that the GLI Clearinghou se was fully develop ed, maintained, and made a v a ilable to Great Lakes states. EPA launched th e GLI Clearinghouse on it s Web site in May 2 006 and in F e bruary 20 0 7 , EPA Regi on 5 provide d clearinghou se training t o states. The clearingho u s e currently contains criteria or to xicity infor m ation for 395 ch emical s. EPA officials told us that the cl earinghouse is now availabl e to the stat es so they can independent ly cal culate water qualit y criteria for GLI pollutants. EPA officials told us that some states, incl uding Ohio, Wisconsin, and Illinois, plan on updating their water quality stan dards in the near future and believe that t h e clearing house will benefit them as well as other states as they upd a t e their stan dards.

• 

### Gather and track infor m ation to asse ss the p r ogress of GL I implementa tion . In 2005, we reported that EPA’s efforts to assess progress in implementing the GLI an d its impact on reducing point source discharges hav e b een hamper ed by l ack o f information on these discharges. To improve EPA’s ability to measure progress, we recommended that EPA gather and track information on dis c hargers’ efforts to reduce pollut a nt loadings i n the basin. EPA has begun to review the efforts and progress made by one category of faci li ties— municipal wastewater treatment faci lities—to reduce their m e rcury discharges i n to the basi n. However, until EPA develops addit i onal sources of information, it will not have the inf o rmation need ed to adequat ely a ssess progre ss toward meeting GLI g o als.

• 

### Incr ease eff o rts to resol v e disagree ments w i th Wis c onsin . Although we found that the states had largel y completed ad option of GLI standards, EPA had not resolved long-standing issues with Wisconsin regarding ad option and i m plementati on of GLI provisions. To ensure the equit abl e and timely implementation of GLI by all the Great Lakes states, we recommended that that th e EPA Administrator direct EPA Region 5, w h ich is responsible for Wisconsin, to increase effo rts to resolve disa greements with the state over inconsi s tencies bet w een the state’s and t h e GLI’s provisions. Wisconsin offici als believe t h e GLI provisions are not explicitly supported by Wiscon sin law. Subsequentl y, EPA and Wisconsin officials have held discussions on this matter, and neither Wisconsin nor EPA officials believ e t h at these disagreements are significantly affect ing GLI implementation. However, they ha ve b e e n unable to completely r e solve these issues. We found that si milar issues have also surfaced with New York.

Page 8 Great L a kes In i tiative• 

### Issu e a per m itting stra tegy for mer c ury . Because we found that Great Lakes’ states had develop ed incons istent approac h es for meeting the GLI mercury criterion, in cluding diffe rences in th e use of v a riances, we recommended that EPA issue a permi tting strategy to ensure a more consistent approach. EP A disagr eed with this recommendation, asserting tha t a permitting strategy w ould not improve consistency. Instead, the agenc y conti nued to sup port state implementatio n efforts by dev e lopi ng guida n ce for PMPs, evaluating and determining compliance, and assessing what appr oaches are most effective in reducing mercury discharges by poin t sources. One such effo rt is EPA Region 5’s r eview of mercury PMP languag e in s t ate-issued p e rmits for
wastewater treatment facilities. This review resulted in recommendations to the states in May 20 07 to im prove the enforceabilit y and eff ecti veness of P M P provisio ns. However, additional efforts will be needed to en sure consistency at other types of facilities, such as indust r ial sites, acr oss the Great Lakes states.

In closing, Madam Chairwo m an and Members of the Subcom mittee, although pr ogress has been made wi th mercury detection an d increased knowledge of wastewater treatment fac ilities’ pollutant discharges to the Great Lakes, information is still lacki n g on the ful l extent of t h e problem that BCCs pose in the G r eat Lakes. As methods are developed to
determine whether facili ties’ dischar ges for other BCCs meet GLI criteria and EPA ap proves them, and as more permits include discharge limits,
more information will be avail a ble on pollutant di scharges in t h e basin. Even with these advances, however, ex tensive us e of permit flexibilities
could contin ue to undercut reduction s in pollution levels and the ultimate
achiev e ment of GLI’s goa l s.

This conclu des my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to

any qu estions that you or Members of the Subcom mittee may have at this
time.

Contact poi nts for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. For further information about this testimony, pl ease contact David Maurer at (202) 512-3 841 or maurerd@gao.gov . Ke y c ontributors to this testimony were Greg Carroll, Katheryn S u mmers Hubbe ll, Sherry L. McDonald, and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman. Other contributors included Jeanette So ares and Michele Fejf ar. 

# GAO Contacts

(360895) Page 9 Great L a kes In i tiativeT his is a work of the U.S. government a nd is not subject to copyrig h t prote c tion in the United States. T he pub lish ed prod uct may be r epro duce d a nd distri buted i n its entirety without further permissi on fro m G A O

. Ho we ver, becaus e this work may c ontai n copyrig h ted im ages or oth e r material, p e rmi ssion from the copyrig h t hol de r may be

necess a ry if you wish to repr o duce this mate rial sep a rate ly.

Page 1 0 Great Lakes In itiati ve

# GAO’ s Mission The Govern m ent Accountability Offi ce, the audit

, evalu a tion, and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the perfor mance and
account abili ty of the fed e ral government for the American people. GAO examines the use of pub lic funds; eval uates fed e ral programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and ot her assistance to hel p Congress make informed oversight, policy, and f unding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good go vernment is reflected in it s core values of
account abili ty, integrity, and reliabilit y.

The fastest a nd easiest way to obta i n copies of GAO documents at no cos t is through GAO’s Web site ( ww w.gao.gov ). Each weekday, G A O posts newly releas ed reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e- mail you a li st of newly posted products every af ternoon, go
to ww w.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The first copy of ea ch pri n ted report i s free. Additional copi es are $2 each

. A check or money order should be made out to the Superint endent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA a nd Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single addre ss are discounted 25 per cent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, DC 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 51 2-25 37 Fax: (202) 51 2-60 61

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/ f raudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov Automated answering system: ( 800) 424- 545 4 or (202) 51 2-74 70

Gloria Jarmon, Managin g Director, jarmong@gao.gov , (202) 512-4 400 U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce, 441 G Str eet NW, Roo m 7125 Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Youn g, Managing Director, yo ungc1@gao. g ov , (202) 5 12-48 00 U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce, 441 G Str eet NW, Roo m 7149 Washington, DC 20548 

# Obtaini n g C opi es of GAO R e ports and Te s t i m o n y

Order by Mail or Phone



# To R e p o r t F r a u d

, W a ste, and Abus e in Federal Programs

Congressional Relations

Public Affairs

**PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER**