The ability to accurately and reliably measure pollutant concentrations is vital to successfully implementing GLI water quality criteria. Without this ability, it is difficult for states to determine if a facility’s discharge is exceeding GLI water quality criteria and if a discharge limits are required. For example, because chlordane has a water quality criterion of 0.25 nanograms per liter but can only be measured down to a level of 14 nanograms per liter, it cannot always be determined if the pollutant is exceeding the criterion. As we reported in 2005, developing the analytical methods needed to measure pollutants at the GLI water quality criteria level is a significant challenge to fully achieving GLI goals. Although methods have been developed for the nine BCCs for which GLI water quality criteria have been established, EPA has only approved the methods to measure mercury and lindane below GLI’s stringent criteria levels. Analytical methods for the other BCCs either have not received EPA approval or cannot be used to reliably measure to GLI criteria levels. Once EPA approves an analytical method, Great Lakes states are able to issue point source permits that require facilities to use that method unless the EPA region has approved an alternative procedure. According to EPA officials, specific time frames for developing and approving methods that measure to GLI criteria have not yet been established. EPA officials explained that developing EPA-approved methods can be a time- consuming and costly process. Table 1 shows the status of the methods for the nine BCCs. As we reported in 2005, if pollutant concentrations can be measured at or below the level established by GLI water quality criteria, enforceable permit limits can be established on the basis of these criteria. The Great Lakes states’ experience with mercury illustrates the impact of sufficiently sensitive measurement methods on identifying pollutant discharges from point sources. Methods for measuring mercury at low levels were generally not available until EPA issued a new analytical method in 1999 to measure mercury concentrations below the GLI water quality criterion of 1.3 nanograms per liter of water. This more sensitive method disclosed a more pervasive problem of high mercury levels in the Great Lakes Basin than previously recognized and showed, for the first time, that many facilities had mercury levels in their discharges that were exceeding water quality criteria. Since this method was approved, the number of permits with discharge limits for mercury rose from 185 in May 2005 to 292 in November 2007. Moreover, EPA and state officials are expecting this trend to continue. As EPA officials explained, it may take up to two permit cycles—permits are generally issued for 5-year periods—-to collect the monitoring data needed to support the inclusion of discharge limits in permits. EPA officials are expecting a similar rise in permits with discharge limits for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) when detection methods are approved. Permit flexibilities often allow facilities’ discharges to exceed GLI water quality criteria. These flexibilities can take several forms, including the following: Variance. Allows dischargers to exceed the GLI discharge limit for a particular pollutant specified in their permit. Compliance schedule. Allows dischargers a grace period of up to 5 years in complying with a permitted discharge limit. Pollutant Minimization Program (PMP). Sets forth a series of actions by the discharger to improve water quality when the pollutant concentration cannot be measured down to the water quality criterion. A PMP is often used in conjunction with a variance. Mixing Zone. Allows dischargers to use the areas around a facility’s discharge pipe where pollutants are mixed with cleaner receiving waters to dilute pollutant concentrations. Within the mixing zone, concentrations of pollutants are generally allowed to exceed water quality criteria as long as standards are met at the boundary of the mixing zone. This flexibility expires in November 2010 with some limited exceptions. These flexibilities are generally only available to permit holders that operated before March 23, 1997, and are in effect for 5 years or the length of the permit. GLI allows states to grant such permit flexibilities under certain circumstances, such as when the imposition of water quality standards would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impacts. Table 2 shows the number and type of BCC permit flexibilities being used as of November 2007 in the Great Lakes Basin for mercury, PCBs, and dioxin, as well as BCC discharge limits contained in permits. According to EPA and state officials, in many cases, facilities cannot meet GLI water quality criteria for a number of reasons, such as technology limitations, and the flexibilities are intended to give the facility time to make progress toward meeting the GLI criteria. With the exception of compliance schedules, the GLI allows for the repeated use of these permit flexibilities. As a result, EPA and state officials could not tell us when the GLI criteria will be met. In our 2005 report, we described several factors that were undermining EPA’s ability to ensure progress toward achieving consistent implementation of GLI water quality standards. To help ensure full and consistent implementation of the GLI and to improve measures for monitoring progress toward achieving GLI’s goals, we made a number of recommendations to the EPA Administrator. EPA has taken some actions to implement the recommendations contained in our 2005 report, as the following indicates: Ensure the GLI Clearinghouse is fully developed. We noted that EPA’s delayed development of the GLI Clearinghouse—a database intended to assist the states in developing consistent water quality criteria for toxic pollutants—was preventing the states from using this resource. To assist Great Lakes states in developing water quality criteria for GLI pollutants, we recommended that EPA ensure that the GLI Clearinghouse was fully developed, maintained, and made available to Great Lakes states. EPA launched the GLI Clearinghouse on its Web site in May 2006 and in February 2007, EPA Region 5 provided clearinghouse training to states. The clearinghouse currently contains criteria or toxicity information for 395 chemicals. EPA officials told us that the clearinghouse is now available to the states so they can independently calculate water quality criteria for GLI pollutants. EPA officials told us that some states, including Ohio, Wisconsin, and Illinois, plan on updating their water quality standards in the near future and believe that the clearinghouse will benefit them as well as other states as they update their standards. Gather and track information to assess the progress of GLI implementation. In 2005, we reported that EPA’s efforts to assess progress in implementing the GLI and its impact on reducing point source discharges have been hampered by lack of information on these discharges. To improve EPA’s ability to measure progress, we recommended that EPA gather and track information on dischargers’ efforts to reduce pollutant loadings in the basin. EPA has begun to review the efforts and progress made by one category of facilities— municipal wastewater treatment facilities—to reduce their mercury discharges into the basin. However, until EPA develops additional sources of information, it will not have the information needed to adequately assess progress toward meeting GLI goals. Increase efforts to resolve disagreements with Wisconsin. Although we found that the states had largely completed adoption of GLI standards, EPA had not resolved long-standing issues with Wisconsin regarding adoption and implementation of GLI provisions. To ensure the equitable and timely implementation of GLI by all the Great Lakes states, we recommended that that the EPA Administrator direct EPA Region 5, which is responsible for Wisconsin, to increase efforts to resolve disagreements with the state over inconsistencies between the state’s and the GLI’s provisions. Wisconsin officials believe the GLI provisions are not explicitly supported by Wisconsin law. Subsequently, EPA and Wisconsin officials have held discussions on this matter, and neither Wisconsin nor EPA officials believe that these disagreements are significantly affecting GLI implementation. However, they have been unable to completely resolve these issues. We found that similar issues have also surfaced with New York. Issue a permitting strategy for mercury. Because we found that Great Lakes’ states had developed inconsistent approaches for meeting the GLI mercury criterion, including differences in the use of variances, we recommended that EPA issue a permitting strategy to ensure a more consistent approach. EPA disagreed with this recommendation, asserting that a permitting strategy would not improve consistency. Instead, the agency continued to support state implementation efforts by developing guidance for PMPs, evaluating and determining compliance, and assessing what approaches are most effective in reducing mercury discharges by point sources. One such effort is EPA Region 5’s review of mercury PMP language in state-issued permits for wastewater treatment facilities. This review resulted in recommendations to the states in May 2007 to improve the enforceability and effectiveness of PMP provisions. However, additional efforts will be needed to ensure consistency at other types of facilities, such as industrial sites, across the Great Lakes states. In closing, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, although progress has been made with mercury detection and increased knowledge of wastewater treatment facilities’ pollutant discharges to the Great Lakes, information is still lacking on the full extent of the problem that BCCs pose in the Great Lakes. As methods are developed to determine whether facilities’ discharges for other BCCs meet GLI criteria and EPA approves them, and as more permits include discharge limits, more information will be available on pollutant discharges in the basin. Even with these advances, however, extensive use of permit flexibilities could continue to undercut reductions in pollution levels and the ultimate achievement of GLI’s goals. This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have at this time. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. For further information about this testimony, please contact David Maurer at (202) 512-3841 or maurerd@gao.gov. Key contributors to this testimony were Greg Carroll, Katheryn Summers Hubbell, Sherry L. McDonald, and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman.