This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-829 
entitled 'Great Lakes Initiative: EPA Needs to Better Ensure the 
Complete and Consistent Implementation of Water Quality Standards' 
which was released on August 26, 2005. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

July 2005: 

Great Lakes Initiative: 

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

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-829]

GAO Highlights: 

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

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The virtual elimination of toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes is a 
goal shared by the United States and Canada. While some progress has 
been made, pollution levels remain unacceptably high. The Great Lakes 
Initiative (GLI) requires stringent water quality standards for many 
pollutants in discharges regulated by states administering National 
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit programs. 

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

What GAO Found: 

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

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

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

Great Lakes Basin Area in the United States and Canada: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

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

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

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

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact John Stephenson at (202) 
512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Great Lakes Initiative Has Limited Potential to Impact Overall Water 
Quality: 

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

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

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

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

Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

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

Table 2: State GLI Provisions Disapproved by EPA: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Area Comprising the Great Lakes Basin: 

Figure 2: Number of Facilities with NPDES Permits in the Great Lakes 
Basin by County: 

Figure 3: Illustration of Point and Nonpoint Sources of Pollution: 

Figure 4: Minnesota Mercury Emissions: 

Abbreviations: 

BCC: bioaccumulative chemicals of concern: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

GLI: Great Lakes Initiative: 

GLWQA: Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: 

NPDES: National Pollution Discharge Elimination System: 

PCS: Permit Compliance System: 

PMP: pollutant minimization program: 

PCB: polychlorinated biphenyl: 

POTW: publicly owned treatment works: 

TMDL: total maximum daily load: 

TRI: Toxics Release Inventory: 

WET: whole effluent toxicity: 

Letter July 27, 2005: 

Congressional Requesters: 

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

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

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

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

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

Results in Brief: 

GLI has limited potential to improve overall water quality in the Great 
Lakes Basin because it focuses primarily on point sources of pollution 
regulated by state NPDES programs rather than nonpoint sources, such as 
air deposition and agricultural runoff, which are a greater source of 
pollution. While the importance of nonpoint sources of pollution was 
mentioned in GLI, they were not specifically addressed. GLI's ability 
to impact overall water quality is further limited because under 
certain circumstances it lets states use flexible implementation 
procedures, such as variances, when issuing permits for facilities, 
allowing them to discharge pollutants at levels exceeding stringent GLI 
water quality standards. Thus, while mercury is the only BCC with a 
significant number of permit limits established as a result of GLI, the 
discharger is often allowed to exceed mercury water quality standards 
in GLI because states have granted them variances, limiting GLI's 
ability to impact water quality. GLI's incremental impact is also 
limited by the fact that many of the BCCs regulated by GLI had already 
been previously restricted or banned by EPA. For example, certain 
pesticides targeted by GLI were banned in the 1970s and 1980s. 
Consequently, many of these chemicals are not present or are present 
only at low levels in Great Lakes point source discharges. While these 
factors limit GLI's incremental ability to impact overall water quality 
in the Great Lakes, its effective implementation is still important 
because the virtual elimination of toxic pollutants remains a goal and 
controls on point source discharges are still needed to meet this goal. 

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

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

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

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

Background: 

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

Figure 1: Area Comprising the Great Lakes Basin: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

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

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

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

To further control toxic substances in the United States, efforts on 
the GLI began in the late 1980s to establish a consistent level of 
environmental protection for the Great Lakes ecosystem, particularly in 
the area of state water quality standards and NPDES programs for 
controlling point sources of pollution. As authorized by the Clean 
Water Act, the NPDES permit program controls water pollution by 
regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into U.S. surface 
waters. Under NPDES, all facilities that discharge pollutants from any 
point source into U.S. waters are required to obtain a permit that 
provides two levels of control: (1) technology based limits (discharge 
limits attainable under current technologies for treating water 
pollution) and (2) water quality-based effluent limits (based on state 
water quality standards). Point sources are discrete conveyances such 
as pipes or constructed ditches. Individual homes that are connected to 
a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface 
discharge, do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, 
and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go 
directly to surface waters. As of May 2005, there were nearly 5,000 
facilities in the Great Lakes Basin that had NPDES permits, and over 
500 of these were considered major facilities.[Footnote 2]

Figure 2: Number of Facilities with NPDES Permits in the Great Lakes 
Basin by County: 

[See PDF for image] 

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

[End of figure] 

In 1989, the Council of Great Lakes Governors agreed to join EPA in 
developing GLI because it supported the goal of consistent regulations 
among the Great Lakes states. The effort to develop GLI was under way 
when Congress amended the Clean Water Act with the passage of the Great 
Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990. This act required EPA to publish 
by June 1992, final water quality guidance for the Great Lakes System 
that conformed to the objectives and provisions of the GLWQA. It 
further required the states to adopt water quality standards, 
antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures consistent with 
the guidance no later than 2 years after it was published. If the 
states failed to adopt such water quality standards, policies, and 
procedures consistent with the guidance, EPA was to promulgate them not 
later than the end of the 2-year period. In making such a 
determination, EPA reviewed the states water quality standards, 
antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures for consistency 
with the guidance. 

To control toxic substances and protect aquatic life, wildlife, and 
human health, GLI sets forth water quality criteria for 29 toxic 
substances, such as PCBs, mercury, dioxin, and chlordane. These 
criteria include standards for 9 of 22 BCCs. GLI also contains detailed 
methodologies for developing criteria for additional pollutants and 
implementation procedures for developing more consistent, enforceable 
water quality-based effluent limits in discharge permits for point 
sources of pollution. The most common of the 22 BCCs currently being 
discharged from point sources in the Great Lakes Basin is mercury. 
Because mercury can be highly toxic and travel great distances in the 
atmosphere, it has long been recognized to have a wide range of 
detrimental effects for ecosystems and human health. When mercury is 
deposited within a water body, microorganisms can transform it into a 
very toxic substance known as methyl mercury. Methyl mercury tends to 
remain dissolved in water and can bioaccumulate in the tissues of fish 
to concentrations much higher than in the surrounding water. The 
primary way people are exposed to mercury is by eating fish containing 
methyl mercury. Poisoning can result from eating fish contaminated with 
bioaccumulated methyl mercury, which is dangerous to certain adults, 
children, and developing fetuses. 

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

Great Lakes Initiative Has Limited Potential to Impact Overall Water 
Quality: 

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

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

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

Figure 3: Illustration of Point and Nonpoint Sources of Pollution: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

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

Figure 4: Minnesota Mercury Emissions: 

[See PDF for image] 

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

[End of figure] 

While the focus of GLI is on point sources, the importance of 
controlling nonpoint sources of pollution to improve overall water 
quality in the Great Lakes is recognized in GLI guidance. The guidance 
states that once GLI is implemented by the states, water quality 
criteria for pollutants and other provisions that are included in the 
guidance would be applied to nonpoint sources. However, according to 
the guidance, to be implemented, nonpoint source provisions would need 
to be enforced through the states' own regulatory programs. GLI also 
promotes the use of total maximum daily loads (TMDL) as the best 
approach for equitably addressing both point and nonpoint 
sources.[Footnote 5] TMDLs for the Great Lakes are also addressed in 
the Great Lakes Strategy 2002, which was developed by the U.S. Policy 
Committee for the Great Lakes.[Footnote 6] The strategy has an 
objective that TMDLs for each of the Great Lakes and impaired 
tributaries will be completed by 2013; but according to EPA officials, 
TMDLs for BCCs have not been established for any of the Great Lakes, 
and only two TMDLs for BCCs have been completed for tributaries. 

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

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

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

Mercury; 
Illinois: 0; 
Indiana: 20; 
Michigan: 83; 
Minnesota: 2; 
New York: 37; 
Ohio: 43; 
Pennsylvania: 0; 
Wisconsin: 0; 
Total: 185. 

PCBs; 
Illinois: 0; 
Indiana: 1; 
Michigan: 10; 
Minnesota: 1; 
New York: 10; 
Ohio: 3[A]; 
Pennsylvania: 0; 
Wisconsin: 0; 
Total: 25. 

Dioxin; 
Illinois: 0; 
Indiana: 0; 
Michigan: 2; 
Minnesota: 1; 
New York: 0; 
Ohio: 0; 
Pennsylvania: 0; 
Wisconsin: 0; 
Total: 3. 

Lindane; 
Illinois: 0; 
Indiana: 0; 
Michigan: 2; 
Minnesota: 0; 
New York: 2; 
Ohio: 0; 
Pennsylvania: 0; 
Wisconsin: 0; 
Total: 4. 

Hexachlorobenzene; 
Illinois: 0; 
Indiana: 0; 
Michigan: 2; 
Minnesota: 0; 
New York: 4; 
Ohio: 0; 
Pennsylvania: 0; 
Wisconsin: 0; 
Total: 6. 

Hexachlorobutadiene; 
Illinois: 0; 
Indiana: 0; 
Michigan: 2; 
Minnesota: 0; 
New York: 3; 
Ohio: 0; 
Pennsylvania: 0; 
Wisconsin: 0; 
Total: 5. 

Other; 
Illinois: 0; 
Indiana: 0; 
Michigan: 2; 
Minnesota: 0; 
New York: 16; 
Ohio: 0; 
Pennsylvania: 0; 
Wisconsin: 0; 
Total: 18. 

Total; 
Illinois: 0; 
Indiana: 21; 
Michigan: 103; 
Minnesota: 4; 
New York: 72; 
Ohio: 46; 
Pennsylvania: 0; 
Wisconsin: 0; 
Total: 246. 

Great Lakes Basin Permitted Facilities; 
Illinois: 12; 
Indiana: 150; 
Michigan: 1753; 
Minnesota: 89; 
New York: 1275; 
Ohio: 1041; 
Pennsylvania: 84; 
Wisconsin: 319; 
Total: 4723. 

Sources: GAO and state NPDES program officials. 

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

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

[End of table]

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

While the preceding factors limit GLI's potential to improve overall 
water quality in the Great Lakes, its effective implementation is still 
important because the virtual elimination of toxic pollutants in the 
Great Lakes Basin remains a goal for the United States and Canada. 
Controlling point source pollution is still needed to meet this 
objective. Although point source discharges of toxic pollutants are not 
as widespread as nonpoint sources, point source discharges may create 
localized "hot spots" of elevated concentrations of BCCs. These areas 
can have potentially adverse effects on aquatic life, wildlife, and 
humans. For example, while the major sources of mercury are nonpoint 
sources, it is still the most prevalent BCC found in point source 
discharges overall in the Great Lakes, and heavy concentrations of 
mercury in these hot spots may result in its bioaccumulation in fish to 
levels that are dangerous to both humans and wildlife that consume 
them. Achieving GLI's objective to have consistent water quality 
standards for controlling point sources of toxic pollutants may prove 
difficult, however, because of flexible implementation procedures that 
allow discharge of pollutants at levels greater than GLI water quality 
standards. 

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

Many NPDES permits for facilities in the Great Lakes Basin allow the 
discharge of mercury at levels greater than the GLI water quality 
standard. Flexible implementation procedures such as variances are 
widely used to allow dischargers to exceed the strict GLI mercury water 
quality standard of 1.3 nanograms per liter of water (ng/L). GLI allows 
states to grant variances for complying with the mercury and other 
water quality standards under certain circumstances, such as if the 
imposition of water quality standards would result in substantial and 
widespread harmful economic and social impact. Variances are applicable 
only to the permit holder requesting the variance for up to 5 years and 
are only available for dischargers that were in existence as of March 
23, 1997.[Footnote 8] New facilities are not eligible for variances and 
must comply with the water quality standard for mercury established 
under GLI. Officials in two states--Minnesota and Michigan--expressed 
concerns that new industrial facilities that discharge mercury may not 
locate in the state because of their inability to comply with the 
mercury standard. 

The use of variances for mercury became a more critical concern when 
new methods to measure the pollutant were approved by EPA in 1999, 
allowing mercury to be measured at a quantification level of 0.5 ng/L, 
below the GLI water quality standard of 1.3 ng/L.[Footnote 9] This 
method was 400 times more sensitive than the one previously used by EPA 
and allowed the very low GLI limits to be quantified for the first 
time, causing potentially widespread problems for Great Lakes Basin 
dischargers that discovered for the first time that they were exceeding 
the mercury water quality criteria, according to state NPDES program 
officials. Using the more sensitive method, many more facilities were 
found to have levels of mercury in their effluent that exceeded water 
quality standards. State and EPA officials also determined that no 
economically feasible treatment technologies existed to reduce mercury 
to the lower level, and states were unwilling to issue permits that 
placed facilities in noncompliance. Michigan officials stated that they 
knew of only one permitted facility that was able to comply with the 
lower standard. As a result, states issued variances under their GLI 
regulations that provide for the most efficient short-term relief to 
"ubiquitous" pollutants, and EPA encouraged states to consider 
variances for multiple dischargers on a watershed basis, where 
appropriate.[Footnote 10]EPA wanted to provide the states appropriate 
flexibility in adopting and implementing GLI's requirements, while also 
maintaining a minimum level of consistency. To facilitate granting 
variances for numerous facilities exceeding the mercury standard, three 
states--Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan--adopted procedures that expedited 
and simplified the variance application and granting process. 

While variances are widely used under GLI, mixing zones and compliance 
schedules are also options that states may use under GLI. Mixing zones 
are areas around a facility's discharge pipe where pollutants are mixed 
with cleaner receiving waters to dilute their concentration. Within the 
mixing zone, concentrations of toxic pollutants, such as mercury, are 
generally allowed to exceed water quality criteria as long as standards 
are met at the boundary of the mixing zone. Several Great Lakes states 
no longer allow the use of mixing zones for BCCs in their permits, and 
GLI authorization for their use by all existing BCC dischargers expires 
in November 2010.[Footnote 11] Mixing zones, as with variances, are not 
authorized for new dischargers. Compliance schedules are another option 
and grant dischargers a grace period of up to 5 years before they must 
comply with certain new or more restrictive permit limits. Similar to 
mixing zones, compliance schedules are also not available to new 
dischargers in the Great Lakes Basin and are only available for 
existing permits reissued or modified on or after March 23, 1997. 
According to state officials, Minnesota uses compliance schedules for 
existing dischargers to issue permits for facilities that have mercury 
levels above GLI water quality criteria. These schedules extend no 
later than March 2007, and then the GLI water quality standard of 1.3 
ng/L must be met, unless a variance is granted, according to a state 
official. 

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

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

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

GLI provisions have generally been incorporated into state regulations 
and NPDES programs, but this did not occur within the statutory time 
frame; and, as a result, two lawsuits were filed against EPA to 
implement the requirements of the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 
1990. This act, which amended the Clean Water Act, required the Great 
Lakes states to adopt standards, policies, and procedures consistent 
with GLI within 2 years of its publication. The act further required 
EPA to issue GLI standards by the end of that 2-year period for any 
state that had failed to do so. EPA, however, did not issue GLI 
standards by the required date for those states that had failed to 
develop standards. Consequently, in July 1997, the National Wildlife 
Federation filed a lawsuit to force EPA to take action. In response, 
EPA negotiated a consent decree providing that it must make GLI 
provisions effective in any state that failed to make a submission by 
February 1998. EPA was never forced to take action, however, because 
all of the Great Lakes states adopted GLI standards into their 
regulations and submitted them to EPA for approval by the February 
deadline. For example, in July 1997, Michigan modified its 
administrative rules for water quality standards and added implementing 
procedures to the state's administrative rules. Other states adopted 
GLI into their regulations for the Great Lakes Basin area of their 
states, and they later adopted aspects of the GLI provisions, or all of 
them, for the entire state. For example, according to state officials, 
when GLI was originally adopted by Ohio, most of its provisions only 
applied to the Lake Erie Basin, but in 2002, Ohio adopted GLI aquatic 
life criteria statewide. Further, Ohio applied GLI criteria for human 
health only to the Lake Erie Basin and based human health criteria for 
the remainder of the state on EPA national guidance. However, according 
to Ohio environmental officials, the two health criteria have been 
converging since the adoption of GLI. 

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

Unresolved Matters Affecting Full GLI Adoption Remain in Several Great 
Lakes States: 

While EPA determined that all the Great Lakes states had generally 
adopted requirements consistent with GLI, it disapproved certain 
elements of six states' submissions as less protective than GLI. EPA 
promulgated final rules applying the relevant GLI provisions to the 
disapproved elements. For example, EPA disapproved four states' rules 
relating to determining the need for permit limits on the aggregate 
toxicity of facility's discharge--termed whole effluent toxicity (WET) 
reasonable potential. EPA disapproved certain elements of the state 
rules because they were deemed inconsistent with GLI provisions. In 
determining whether the states adopted policies, procedures, and 
standards consistent with GLI, EPA evaluated whether the states' 
provisions provided at least as stringent a level of environmental 
protection as the corresponding provisions of the guidance. In 12 
instances, EPA determined that state provisions were not as stringent 
or were absent. EPA then promulgated final rules specifying which state 
provisions it was disapproving as being inconsistent with GLI and 
applying the relevant GLI provisions. If the state later adopted 
requirements that EPA approved as being consistent with the GLI 
provisions, then EPA indicated that it would amend its regulations so 
that they would no longer apply for the state. 

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

Table 2: State GLI Provisions Disapproved by EPA: 

Illinois; 
TMDL development. 

Indiana; 
WET reasonable potential. 
Criteria for granting variances. 
Inclusion of discharge limits in permits with a pending variance 
application. 

Michigan; 
WET reasonable potential. 

New York; 
Chronic aquatic life criteria. 
Mercury wildlife criterion. 

Ohio; 
WET reasonable potential. 

Wisconsin; 
WET reasonable potential. 
Consideration of intake pollutants in establishing discharge limits. 
Aquatic life criteria for copper and nickel; chronic aquatic life 
criteria for endrin and selenium. 
TMDL development. 

Source: EPA. 

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

[End of table]

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

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

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

However, EPA determined that Wisconsin's procedures allow pollutant 
discharges at background levels, regardless of whether the pollutant 
originated from the same body of water, a different body of water, or 
the facility generated the pollutant itself. Further, EPA found that 
the state's procedures would allow granting of a permit without 
discharge limits in situations where one would be required by GLI. EPA 
therefore determined that the state's procedure was inconsistent with 
GLI because it would allow facilities to discharge pollutants that were 
not previously in the water body at levels greater than the applicable 
water quality criteria, which EPA believed was inconsistent with the 
fundamental principles of GLI permitting procedures. Although the 
procedures were disapproved, state officials continue to disagree with 
EPA's determination. The disagreement has remained unresolved since 
2000, and EPA's rule applying the GLI provisions to Wisconsin have not 
been followed by the state. EPA Region 5 officials stated that they 
have had some contacts with the Wisconsin officials, but these contacts 
have not resulted in resolving the differences. 

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

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

While GLI has provided benefits, developing the ability to measure 
pollutants at GLI water quality criteria levels remains a challenge to 
fully achieving GLI goals in the Great Lakes Basin. Several GLI 
pollutants cannot be measured near their water quality criteria, and 
without this ability it is difficult to determine whether a discharge 
limit is needed and to assess compliance. For example, if a pollutant 
has a water quality criteria of 4 ng/L but can only be measured at 40 
ng/L, it cannot be determined if the pollutant is exceeding the 
criteria unless it is at or above the measurement level, which is about 
10 times greater than the criteria level. Therefore, the ability to 
accurately and reliably measure pollutant concentrations is vital to 
the successful implementation of GLI water quality standards. Michigan 
and Ohio officials identified 23 GLI pollutants where the water quality 
criteria is lower than the level at which the pollutant's concentration 
in water can be reliably measured. In addition, for Ohio, 11 of the 22 
BCCs that are the central focus of GLI cannot be measured to the level 
of their water quality criteria. These include two of the more 
prevalent BCCs--PCBs and dioxin. Currently, using EPA approved methods, 
PCBs can be detected only at levels around 65,000 times greater than 
the levels established by their water quality criteria. Minnesota 
officials stated that, if methods existed to measure PCBs at low 
levels, it might be revealed that PCBs are as much of a problem as 
mercury. At the time GLI was developed, it was envisioned that more 
sensitive analytical methods would eventually be developed to allow 
measurement of pollutant concentrations at or below the level 
established by GLI water quality criteria, which would allow for the 
implementation of enforceable permit limits based on GLI criteria. 
Until this could be realized, EPA provided a provision in GLI requiring 
dischargers to implement a pollutant minimization program (PMP) to 
increase the likelihood that the discharger is reducing all potential 
sources of a pollutant to get as close as possible to the water quality 
criteria. A PMP sets forth a series of actions by the discharger to 
improve water quality when the pollutant concentration cannot be 
measured down to the water quality criteria. 

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

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

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

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

EPA Has Not Developed the Mercury Permitting Strategy Envisioned in 
GLI: 

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

In lieu of a formal strategy, EPA participated in meetings with state 
officials and has approved mercury permitting strategies submitted by 
some of the Great Lakes states. However, in the absence of an EPA 
strategy on implementing water quality standards for mercury, most of 
the Great Lakes states developed their own approaches to ensuring that 
facilities meet the water quality criteria established in GLI, but 
these approaches have been inconsistent and create the potential for 
states to have different mercury discharge requirements. A major goal 
of GLI was to ensure that water quality standards of Great Lakes states 
were consistent within this shared ecosystem, however, the mercury 
permitting approaches adopted by the Great Lakes states contained 
different requirements for mercury. For example, limits in Ohio were 
set at 12 ng/L based on state standards existing before adoption of 
GLI, and limits established in Michigan were initially set at 30 ng/L 
primarily based on data from the state of Maine. EPA officials stated 
that while disparities exist, the overall limits are being lowered. 

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

Conversely, Ohio's mercury strategy requires dischargers to apply for a 
variance and submit detailed studies and action plans to identify and 
eliminate known sources of mercury. According to state officials, 
Ohio's mercury permitting strategy allows dischargers to operate for 19 
months using the new mercury measurement method to determine their 
discharge levels and evaluate whether they are able to comply with the 
water quality standard. If the discharger can comply with the GLI water 
quality standard, then the limit is included in their permit. If the 
discharger cannot comply they may request a variance. A variance 
establishes a monthly permit limit, based on the level currently 
achievable for that individual facility, and includes a required PMP. 
An annual permit limit of 12 ng/L is included as an annual discharge 
requirement for all facilities with a variance. According to state 
officials, Indiana's NPDES permits for major facilities may contain 
monitoring requirements for mercury, and some will contain effluent 
limits that must be achieved after a 3 to 5 year compliance schedule. 
Additionally, Indiana developed a streamlined mercury variance rule. 
This rule establishes a process for dischargers to obtain temporary 
effluent limits, based on the level of mercury currently in their 
effluent, and requires dischargers to develop and implement a PMP in 
conjunction with a mercury variance. 

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

EPA's Delayed Introduction of the GLI Clearinghouse Limited the 
Development of Consistent Water Quality Standards: 

To promote a more consistent and shared approach to developing water 
quality standards among the Great Lakes states, EPA stated in GLI that 
Region 5 would develop a GLI Clearinghouse. As envisioned in GLI, this 
Clearinghouse would be a database containing all the information on the 
criteria and data used by the Great Lakes states in developing water 
quality standards. The Clearinghouse was to be developed in cooperation 
with EPA Headquarters, Regions 2 and 3, and the Great Lakes states. As 
envisioned, data included in the Clearinghouse could be quickly shared 
between the states to assist them in developing or updating numeric 
water quality criteria for toxic chemicals for aquatic life, wildlife, 
and human health. It could also be used to share data on any new 
pollutants that might be designated a BCC. When EPA developed GLI, it 
assumed that more chemicals would emerge as BCCs in the future and 
require development of additional water quality standards. GLI allows 
the Great Lakes states to designate additional chemicals for BCC 
controls without EPA sponsoring a public review and comment process. 
EPA was concerned that inconsistencies could arise among states when 
they identified future BCCs and believed the Clearinghouse would 
minimize this possibility. As envisioned in GLI, EPA Region 5 would 
operate the Clearinghouse, and if new information indicated a pollutant 
was a potential BCC, this information would be reviewed by EPA and the 
states and placed in the Clearinghouse to alert all the other Great 
Lakes states. Once alerted, states could then notify the public of any 
revisions to their water quality standards or permit requirements. 

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

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

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

EPA Region 5 officials attempted to use PCS to estimate the trends of 
point source loadings for specific pollutants in the Great Lakes Basin, 
but frequent errors occurred because of system limitations. These 
errors resulted from missing or inaccurate data, which distorted a 
clear estimate of pollutant loadings by facilities. For example, 
discharge quantities for some pollutants were reported as zero in some 
instances when they do not require monitoring, resulting in lower 
estimated total discharges. In addition, PCS data are primarily for 
major facilities, so calculated pollutant loadings do not reflect the 
sizeable universe of minor facilities. Inconsistencies in PCS also 
occur from the way state discharge monitoring report data are entered 
into the system. Because of these data limitations, EPA's attempt to 
identify trends in point source loadings did not produce firm 
conclusions, rather, it produced only speculation as to why actual 
loadings increased or decreased in certain states. In addition, loading 
data that compared the years 1999 through 2000 to the years 2000 
through 2001 was considered too short a time frame for comparative 
analysis since most of the permits had not been modified or reissued to 
reflect the new GLI standards during these time periods. Further 
hampering this effort was a lack of baseline data for loadings before 
GLI, which prevented comparisons between pollutant loadings before and 
after GLI implementation. The overall limitations of PCS to support the 
NPDES program were first recognized by EPA as an agency weakness in 
1999. While EPA has attempted to modernize the system, the costs and 
time to complete the project have escalated significantly, as reported 
by the EPA Office of Inspector General.[Footnote 15] As of June 2005, 
the modernization project had not been completed. 

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

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

Finally, EPA is not gathering information on how the implementation of 
PMPs or other GLI provisions is reducing pollutant discharges in the 
basin. EPA officials in Region 5 stated that GLI was intended to make 
the standards and goals of the Great Lakes states more consistent and 
implementing an elaborate monitoring scheme was not its intent. Without 
some type of monitoring, however, it is difficult to determine whether 
the standards and goals are having the desired environmental effect and 
whether GLI is being implemented consistently. This is particularly 
important because the use of flexible implementation procedures, such 
as variances and PMPs, adds uncertainty as to when facilities' 
discharge levels will ultimately attain GLI water quality standards. 
For PMPs, EPA Region 5 and the states cooperatively developed mercury 
PMP guidance for POTWs.[Footnote 17] This guidance was finalized in 
November 2004 and provides information on what elements should be in 
PMPs, including reporting of progress by the facility to the state in 
achieving PMP goals. The reported information, however, is not reviewed 
by EPA, and, therefore, the agency cannot determine what overall 
progress is being achieved. When EPA reviews a state-issued permit 
under a compliance review the agency checks only to see if PMP 
requirements are recorded appropriately in the permits and it does not 
determine if progress is being made to reduce pollutants under PMPs. 
EPA Region 5 officials stated that they could get a better 
understanding of GLI implementation if PMP data were collected and 
analyzed. Region 5 has not yet initiated a regional review process for 
these programs, but it will be developing a strategy to do so in its 
NPDES Program Branch. This strategy would involve working with the 
states on review criteria and compliance determination issues. Region 5 
officials stated that their efforts are for the six states in their 
region. They do not have responsibility to gather information on PMPs 
or other activities regarding GLI implementation for New York or 
Pennsylvania, which are in EPA regions 2 and 3, respectively. 

Conclusions: 

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

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To better ensure the full and consistent implementation of the Great 
Lakes Initiative and improve measures for monitoring progress toward 
achieving GLI's goals, we are recommending that the EPA Administrator 
direct EPA Region 5, in coordination with Regions 2 and 3, to take the 
following three actions: 

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

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

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

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

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

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed by: 

John B. Stephenson: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

List of Congressional Requesters: 

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

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

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

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

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

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

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

[End of section]

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

Chemical: Chlordane; 
Purpose: Pesticide; 
Status: Uses banned. 

Chemical: 4,4'-DDD; p,p'-DDD; 4,4'-TDE; 
Purpose: Pesticide; 
Status: Uses banned. 

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

Chemical: 4,4'-DDT; 
p,p'-DDT; 
Purpose: Pesticide; 
Status: Uses banned. 

Chemical: Dieldrin; 
Purpose: Pesticide for crops like cotton and corn; 
Status: Uses banned. 

Chemical: Hexachlorobenzene; 
Purpose: Pesticide, fireworks, synthetic rubber; 
Status: No longer used commercially. 

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

Chemical: Hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCH); benzene hexachlorides or BHCs; 
Purpose: Insecticide; 
Status: No longer produced or used in the United States. 

Chemical: alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane; alpha-BHC; 
Purpose: One of eight chemical forms that comprise technical grade HCH; 
Status: No longer produced in the United States. 

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

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

Chemical: gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane; gamma BHC or Lindane; 
Purpose: Insecticide on fruit and vegetable crops. Still used as a 
treatment for lice; 
Status: Not produced in the United States since 1977, but is still 
imported to the United States. 

Chemical: Mercury; 
Purpose: Metallic mercury to produce chlorine gas and caustic soda and 
used in thermometers, dental fillings, and batteries; 
Status: Still in use. 

Chemical: Mirex; 
Purpose: Control of fire ants; flame retardant in plastics, rubber, 
paint, paper and electrical goods; 
Status: No longer manufactured or used. 

Chemical: Octachlorostyrene; 
Purpose: Not available; 
Status: Chemical by-product--not deliberately manufactured. 

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

Chemical: Pentachlorobenzene; 
Purpose: Used to make pentachloronitrobenzene, a fungicide and used as 
a; fire retardant; 
Status: Still in use. 

Chemical: Photomirex; 
Purpose: Created from the decomposition of mirex when exposed to 
sunlight; 
Status: Chemical by-product--not deliberately manufactured. 

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

Chemical: 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene; 
Purpose: Used as a dielectric fluid and as an organic intermediate; 
Status: Still in use. 

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

Chemical: Toxaphene; 
Purpose: Insecticide primarily used on agricultural crops and livestock 
and to kill unwanted fish in lakes; 
Status: Banned. 

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

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: 
OFFICE OF WATER: 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460:

JUL 19 2005:

Mr. John B. Stephenson: 
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report Great Lakes Initiative: EPA 
Needs to Better Ensure the Complete and Consistent Implementation of 
Water Quality Standards (Report). This letter provides EPA's comments 
and perspectives on the Report, and characterizes how we would address 
each of its recommendations.

I am particularly concerned, however, that the Report fails to 
effectively consider the significant results of the Great Lakes 
Initiative (GLI) which include:

* The GLI has advanced the science of surface water protection (e.g., 
wildlife criteria, bioaccumulation factors) resulting in more 
scientifically rigorous and consistent water quality criteria and 
implementation procedures across the Great Lakes states.

* The GLI Tier 2 methods allow States and Tribes to control hundreds of 
pollutants that would not otherwise have been regulated because of the 
lack of data to derive criteria. 

* The GLI, for the first time, established a consistent and 
scientifically sound method to derive point source pen-nit limits for 
mixtures of toxicants.

As the Report recognizes, many of the Great Lakes water quality 
problems are due to nonpoint sources, including air deposition. The GLI 
stems from the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act (GLCPA) and the Clean 
Water Act (CWA). Since neither the CWA nor the GLCPA authorize EPA to 
develop and implement permitting programs for nonpoint source 
discharges, it was never expected that the GLI would address those 
sources of pollution. Instead, it was recognized that states would need 
to continue to rely on their own authorities to regulate these sources 
to achieve water quality standards.

The benefit of the point source implementation procedures in the Great 
Lakes System is not fully recognized in the Report. Point source 
contributions of pollutants to the Great Lakes have been reduced over 
the years. The implementation procedures of the GLI lock in this 
progress. Part of the purpose of the GLI was to reduce inconsistencies 
between states and to fonnalize these requirements in regulations to 
ensure a level playing field for all Great Lakes states and to prevent 
erosion of this progress.

Another conclusion of the Report is that an undue level of 
inconsistency remains among the states in implementing GLI, 
particularly for mercury. EPA acknowledges there are some differences 
in mercury requirements for individual facilities, but does not believe 
the differences amount to an unacceptable level of inconsistency. Some 
differences in mercury limits result from the normal development and 
derivation of applicable effluent limits. However, even when variances 
are factored in, EPA believes the different state approaches result in 
very similar effluent limits. Finally, I would emphasize that the 
relief mechanisms (e.g., variances, compliance schedules, and mixing 
zones for bioaccumulative pollutants) discussed in the Report are 
temporary. The purpose of these relief mechanisms was to allow time for 
transitioning to more stringent post-GLI requirements.

The Report notes that EPA has not assessed the effectiveness of 
Pollutant Minimization Programs (PMPs) in reducing mercury loadings. 
EPA acknowledges the recent focus on the guidance for PMP development 
to ensure consistency in the structure and content of these programs. 
EPA Region 5 will develop a regional review process for these programs. 
Region 5 has also gathered baseline data and will track the effects of 
PUT implementation on mercury levels in biosolids and effluents.

EPA Responses to GAO's Recommendations:

The need for a mercury permitting strategy. In developing the GLI, EPA 
noted a range for mercury criteria in state water quality standards 
from 500 to 2400 parts per trillion (ppt). After GLI, all states across 
the basin have wildlife criteria of 1.3 ppt (three orders of magnitude 
lower than the previous criteria). Although there are some minor 
differences among mercury criteria for human health and aquatic life, 
the level of protection is the same across states. EPA believes there 
is a high level of consistency in mercury criteria among the Great 
Lakes states.

GAO focuses on differences among permit limits that are derived from 
water quality standard variances, noting that limits based on variances 
may range from 12-30 ppt, a difference of 18 ppt. If limits were 
derived directly from the pre-GLI criteria, they would range from 500 
to 2400 ppt (or greater if a state used mixing zones and dilution pre- 
GLI). Thus, EPA regards the post-GLI range to be significantly smaller 
than the pre-GLI range. EPA believes that even with variances, states 
will have very similar mercury controls. At least four of the states 
establish a process for setting variance-based limits based on a lowest 
achievable concentration that will be within a few parts per trillion 
of each other. They also require PMPs to move permittees towards the 
water quality based effluent limits that would apply in the absence of 
a variance. The activities needed to reduce mercury loadings to and 
from publicly owned treatment works will be essentially the same across 
the region, regardless of the calculated lowest achievable 
concentration. EPA believes that a permitting strategy would not be 
effective in improving the consistency of mercury permit limits.

Rather than focusing on a permitting strategy, Region 5 states have 
requested assistance and support for implementation efforts, such as 
evaluating and determining compliance with PMPs, and assessing the most 
effective approaches for reducing mercury loadings by point source 
dischargers. EPA will continue to work with the states on these 
matters, and to provide oversight regarding proper implementation of 
mercury requirements in state-issued permits.

The need to ensure the GLI Clearinghouse is fully developed, 
maintained, and made available to the states. EPA agrees that the 
Clearinghouse has a vital role to play in GLI implementation. All eight 
states currently have access to the information in the Clearinghouse. 
EPA Region 5 periodically updates the states and EPA Regions 2 and 3 on 
revisions to the Clearinghouse and requests input from them, where 
necessary. The Clearinghouse currently has Tier 1 criteria for almost 
60 pollutants and Tier 2 criteria for almost 200 chemicals. In early 
2005, EPA Region 5 and all eight Great Lakes states agreed to an 
approach for jointly populating and maintaining the Clearinghouse. EPA 
is currently updating the information in the Clearinghouse and is 
making minor revisions to its structure. After all eight states review 
the Clearinghouse content for accuracy and thoroughness, the 
Clearinghouse will be functional.

The need to gather and track information that can be used to assess the 
progress of implementing the GLI and the impact it has on reducing 
pollutant discharges from point sources in the Great Lakes Basin. EPA 
agrees this is an important goal. With respect to mercury, we will be 
working with the states to develop PMP oversight tools, and will be 
tracking pen-nit issuance with mercury requirements, as well as 
effluent and biosolids data regarding trends in mercury levels. As we 
develop these tools and approaches, we agree that additional 
quantitative measures of progress should be considered.

In addition, we recommend that the EPA Administrator direct EPA Region 
S to increase efforts to resolve the disagreements with the state of 
Wisconsin over implementation of provisions that EPA found inconsistent 
with the GLI to ensure the equitable and timely implementation of GLI 
among all the Great Lakes states. Region 5 is working with Wisconsin to 
resolve the outstanding issues. The Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources (WDNR) is developing a rule package to correct the errors in 
aquatic life criteria for four pollutants. WDNR is evaluating its whole 
effluent toxicity reasonable potential procedures to detennine what 
changes are necessary to assure the procedures are at least as 
protective as EPA's procedures. Region 5 will work with WDNR to resolve 
requirements for intake credits; to date we do not believe that these 
have had a practical effect on permit determinations in Wisconsin.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this Report. I hope you will 
consider these comments as you prepare the final report. If you have 
any questions or would like additional information, please do not 
hesitate to contact me or Ms. Jo Lynn Traub, Director of Region 5's 
Water Division at (312) 353-2147.

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Benjamin H. Grumbles: 
Assistant Administrator:

[End of section]

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

John Stephenson (202) 512-3841 ([Hyperlink, stephensonj@gao.gov]: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

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

(360515): 

FOOTNOTES

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

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

[3] 60 Fed. Reg. 15366 (Mar. 23, 1995). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: