TD223.3
.ut4 OOOR82002
1982 D/ THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
Report To The Congress
OF THE UNITED STATES
A More Comprehensive Approach Is Needed
To Clean Up The Great Lakes
Despite spending millions of dollars on water
pollution control, the United States isf inding
it difficult to meet the comprehensive objec-
tives of its Great Lakes Water Quality Agree-
ment with Canada. Although the lakes are
cleaner, the United States is not fully meet-
ing its agreement commitments.
GAO is recommending that the Congress
and the Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator take steps to improve U.S.
efforts to clean up the Great Lakes and meet
water quality agreement commitments.
CED-82-63
MAY 21,1982
-------
Request for copies of GAO reports should be
sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
Document Handling and Information
Services Facility
P.O. Box 6015
Gaithersburg, Md. 20760
Telephone (202) 275-6241
The first five copies of individual reports are
free jf charge. Additional copies of bound
audit reports are $3.25 each. Additional
copies of unbound report (i.e., letter reports)
and most other publications are $1.00 each.
There will be a 25% discount on all orders for
100 or more copies mailed to a single address.
Sales orders must be prepaid on a cash, check,
or money order basis. Check should be made
out to the "Superintendent of Documents".
-------
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON D.C. 20648
B-203850
To the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives
The U.S.-Canadian Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement has
resulted in cleaner water in the lakes, but serious pollution
problems remain. Furthermore, the United States is having dif-
ficulty meeting its commitments under the agreement. This
report discusses ways the Congress and the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency can help to meet U.S. commitments and accomplish
objectives of the water quality agreement.
In a 1975 report we stated that the United States needed
to make a greater commitment to support Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement objectives. In 1978 the United States and
Canada entered into a new, more comprehensive agreement which
required a substantial commitment by the United States. We made
this review to determine whether the United States is meeting
the objectives of the water quality agreement.
We are sending copies of this report to the Director,
Office of Management and Budget; the Administrator, Environ-
mental Protection Agency; the Secretaries of State, Agriculture,
and Commerce; interested congressional committees; Members of
Congress; the International Joint Commission; the Governors of
affected States; and other interested parties.
Comptroller General
of the United States
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GLNPO Library Collection (PL-UJ*
77 West Jackson Boulevard,.
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S A MORE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS IS NEEDED TO CLEAN UP THE
GREAT LAKES
DIGEST
The United States and Canada have an agreement
to develop and implement programs and other
measures to protect the water quality of the
Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement has comprehensive objectives to im-
prove Great Lakes water quality and requires a
substantial U.S. commitment. GAO found that,
although the lakes are cleaner, the United
States is finding it difficult to meet agree-
ment commitments and that to do so will
require greater focus and direction of exist-
ing efforts.
U.S. efforts have been hampered by the
(1) lack of effective overall strategies for
dealing with Great Lakes water quality prob-
lems, (2) lack of knowledge about the extent
of pollution problems and the impact of con-
trol programs, and (3) need for improved man-
agement of Great Lakes pollution cleanup
activities.
GAO made this review to determine if the
United States is meeting the objectives of
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
because (1) a 1975 GAO report showed the
United States needed to make a greater com-
mitment to support water quality agreement
objectives and (2) the new 1978 agreement
is very comprehensive and requires a sub-
stantial United States commitment.
In the United States, both Federal and State
agencies are responsible for Great Lakes
cleanup efforts. The Department of State
and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
are the two Federal agencies most involved
with the water quality agreement. GAO's
review was necessarily confined to U.S.
Great Lakes water quality efforts. Canadian
efforts referred to herein are based on reports
published primarily by the International Joint
Commission—the permanent U.S.-Canadian body
responsible for advising both Governments on
Great Lakes water pollution matters.
Tear Sheet CED-82-63
MAY 21.1982
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION SOURCES
The agreement goal of December 31, 1982, for
adequate treatment of all municipal sewage
discharges to the lakes will not be met. For
example, 31 percent of the municipal discharg-
ers on Lake Erie and 32 percent of those on
Lake Ontario will not be under control until
sometime after 1982. Furthermore, according
to the International Joint Commission, only
64 percent of the sewered population in the
U.S. portion of the Great Lakes Basin was
receiving adequate treatment, compared with
99 percent of the Canadian sewered population.
Reasons cited for not meeting the agreement
goal include unrealistic timetables for con-
structing facilities, problems in obtaining
and using Federal grant funds, and lack of
municipal officials' support for construction
activities. Budget reductions also could set
back the already extended dates for completing
municipal projects in the Great Lakes Basin.
(See pp. 10 to 13.)
Discharges from combined sewers (sewers that
carry municipal wastewater along with storm
runoff) continue to be a major source of pol-
lution to the lakes, but little funding has
been directed to controlling these discharges.
Of 51 specific problem areas on the Great
Lakes, 20 had serious combined sewer over-
flows. Structural solutions to controlling
combined sewer problems are costly—$8 billion
according to one EPA estimate. But unless
combined sewer overflows are controlled,
existing municipal sewage treatment programs
will not be fully effective. (See pp. 14
and 15.)
PHOSPHORUS CONTROL
Phosphorus contamination—a prime factor in
lake eutrophication (aging)—is a major prob-
lem facing the Great Lakes, particularly Lakes
Erie and Ontario. Phosphorus inputs to the
lakes from municipal treatment plants are
being reduced. However, about 41 major U.S.
treatment plants may not meet the agreement's
phosphorus limitations because of plant equip-
ment availability problems and/or operational
difficulties. (See pp. 15 to 19.)
11
-------
Efforts to control phosphorus pollution from
other sources, such as high-phosphate house-
hold detergents, have been controversial.
Research to resolve uncertciinty about the
nature and extent of overall phosphorus
controls may not be undertc.ken because a
coordinated Great Lakes research program
does not exist. (See pp. }9 to 26.)
TOXIC POLLUTION
The U. S.-Canadian agreement}, recognized the
extent of toxic pollution o^f the lakes and
red
II
-------
Specific U.S. monitoring efforts have been
hampered by a lack of funds. In addition, the
International Joint Commission has yet to en-
dorse the Great Lakes International Surveil-
lance Plan, advocated by the agreement as the
basic model for monitoring activities in the
Great Lakes Basin. The Commission is not sure
whether the plan is effective and can be imple-
mented. (See pp. 37 to 42.)
-------
Efforts to control phosphorus pollution from
other sources, such as high-phosphate house-
hold detergents, have been controversial.
Research to resolve uncertainty about the
nature and extent of overall phosphorus
controls may not be undertaken because a
coordinated Great Lakes research program
does not exist. (See pp. 19 to 26.)
TOXIC POLLUTION
The U.S.-Canadian agreement recognized the
extent of toxic pollution of the lakes and
required the two Governments to meet specific
toxic control objectives. However, the prob-
lem has yet to be addressed comprehensively.
Information is lacking about the nature,
extent, and source of toxic pollution, and
the activities necessary to provide the infor-
mation have been limited. Also, U.S. toxic
control programs are very new and their effec-
tiveness is not known. (See pp. 33 to 37.)
NONPOINT POLLUTION SOURCES
In some areas, nonpoint (diffused) sources,
such as agricultural, forestry, and urban
runoff, deposit the major portion of pollu-
tants entering the lakes. However, State and
areawide plans to address nonpoint pollution
problems have not been comprehensive and may
not be completed. Federal funding for new
planning has been cut off. Projects to con-
trol nonpoint pollution have not been exten-
sive, and implementation of control mechanisms
developed are site specific.
Without more attention to nonpoint sources and
a coordinated strategy and plan for dealing
with them, the Great Lakes water quality objec-
tives may not be achieved even if all other
sources of pollution are completely controlled
or eliminated. (See pp. 26 to 33.)
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Accurate, reliable data describing existing
water quality conditions and trends, how pol-
lution occurs, and the effect of eliminating
sources of pollution is essential to control
efforts. But current water quality monitoring
is not providing the data needed to address
questions about toxic, nonpoint, and phosphorus
* pollution problems.
Tear Sheet
iii
-------
Specific U.S. monitoring efforts have been
hampered by a lack of funds. In addition, the
International Joint Commission has yet to en-
dorse the Great Lakes International Surveil-
lance Plan, advocated by the agreement as the
basic model for monitoring activities in the
Great Lakes Basin. The Commission is not sure
whether the plan is effective and can be imple-
mented. (See pp. 37 to 42.)
EPA's RESPONSIBILITIES
EPA has broad responsibilities for carrying
out programs and activities to implement
agreement objectives and coordinating the
Great Lakes activities of many Federal and
State agencies. EPA's Great Lakes National
Program Office has been frustrated in its
efforts to ensure that U.S. agreement commit-
ments are met because it does not have the
visibility, authority, or resources needed
to meet its responsibilities. (See pp. 53
to 59.)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CONGRESS
GAO recommends that the Congress, in consul-
tation with the Secretary of State and the
Administrator, EPA, determine whether (1) the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement objectives
and commitments are overly ambitious and
(2) sufficient funding to meet agreement
objectives and commitments can be provided,
given current economic and budgetary condi-
tions. GAO also recommends that the Congress
pass legislation currently pending to estab-
lish a Great Lakes research office in the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion to coordinate and carry out needed
research activities. (See p. 43.)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO EPA
GAO recommends that the EPA Administrator
(1) develop a comprehensive plan and strategy
to address phosphorus, nonpoint, and toxic
pollution problems in the Great Lakes and
(2) elevate the Great Lakes National Program
Office within EPA and give it the authority
and resources necessary to direct the Federal
Government's Great Lakes water quality activi-
ties. GAO also makes other recommendations
to improve Great Lakes water quality activi-
ties. (See pp. 43, 44, and 59.)
IV
-------
AGENCY COMMENTS
EPA, the Departments of State and Agriculture,
and the U.S. Section of the International
Joint Commission provided comments on this
report. Although the agencies generally agreed
that Great Lakes water quality activities are
complex, involve a number of Federal, State and
local agencies, and are comprehensive, they
provided additional comments and clarifications
on specific items. None of the agencies com-
mented on GAO's recommendation to the Congress
on agreement objectives and funding.
EPA stated that GAO had failed to acknowledge
(1) the comprehensiveness of the Great Lakes
agreement's phosphorus objectives and (2) the
numerous Federal and State efforts taken to
meet agreement terms. Also, although EPA
strongly supports more effective coordination
of Great Lakes research activities, it is con-
cerned that the pending legislation endorsed by
GAO will fragment EPA's established mechanisms
for addressing Great Lakes problems. Further-
more, EPA had serious reservations about GAO's
water quality monitoring discussion and did
not believe the National Program Office needs
to be elevated within EPA to exercise more au-
thority over Great Lakes water quality programs,
GAO has not understated the comprehensive
nature of the water quality agreement or the
U.S. efforts to meet agreement objectives.
GAO believes that:
—Its discussion of phosphorus objectives is
comprehensive and demonstrates that the
objectives have yet to be met.
—So far EPA has not developed a coordinated
Great Lakes research program and has not
funded important research activities.
—Problems with water quality monitoring will
hinder identifying pollution sources and
levels, developing control strategies, and
evaluating control measures.
Appendixes IX to XII contain the agencies'
comments and GAO's responses.
Tear Sheet
-------
Page
DIGEST i
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Importance of the Great Lakes 1
Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 1
U.S. and Canadian Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreements 3
Primary agencies involved in
Great Lakes cleanup 4
Objectives, scope, and methodology 5
2 U.S. GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
OBJECTIVES ARE NOT BEING FULLY MET 10
Controlling municipal pollution sources
continues to lag behind schedule 10
Sewage treatment goals will not
be met 11
Limited progress in controlling
combined sewer discharges 14
Phosphorus is not being completely
controlled and control efforts may not
be properly focused 15
Discharge limits not being met 16
Detergent phosphate bans are contro-
versial 19
Need to resolve uncertainties about
lake phosphorus inputs and target
loads 20
Nonpoint pollution sources have received
little attention 26
Nonpoint sources may contribute
most to Great Lakes pollution 26
Nonpoint control efforts have been
slow and resources devoted minimal 28
Toxic pollution—potentially the
greatest problem 33
Emphasis on toxics is relatively
new 33
Nature, extent, and source of
toxics are undefined 34
Effectiveness of control
efforts unknown 36
Effective water quality monitoring
activities have not been developed
and implemented 37
Importance of monitoring recog-
nized in water quality agree-
ment 37
-------
CHAPTER Page
Existing Great Lakes monitoring
activities have been constrained
and criticized 38
Questions raised about proposed
monitoring plan 40
Conclusions 42
Recommendations to the Congress 43
Recommendations to the Administrator, EPA 43
Agency comments and our evaluation 44
3 EPA SHOULD GIVE GREATER ORGANIZATIONAL
VISIBILITY TO ITS GREAT LAKES ACTIVITIES 53
Great Lakes responsibilities are broad
and complex 53
Problems limit EPA efforts to meet agree-
ment objectives 54
Great Lakes responsibilities are
handled at a low organizational
level 54
Lack of authority frustrates GLNPO's
ability to carry out responsibil-
ities 55
Funding problems limit Great Lakes
activities 58
Conclusions 58
Recommendations to the Administrator,
EPA 59
Agency comments and our evaluation 59
APPENDIX
I Selected Federal environmental legisla-
lation and agencies affecting the Great
Lakes 61
II Selected and annotated bibliography of
GAO reports involving water quality
issues in the United States 70
III Estimated construction completion dates
for major U.S. municipal treatment
plants—lower Great Lakes 74
IV Great Lake Basin funding for municipal
sewage treatment plants 75
V Additional uncertainties about Great
Lakes phosphorus controls 76
VI Federal grant outlays for pollution
control programs and activities in the
Great Lakes Basin, 1978-80 80
-------
APPENDIX
VII
VIII
IX
XI
XII
Significant tributary sampling locations
Interrelationship of major Federal and State
agencies involved in carrying out Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement objectives
Letter from the Acting Associate Administrator
for Policy and Resource Management,
Environmental Protection Agency
Letter from the Comptroller, Department
of State
Letter from the Secretary of Agriculture
Letter from the Secretary, United States
Section, International Joint Commission
Page
81
82
83
100
102
106
EPA
GAO
GLISP
GLNPO
IJC
NOAA
mg/i
ABBREVIATIONS
Environmental Protection Agency
General Accounting Office
Great Lakes International Surveillance Plan
Great Lakes National Program Office
International Joint Commission
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
milligrams per liter
-------
GLOSSARY
Combined sewer
Detergent
Effluent
Effluent
limitations
Eutrophication
Nonpoint sources
Phosphorus
Point sources
A sewer that carries both wastewater and
storm water to a treatment plant. During
a storm, only part of the flow is inter-
cepted, and the remainder goes directly
into the receiving stream untreated.
Synthetic, water-soluble or liquid, sur-
face active agents used in washing. To the
extent that they are not biodegradable,
they create a long-term pollution problem.
The wastewater discharged by an industry
or municipality.
Restrictions established by a State or EPA
on quantities, rates, and concentrations
of chemical, physical, biological, and
other constituents discharged from point
sources.
The normally slow aging process by which
a lake evolves into marsh and ultimately
becomes completely filled with debris
and disappears. It is caused by an excess
of dissolved nutrients—for example, nitro-
gen and phosphorus. Untreated wastes
(pollution) greatly accelerate the aging
process.
Sources of pollution that are difficult to
pinpoint and measure. Common examples in-
clude runoff from agriculture and forest
lands, runoff from mining and construction,
and storm runoff from urban areas.
An essential element and nutrient for all
life forms present in wastewater.
Specific sources of pollution that can be
readily identified, such as factories and
sewage treatment plants.
Toxic substance
A substance that either directly poisons
living things or alters their environment so
that they die. Examples are cyanides found
in plating and steel mill wastes, phenols
from coke and chemical operations, pesti-
cides and herbicides, and heavy metal salts.
Another group includes sulfides, produced by
oil refineries, smelters, and chemical plants
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The Great Lakes have been viewed as a virtually inexhaustible
supply of high-quality water. But intensifying water and land
use coupled with various forms of municipal and industrial pollu-
tion has resulted in a continuing degradation of the lakes. To
protect this vast and valuable natural resource, the United States
and Canada have entered into a series of treaties and agreements.
IMPORTANCE OF THE GREAT LAKES
The United States and Canada share the Great Lakes—Erie,
Huron, Michigan, Ontario, and Superior (see map on p. 2)—and the
connecting channels which form the Earth's largest freshwater lake
system. The lakes contain about 20 percent of the world's fresh
surface water and over 95 percent of the U.S. fresh surface water
supply for the contiguous 48 States.
The Great Lakes Basin--that part of North America drained by
the five lakes, their tributaries and connectors, and the inter-
national section of the St. Lawrence River—includes all of Mich-
igan and parts of Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the Province of Ontario. The basin
constitutes one of North America's most important regions. It
contains about 50 percent of Canada's total population and nearly
20 percent of the total U.S. population. The basin supports eco-
nomic activity that accounts for 60 percent of the annual national
income for Canada and 25 percent for the United States. Thus, the
abundant water resources of the Great Lakes must be protected.
BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY OF 1909
The Great Lakes are unique in that virtually all lake activi-
ties require a cooperative effort by both the United States and
Canada. Consequently, both countries must work together to ensure
the continued cleanup of the lakes.
The basic U.S.-Canadian agreement covering the Great Lakes
is the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, which was to prevent and
settle disputes over the use of boundary waters including, but
not limited to, the Great Lakes. The treaty provides that boun-
dary waters and waters flowing across the boundary are not to be
polluted on either side to the point of injuring human health or
the property of the other country.
To carry out the purposes of the treaty, the International
Joint Commission (IJC) was established. The IJC, a permanent body
made up of three members from each country, is responsible for:
—Approving or disapproving applications from the govern-
ments, companies, or individuals for the use, obstruction,
or diversion of boundary waters.
-------
-------
—Investigating any differences arising between the two
governments involving the rights, obligations, interests,
and inhabitants of the other along the boundary. These
investigations are called references and are referred to
IJC by the two Governments.
—Monitoring compliance with^the terms and conditions set
forth in its approval of applications and, when requested
by the Governments, monitoring and coordinating actions or
programs it has recommendect •
Responding to requests by the! U.S. and Canadian Governments
between 1909 and 1970, IJC made three major studies on Great Lakes
water pollution. One study, made from 1964 to 1970, examined
water pollution in Lakes Erie and Ontario (the lower lakes) and
the international section of the St. Lawrence River. This IJC
study recommended that common water quality objectives be estab-
lished for the Great Lakes and that the United States and Canada
agree on the programs and measures needed to achieve these objec-
tives. IJC further recommended that its powers be expanded to
include coordinating and monitoring efforts to implement inter-
national agreements reached. These recommendations led to the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972.
U.S. AND CANADIAN GREAT LAKES
WATER QUALITY AGREEMENTS
The first Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the
United States and Canada was signed April 15, 1972, by the Presi-
dent and the Prime Minister. The agreement was to provide a
basis for more effective cooperation to restore and enhance Great
Lakes water quality. The initial emphasis under the 1972 agree-
ment was to find solutions to the more obvious water quality prob-
lems. Accordingly, high priority was given to implementing
effective industrial and municipal wastewater treatment, includ-
ing phosphorus removal.
In November 1978, the Governments reaffirmed their determina-
tion to clean up the Great Lakes by entering into a new agreement.
Like its predecessor, the new agreement established both general
and specific water quality objectives for Great Lakes waters. The
specific objectives were, however, far more comprehensive and
stringent than those established in 1972. The 1978 agreement
recognized that water quality depends on the interacting compo-
nents of air, land, water, and living organisms and therefore more
comprehensively addressed the remedial programs and measures to
be developed by the Governments and committed them to specific
actions to meet the objectives.
Each Government agreed to develop and implement programs
and other measures to control, abate, and prevent pollution from
seven specific sources or activities: (1) municipalities,
(2) industries, (3) agriculture, forestry, and other land uses,
(4) shipping, (5) dredging, (6) onshore and offshore facilities,
-------
and (7) airborne contaminants. The Governments also agreed to
develop and implement programs and measures to reduce and control
inputs of phosphorus to the lakes, minimize or eliminate the
release of hazardous substances, and eliminate all discharges of
persistent toxic substances. Further, the agreement requires a
coordinated surveillance and monitoring program which, when suc-
cessfully implemented, would (1) assess compliance with pollution
control requirements and achievement of agreement objectives,
(2) provide information for measuring lake response to control
measures, and (3) identify emerging problems.
The 1978 agreement remains in force for a period of 5 years
and thereafter, until terminated by one of the Governments.
Article 10 of the agreement requires the Governments to conduct
a comprehensive review of the operation and effectiveness of the
agreement following the third biennial report of the IJC due in
1986. Therefore, the Governments may not be assessing the agree-
ment until then.
PRIMARY AGENCIES INVOLVED
IN GREAT LAKES CLEANUP
In the United States, both Federal and State agencies are
responsible for Great Lakes cleanup efforts. The Department of
State and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the two
Federal agencies most involved with the water quality agreement.
The Department's Office of Canadian Affairs was primarily respon-
sible for negotiating the agreement and now works with EPA to
maintain open communication with Canada and IJC concerning
agreement implementation. EPA is the prime U.S. agency respon-
sible for actually implementing the agreement. EPA implements
programs and measures through existing Federal legislation, pri-
marily through the Clean Water Act, as amended, although numerous
other legislative authorities governing clean air, toxic sub-
stances control, and resource conservation and recovery play
important roles. Also, Great Lakes agreement activities are not
generally separately funded under domestic law.
To fulfill its responsibilities under the agreement, EPA
created the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO). This
office, located within EPA1s region V office, acts as the focal
point to plan, coordinate, and oversee cleanup efforts by EPA
divisions, other Federal agencies, and the Great Lakes States.
Other Federal agencies which directly support activities related
to the agreement include the Departments of Agriculture, Com-
merce, Defense, the Interior, and Transportation. As with other
U.S. pollution control efforts, the States are responsible for
implementing control programs under EPA's direction. Appendix I
lists selected U.S. agencies, departments, and organizations
and U.S. laws affecting Great Lakes activities.
-------
The chart below shows the primary agencies, departments, and
organizations involved with activities covered by the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement in both Canada and the United States. It
also shows that the efforts of all these groups should be coordi-
nated with the IJC.
CANADIAN PROVINCES
Ontario
CANADIAN AGENCIES
Department of the Environment:
Atmospheric Environment Service
Environmental Management Service
Environmental Protection Service
Department of Agriculture:
Food Production and Marketing Branch
Research Branch
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources
Department of External Affairs
Department of Public Works
Department of Transportation
INTERNATIONAL
JOINT COMMISSION
IJC Commissioners and Staff
Great Lakes Water Quality Board
Great Lakes Science Advisory Board
Windsor Regional Office
IJC Committees/Subcommittees/
Special Task Forces
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Agriculture-
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service
Farmers Home Administration
Forest Service
Science and Education Administration
Soil Conservation Service
Department of Commerce.
Maritime Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Department of Defense:
Army Corps of Engineers
Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of State
Department of Transportation.
Coast Guard
St. Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation
Council On Environmental Quality
Great Lakes Basin Commission a I
Great Lakes Commission
Water Resource Council
_a/The commission was abolished effective Sept. 30, 1981.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
On March 21, 1975, we issued a report entitled "Cleaning Up
the Great Lakes: United States and Canada Are Making Progress in
Controlling Pollution from Cities and Towns" (RED-75-338). We
reported that both nations had made substantial progress in con-
trolling pollution from municipal sources, but the United States
needed to make a greater commitment to support other agreement
provisions. Since our 1975 report, the United States and Canada
have entered into a new Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
-------
Because over 6 years have passed since our report and because the
United States and Canada have entered into a new agreement, we
believed that a followup study of Great Lakes pollution control
efforts would be useful to the Congress, EPA, and the Department
of State in assessing U.S. progress in meeting agreement commit-
ments with Canada.
The objectives of our review were to
—evaluate whether substantial progress is being made in
controlling pollution from municipal sources since our
last report in 1975,
—determine how well the United States is meeting other
agreement provisions,
—evaluate whether EPA is fulfilling its lead agency
responsibility for implementing the programs and other
measures necessary to achieve agreement objectives, and
—determine whether IJC is fulfilling its advisory role
required under the latest agreement.
We did not review the entire 1978 water quality agreement
because of the time and resources that would have been required
to comprehensively evaluate the numerous provisions. Rather, to
meet our objectives, we focused on several key areas of the agree-
ment—the control of municipal wastewater and phosphorus dis-
charges, nonpoint (diffused) pollutants, toxic substances, and
surveillance and monitoring efforts. We selected these areas
because (1) the construction of municipal wastewater treatment
plants has been slow despite the substantial Federal investment
in these plants, (2) the control of phosphorus, particularly in
the two lower lakes (Erie and Ontario), was identified in the
1972 and 1978 agreements as being of high importance, (3) the
1978 agreement recognized that nonpoint pollution was a major
problem, (4) the control of toxics and other hazardous polluting
substances was identified in the 1978 agreement as being needed,
and (5) the need for comprehensive surveillance and monitoring
to provide the management data needed for decisionmaking with
respect to Great Lakes activities was an important require-
ment in both agreements.
We performed our review during the period February to
October 1981 at the following principal locations:
—EPA headquarters, Washington, D.C.; EPA's region V office
and the Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago,
Illinois; EPA's Large Lakes Research Station, Grosse
lie, Michigan; and EPA's Environmental Research Labora-
tory, Duluth, Minnesota.
—IJC headquarters, Washington, D.C.; and the Great Lakes
IJC regional office, Windsor, Ontario.
-------
--Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service and
the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service)
headquarters, Washington, D.C.
—The Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
—The Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing,
Michigan.
—The New York Department of Environmental Conservation,
Albany, New York.
—The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus,
Ohio.
—U.S. Department of State headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Our review was performed in accordance with our "Standards for
Audit of Governmental Organizations, Programs, Activities, and
Functions."
We made an extensive literature and legislative search to
identify the major U.S. Federal agencies and laws affecting the
water quality agreements. (See app. I.) We also researched our
reports and studies dealing with water quality issues and prob-
lems Federal agencies have experienced in meeting legislated
objectives for water quality. Appendix II is a selected and
annotated bibliography of our reports involving water quality
issues in the United States.
To evaluate EPA region V activities related to the water
quality agreements, we interviewed the current and former
regional administrators, the director and individual staff mem-
bers in the Great Lakes National Program Office, and other
regional officials responsible for specific programs needed to
meet water quality agreement objectives. To determine the extent
of EPA's efforts to fulfill its lead agency responsibility under
the agreement, we obtained and analyzed congressional budget
justifications for fiscal years 1979 through 1982, funding and
position statements for fiscal years 1977 through 1980, organiza-
tional and function statements, staff position descriptions,
Great Lakes strategies and program plans for fiscal years 1980
and 1981, internal evaluations of EPA programs or operations,
and cost data for various programs and demonstration projects.
To determine the role of EPA headquarters and its relationship
with region V, we interviewed headquarters staff involved with
international activities and obtained and analyzed correspondence
and records pertaining to EPA headquarters' role as the liaison
between region V and the Department of State.
IJC was a significant source of information. We inter-
viewed various IJC officials, including the three former U.S.
commissioners, the IJC Secretary and staff members of the head-
quarters office, the current and former directors of the IJC
regional office, and the U.S. chairpersons of IJC advisory
-------
boards. We also examined and analyzed numerous IJC studies,
reports, and other documents and correspondence, some dating
back to 1972, dealing with government activities and progress
under the agreements and other water quality problems peculiar
to the Great Lakes. One of the key documents obtained and
analyzed was the Great Lakes International Surveillance Plan
(GLISP) which represents the long-term strategy to coordinate
and plan water quality monitoring activities in the Great Lakes
Basin. We also attended various IJC public hearings, as well
as the 1980 and 1981 IJC annual meetings.
To determine State Great Lakes activities, we interviewed
officials in State environmental departments and agencies respon-
sible for the administration and coordination of State activities
involving Great Lakes water quality. We obtained and analyzed
State water quality planning and programing documents; State/EPA
agreements; State legislation and hearings; and various Great
Lakes water quality studies done by industry, academia, and other
private organizations. Our State work was limited to agreement
activities in Michigan, New York, and Ohio because these States
border the two lower lakes—Erie and Ontario—which have experi-
enced the most serious pollution problems over the years. In
addition, the State of Michigan borders Lakes Huron, Michigan, and
Superior. We did, however, obtain and analyze information concern-
ing the other five Great Lakes States' activities, primarily from
IJC and the Great Lakes Basin Commission.
To obtain information on the activities of other agencies and
organizations related to Great Lakes water quality activities, we
interviewed the Department of State officer responsible for coor-
dinating environmental affairs with Canada; key staff members in
Water Quality Project Implementation in the Soil Conservation
Service of the Department of Agriculture; officials and staff mem-
bers of the Army Corps of Engineers (North Central Division); the
Deputy Director of the Office of Marine Pollution Assessment in
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)r the
Director of EPA's Large Lakes Research Station; senior staff mem-
bers with the Council on Environmental Quality; and various offi-
cials, including the Executive Director, of the Great Lakes Basin
Commission.
To determine program costs for pollution control activities
in the Great Lakes Basin, we obtained funding data for the State
and county levels for fiscal years 1978 through 1980 from the
Federal Information Exchange System compiled by the Community
Services Administration. Assistance in obtaining and processing
this data was provided by House Information Systems, Committee
on House Administration, the U.S. House of Representatives. We
also obtained overall fiscal years 1981 and 1982 funding for
these activities and assessed the impact of the March 1981 budget
revisions proposed by the President.
This report relates to only U.S. Great Lakes water quality
efforts because we have neither the authority nor responsibility
8
-------
to review Canadian efforts. Any references to Canadian data or
efforts in this report are based on reports published by IJC and
others. We did not verify the accuracy of the data on Canadian
efforts or evaluate their effectiveness in meeting Canadian
responsibilities under the agreement.
-------
CHAPTER 2
U.S. GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
ARE NOT BEING FULLY MET
Although in 1978 the United States committed itself to a
comprehensive program to control Great Lakes pollution, the lakes
continue to experience eutrophication (aging) and toxic pollution
problems because
—controlling municipal pollution sources continues to lag
behind schedule;
—phosphorus, a major factor in controlling lake eutrophica-
tion, is not being completely controlled and control
efforts may not be properly focused;
—little attention has been directed to nonpoint sources of
lake pollution;
—the extent and sources of toxic pollution remain undefined,
and an overall toxic control strategy has not been devel-
oped; and
—comprehensive, effective surveillance and monitoring
activities needed to determine water quality conditions
and trends and assess pollution control efforts have not
been developed and implemented.
Although progress is being made in cleaning up the Great
Lakes, the United States has experienced many difficulties in
attempting to meet its water quality agreement commitments. The
lack of information about the nature, source, and extent of lake
pollution from some substances, funding constraints, and other
factors have all hindered U.S. efforts. If the United States
is to meet its commitments to protect the Great Lakes, however,
greater and more comprehensive efforts will be needed.
CONTROLLING MUNICIPAL POLLUTION SOURCES
CONTINUES TO LAG BEHIND SCHEDULE
From 1972 to February 1981, the United States spent about
$4.9 billion in Federal, State, and local funds to construct and
upgrade municipal sewage facilities to treat wastewater dis-
charges to the lakes, but more remains to be done. The Nation
will not meet the December 31, 1982, agreement goal for adequate
treatment of all municipal sewage discharges to the lakes. In
addition, discharges from combined sewers (sewers that carry
municipal wastewater along with storm runoff) continue to be a
major source of lake pollution, but little funding or effort has
been directed to controlling these discharges. Ambitious agree-
ment timetables, difficulties in obtaining funding, and treatment
plant operational problems, among other factors, have all
10
-------
contributed to the difficulties in controlling municipal
pollution sources.
Sewage treatment goals will not be met
The Water Quality Agreements require the United States to
(1) construct and operate waste treatment facilities to provide
adequate treatment for the sewered population in the U.S. portion
of the Great Lakes Basin, (2) provide financial resources to
ensure prompt construction of needed facilities, and (3) estab-
lish pretreatment requirements for industrial plants discharging
waste into municipal systems. We reported in March 1975 that
the United States had made substantial progress with its munici-
pal point source control program, but that much remained to be
done. That continues to be the case today.
A goal of the 1972 agreement was that the municipal point
source control programs in both Canada and the United States
would be either completed or in process by December 31, 1975.
We reported in 1975 that the United States would not realize
this goal. We further reported that, at that time, only about
60 percent of the U.S. sewered population had adequate treatment
compared with about 98 percent for Canada.
When the Governments negotiated the 1978 agreement, they
established December 31, 1982, as the new goal for completion of
municipal point source control programs, including the require-
ment for providing adequate treatment. In the United States, the
Clean Water Act, as amended, requires publicly owned treatment
works to provide a minimum of secondary treatment with more
stringent treatment to be provided if secondary treatment would
be insufficient to protect water quality. Meeting the require-
ment for secondary treatment satisfies !_/ the 1978 agreement
requirement for adequate municipal treatment.
In its Seventh Annual Report on Great Lakes Water Quality,
issued October 1980, IJC reported that only 64 percent (compared
with 60 percent in 1975) of the sewered population in the U.S.
portion of the basin has adequate sewage treatment, compared to
99 percent for Canada. In that report, EPA estimated that com-
pletion of treatment facilities under construction should provide
99 percent of the U.S. sewered population with adequate treatment
by 1983. We found, however, that a significant number of munici-
pal plants on the Great Lakes will not be completed in time to
meet the agreement goal of December 31, 1982. EPA's own esti-
mates (see app. Ill) show that 31 percent of all major municipal
treatment facilities on the lower Great Lakes will not be com-
pleted until 1983 or later. At the same time, however, EPA
l./The agreement also requires phosphorus effluent limitations for
municipal wastewater treatment plants. Phosphorus control
efforts are discussed on pp. 15-26.
11
-------
points out that the unfinished facilities represent only about
15 percent of the total municipal sewage flow from major facil-
ities into the lower lakes.
In addition, the completion of municipal treatment plants
does not in itself guarantee that adequate treatment will be
provided. For example, in a 1980 report I/ on wastewater treat-
ment plants, we found that municipal facilities nationwide were
experiencing severe problems limiting their ability to treat
waste. These problems included plant design and equipment defi-
ciencies, defective sewer systems allowing infiltration of ground
water that overloads existing facilities, industry waste that is
not compatible with the plant's treatment system process, and
operation and maintenance deficiencies. We reported that inade-
quate operation and maintenance of the 242 municipal plants
sampled nationwide resulted in such repeated violations of dis-
charge permits 2/ that the violations constituted the norm rather
than the exception. Using the sampling data in that report,
we determined that 22 (85 percent) of the 26 sampled municipal
dischargers in the Great Lakes Basin violated their discharge
permits at least 1 month during the 12-month study period.
Further analysis showed that 35 percent of the 26 sampled plants
were, in our opinion, in serious violation of the permit dis-
charge limits for biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended
solids, or total phosphorus.
According to the GLNPO director and staff, several reasons
exist for the delays in completing adequate treatment facilities
in the United States. They stated that (1) unrealistic time-
tables were set to pressure the Governments to take action,
(2) larger, more complex facilities are needed in the United
States than in Canada because of greater population and indus-
trialization, thereby necessitating a longer time frame, and
(3) lack of expertise among State and local recipients in
handling construction grant funds impeded efforts to assess
treatment needs and design the types of facilities needed to
correct pollution problems. An official with the Ohio EPA cited
several reasons for the program slippage in Ohio, including the
time required to obtain Federal construction grants, construction
problems, and the lack of support by municipal officials for
the construction of treatment facilities at a time when other
pollution sources are not being controlled.
JL/"Costly Wastewater Treatment Plants Fail To Perform as Expected"
(CED-81-9, Nov. 1980).
2_/All dischargers are required to have a permit issued by EPA or
an EPA-approved State which specifies the pollutants that may
be discharged and the limits on such discharges. The discharge
permit is the principal enforcement mechanism for the water
pollution program.
12
-------
While many factors have limited the pace of construction for
waste treatment facilities, EPA believes that funding limits have
also slowed construction. For example, when a large Federal
grants program made funds available to local communities to use
in completing construction of waste treatment facilities, the
communities were no longer willing to construct facilities using
only local funds. In addition, faced with limited funds, States
were not funding low-priority projects—typically the large num-
ber of small plants that will fail to meet the December 31, 1982,
deadline.
From 1972 through February 1981, almost $4.9 billion in
Federal, State, and local funds was provided for municipal
sewerage construction in the Great Lakes Basin. (App. IV shows
municipal wastewater treatment plant construction funding by
State.) Actions being taken to reduce the Federal budget, how-
ever, could affect the already extended dates for completing
municipal projects in the Great Lakes Basin. For fiscal year
1980, actual funding for the construction grants program nation-
wide was $3.4 billion, $1.6 billion less than the $5 billion
authorized. Furthermore, as part of his economic recovery pro-
gram, the President proposed, and the Congress agreed, to
rescind $1.7 billion in previously appropriated but unobligated
construction grant funds. Also, on December 29, 1981, the
President signed Public Law 97-117, the Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of 1981. This act
amended the construction grant provisions of the Clean Water Act
to, among other things, authorize appropriations of $2.4 billion
for fiscal years 1982-85 for the grants program. EPA's fiscal
year 1982 appropriation does not include funding for the program,
but the administration requested $2.4 billion for fiscal year
1982. How much of this money, if appropriated, will go for
Great Lakes projects is not known.
The 1978 agreement also requires the United States to estab-
lish pretreatment requirements for industrial wastes being dis-
charged into municipal treatment systems where such wastes are
not amenable to adequate treatment or removal using conventional
waste treatment processes. In a 1982 report !_/ on EPA's indus-
trial pretreatment program, we reported that although the program
was authorized in 1972, it has yet to be fully implemented. We
found that the overall scope and impact of the program remains
undefined; the program may result in costly, inequitable, and/or
redundant treatment which may not address critical pollution
problems; and the program will be a further drain on scarce
Federal, State, and local pollution control resources. In addi-
tion, we found that the program is undergoing a regulatory review
analysis and EPA has proposed that the effective date for program
implementation be postponed indefinitely.
I/"A New Approach Is Needed for the Federal Industrial Wastewater
Pretreatment Program" (CED-82-37, Feb. 19, 1982) .
13
-------
Limited progress in controlling
combined sewer discharges
To avoid overloading treatment facilities, combined sewer
systems divert part of the storm flows directly into waterways.
Combined sewers have caused pollution resulting in beach closures;
health hazards; fish kills; and unsightly conditions in rivers,
harbors, and bays. Although both the 1972 and 1978 water quality
agreements addressed the need to control this problem, limited
progress has been made, primarily because the structural solu-
tions proposed are very expensive and EPA has not emphasized
alternative control techniques. In addition, according to EPA,
any funds available for controlling combined sewer discharges have
instead been spent on waste treatment facilities for treatment of
the more concentrated portion of wastewaters.
In 1976 IJC reported that overflows from combined sewers
were reaching serious proportions and that accelerated control
efforts were needed. In November 1980 IJC's Great Lakes Water
Quality Board reported that, of 51 specific problem areas (hot
spots) on the Great Lakes, 20 had serious combined sewer over-
flows. Our analysis of these 20 areas showed that the overflows
were most severe on Lakes Erie and Ontario.
One reason for the limited progress made in controlling com-
bined sewer problems is that structural solutions to the prob-
lems, such as catchment basins, are costly. EPA estimates that
the Great Lakes Basin States will need $8 billion to control
combined sewer overflows—$2 billion just in the Chicago area.
In the past, little funding was directed to correcting overflow
problems largely because States gave combined sewers low priority
compared to other municipal treatment needs.
The adequacy of future funding to control combined sewer
overflows is highly questionable. Beginning in fiscal year 1983,
$200 million a year is authorized for combined sewer projects
nationwide, but the Great Lakes are ineligible for this funding
as it only applies to projects which address water quality prob-
lems of marine bays and estuaries. Funding to address combined
sewer problems in the Great Lakes will not be available until
October 1, 1984, at which time the EPA Administrator is author-
ized to use construction grant funds for combined sewer overflow
projects but only when such projects are major State priorities
and the State Governor specifically requests the funding.
Although a funding level of $2.4 billion annually is expected
for the construction grants program, it is important to note
that this money will be competed for on a national basis. Con-
sequently, the amount of money that will become available for
combined sewer problems in the Great Lakes is uncertain.
In controlling pollution from combined sewers, the 1978
agreement emphasizes the adoption of practical solutions, but,
as noted previously, the solutions usually proposed are costly,
14
-------
large-scale structural projects. In a 1979 report !_/ we noted
that a number of innovative or alternative control techniq-ues
which hold promise in helping control overflows are available.
These techniques include storing rainwater on rooftops, parking
lots, and elsewhere; disconnecting downspouts; cleaning streets;
and using devices to increase sewage flow and to regulate and
treat sewage at overflow points. While no technique alone pro-
vides the same degree of improvement offered by structural
changes, a number of techniques together could minimize overflows
and reduce the size of the construction projects. In our report
we recommended that EPA emphasize the use of inexpensive tech-
niques and require communities to make maximum use of lower cost
alternatives.
Until additional emphasis is placed on abating pollution
from combined sewer overflows, the United States will not meet
a major provision of the 1978 agreement. Furthermore, uncon-
trolled overflows from combined sewers will diminish the effec-
tiveness of existing municipal sewage treatment programs in
those metropolitan areas in the Great Lakes Basin experiencing
overflow problems.
PHOSPHORUS IS NOT BEING COMPLETELY CONTROLLED,
AND CONTROL EFFORTS MAY NOT BE PROPERLY FOCUSED
Excessive phosphorus is a significant factor in lake eutro-
phication. 2_/ Phosphorus control was identified in both the 1972
and 1978 agreements as a major objective, but the agreement
objectives are not being met. Progress is being made but treat-
ment plants are not achieving the phosphorus discharge limits
established, and the need for detergent phosphate controls is
controversial. In addition, many uncertainties exist concerning
the extent of the phosphorus pollution problem, acceptable levels
of phosphorus inputs to the lakes, and the value and cost effec-
tiveness of various control programs. Research efforts
_l/"Large Construction Projects To Correct Combined Sewer Over-
flows Are Too Costly" (CED-80-40, Dec. 28, 1979).
2/Substantial additions of phosphorus to a body of water such as
the Great Lakes usually results in accelerated plant growth and
oxygen depletion. As chemical and biological conditions in the
lakes become altered (eutrophication), less desirable types of
fish become prevalent, the water takes on an unpleasant odor,
and algae builds up on the water surface. While such changes
can occur naturally, human activities have accelerated the
process substantially by adding large amounts of phosphorus to
the lakes from such sources as agricultural and urban runoff
and effluents from municipal sources carrying sewage, detergent
residues, and garbage. Human-induced eutrophication can be
reversed.
15
-------
needed to better understand these uncertainties and their impli-
cations for future U.S. control strategies may not be undertaken
or coordinated. Without more accurate data on phosphorus inputs
and a more thorough understanding of how phosphorus affects the
eutrophication process, the United States is not in the best
position to implement control programs most likely to result in
the greatest improvements in Great Lakes water quality.
Discharge limits not being met
A cornerstone of the 1972 agreement was the requirement that
phosphorus concentrations in effluent from major municipal sewage
treatment plants (those discharging more than 1 million gallons
per day), and from smaller plants as required by regulatory
agencies, would not exceed a daily average of 1 milligram per
liter (1.0 mg/1) into the lower lakes. The 1978 agreement
extended the 1.0 mg/1 limit to the three upper lakes and further
reduced the limit on the lower lakes to 0.5 mg/1, as necessary to
meet phosphorus target loads. The 1978 agreement is silent, how-
ever, as to whether the 1.0 mg/1 limit was intended to be a daily,
monthly, annual, or some other type of average. The 1978 require-
ments do not take effect until the Governments determine the
allowable future phosphorus loads to all the Great Lakes and
allocate these target loads between the United States and Canada
and among the States and the Province of Ontario. This alloca-
tion was to have been finished by May 22, 1980, but the Govern-
ments have extended this date twice since then and still have not
reached a formal agreement. (See p. 23.) According to the U.S.
Section of IJC, attention is not likely to be paid to the more
stringent phosphorus requirements in the 1978 agreement until
the allocations are made.
According to EPA, until the 1978 agreement requirements
become effective, only major treatment plants on the two lower
lakes are required to achieve the 1972 requirement of 1.0 mg/1
daily average phosphorus discharge by December 31, 1982. Never-
theless, major municipal plants, as well as some smaller ones,
in operation throughout the Great Lakes Basin generally have a
Federal requirement for a 1.0 mg/1 monthly average phosphorus
discharge in their discharge permits.
In its November 1981 report to IJC, the Great Lakes Water
Quality Board stated that most major municipal facilities on the
lower lakes had achieved an annual average of 1.0 mg/1, despite
earlier predictions that many of the major plants would not
achieve this limit until as late as 1986. According to the Di-
rector of GLNPO, EPA has been very successful, especially during
the last half of fiscal year 1981, in working with the States to
accelerate the installation of phosphorus removal equipment at
major U.S. municipal plants on the lower lakes. Another GLNPO
official said that a major problem in getting municipal plants
ready for phosphorus removal is the time needed to construct the
facilities to handle the large quantities of sludge produced as
a result of the phosphorus removal process.
16
-------
While we agree that the United States has made substantial
progress in limiting municipal phosphorus discharges on the two
lower lakes, we do not agree that the 1982 target date will be
met. As discussed below, we believe it is unlikely that many
major U.S. municipal plants on the lower lakes will be achieving
a daily average phosphorus discharge of 1.0 mg/1 by December 31,
1982.
The following chart, based on statistics compiled for
region V by a contractor and released in September 1981, shows
that for major municipal facilities on the lower lakes alone,
85 plants had not achieved an annual average of 1.0 mg/1 at the
end of 1980. These 85 major plants accounted for about 76 percent
of the municipal sewage flow into the lower lakes for fiscal year
1980. Furthermore, of these 85 plants, as many as 41 may not
have the equipment for phosphorus removal capability necessary to
achieve an annual average of 1.0 mg/1 until after the 1982 dead-
line.
Status
at
of Phosphorus
Removal Equipment Installation
Major Municipal Plants Exceeding 1.0 mg/1
on
the Lower Lakes
Fiscal Year 1980
Lake
Erie
Ontario
Total
Number of
plants
exceeding
1.0 mg/1
56
2_9
85
Calendar year phosphorus removal
capability completed
Completed 1982 1983 1984
9 18 7 13
4 13 11
13 31 18 13
1985
9
_1
10
Even if the completion dates are met, this in itself does
not guarantee that a 1.0 mg/1 effluent will be achieved. Of the
85 municipal plants in the above table, 13 already have the
necessary phosphorus removal equipment installed but were not
achieving the 1.0 mg/1 effluent limitation. GLNPO staff and a
regional water division official told us that this was caused by
either startup problems or operational difficulties at the munic-
ipal plants. As discussed on page 12, operational difficulties
are a major problem at U.S. municipal plants and many plants, both
major and minor, violated their discharge permits. Discharges of
phosphorus in excess of 1.0 mg/1 were a common violation.
Once the United States and Canada agree on an allocation of
the phosphorus target loads for all the lakes, the 1978 agreement
requirements will take effect. The requirements are 1.0 mg/1
phosphorus discharge limit for major municipal plants on the
upper lakes and a 0.5 mg/1 limit for plants on the lower lakes
where necessary to achieve the target loads, unless the Govern-
ments decide the phosphorus limits should be either relaxed or
17
-------
set at even stricter limits than currently called for by the
agreement.
More stringent phosphorus discharge limitations may be
needed. In 1980 an IJC Phosphorus Management Task Force report
concluded after 2 years of study that phosphorus limits in the
range of 0.1 to 0.5 mg/1 may be needed on the lower lakes if
other suggested measures did not prove effective. IJC recommended
in a January 1981 supplemental report to the Governments that
they assess the ability of municipal plants in the basin to
achieve concentrations below 1.0 mg/1 and consider requiring
that plants meet the more stringent limitation where technically
and economically feasible.
It is unlikely that U.S. municipal plants will be able to
meet more stringent discharge limits. The following table shows
that in 1980 only 123 of 240 plants were achieving annual average
discharge limits of 1.0 mg/1 or less.
Status of Phosphorus Discharges
by Major Municipal Dischargers
on All the Great Lakes
Water Year 1980
Number of
Number of plants Number of plants plants
Total achieving 0.5 achieving between exceeding
Upper lakes plants mg/1 or less 0.5 and 1.0 mg/1 mg/1
Huron 19 3 88
Michigan 76 18 37 21
Superior 9 _1 _5_ 3_
Total 104 2_2_ 50_ 32
Lower lakes
Erie 97 15 26 56
Ontario 39 __1 _9_ 29
Total 136 16^ 3_5_ 85
Total 240 3£ 85_ 117
As shown, 117 (about 49 percent) of 240 major municipal dis-
chargers on the Great Lakes did not achieve an annual average
phosphorus discharge limit of at least 1.0 mg/1 in 1980. Accord-
ing to EPA, 16 of these dischargers, although not achieving an
annual average, were in compliance with the 1.0 mg/1 limit by the
end of the year. We found that the 117 plants shown above com-
prised about 61 percent of the municipal sewage flow in the basin.
18
-------
We also found that at least 56 (48 percent) of these 117 plants
were not expected to achieve an annual average of 1.0 mg/1 until
after 1982. In addition, of 136 municipal plants on the lower
lakes, only 16 (12 percent) were achieving the 1978 agreement
proposed limit of 0.5 mg/1 or less.
Detergent phosphate bans are controversial
In 1970 IJC estimated that 70 percent of the phosphorus
entering the lakes from municipal waste came from laundry
detergents. IJC advocated banning or limiting phosphates in
household detergents if necessary to achieve target phosphorus
loads for the lakes. Even though the 1972 and 1978 water quality
agreements advocated limitations on phosphorus in detergents,
key Great Lakes States have resisted such limitations because of
the increased cost to consumers and the uncertainties about the
benefit the limitations would actually provide.
While the 1972 water quality agreement only suggested the
use of detergent phosphate limitations, the 1978 agreement
requires a 0.5-percent weight limitation of phosphorus in house-
hold detergents when necessary to meet allowable phosphorus
levels. But not all the Great Lakes States have achieved the
0.5-percent detergent phosphate limitation. For example, of the
four States bordering Lake Erie, the most severely polluted lake,
only New York and Michigan have enacted detergent phosphorus
limitations. Ohio and Pennsylvania have not enacted limits,
although Pennsylvania claims that limits in New York and Ohio
would cover the grocery wholesalers in the two affected Pennsyl-
vania counties. In addition, Canada's detergent phosphorus limi-
tation is 2.2 percent by weight, as opposed to 0.5 percent in
the United States, which has been the basis for controversy.
The Ohio EPA and the Soap and Detergent Association strongly
oppose a detergent phosphorus ban or limitation. They believe it
is more cost effective overall to remove phosphorus at sewage
treatment plants. A 1980 study funded by the Soap and Detergent
Association estimated that detergent phosphate bans currently in
effect may cost consumers as much as $448 million per year (not
including industry's costs)'for additional hot water, whiteners,
and water softeners necessary to achieve the cleaning power of
phosphate detergents. In addition, the Pennsylvania representa-
tive to the IJC Water Quality Board pointed out that no one has
come up with good economic criteria to justify detergent phos-
phorus limits. The issue became more controversial in 1980 when
IJC's Phosphorus Management Strategies Task Force reported that
voluntarily the detergent industry had drastically reduced the
amount of phosphorus in detergents (detergents now account for
20 to 35 percent of phosphorus in wastewater rather than 70 per-
cent) . The task force also reported that all that may be
necessary now for phosphorus control on the two lower lakes is
municipal sewage treatment at 1.0 mg/1. On the other hand, in
a January 1981 supplemental report (see p. 18), the task force
reported that more stringent control measures may be necessary
19
-------
for the lower lakes. According to EPA, additional evidence
uncovered since the task force report was released shows further
phosphorus load reductions more likely to be needed.
Despite the controversy, EPA and IJC continue to press for
extension of phosphorus limitations to Ohio and Pennsylvania.
A GLNPO environmental protection specialist told us that the
cost estimates in the Soap and Detergent Association study were
too high. In addition to questioning the industry study cost
figures, IJC and EPA support detergent phosphate limits because
they provide partial control for small sewage treatment plants
that are not required to remove phosphorus and communities whose
sewage occasionally bypasses treatment because of combined sewer
overflows and sewage systems breakdowns. For treatment plants
that remove phosphorus, detergent limits also reduce the degree
of treatment required, the amount of energy and chemicals used,
and the volume of sludge produced. In addition, the U.S. Section
of IJC believes that, if the detergent phosphate limit were
suddenly removed, treatment plants now barely achieving their
1.0 mg/1 effluent limitation would no longer meet this require-
ment, as an increase of about 20 to 35 percent could be expected
in the quantity of phosphorus that would need to be removed.
Need to resolve uncertainties about
lake phosphorus inputs and target loads
Even though eutrophication control through phosphorus
removal has received most of the attention since the first water
quality agreement, uncertainties abound concerning the extent of
the phosphorus pollution problem, the acceptable level of phos-
phorus inputs to the Great Lakes, and the value and cost effec-
tiveness of various control programs. These uncertainties
exist because of the difficulty in accurately measuring phos-
phorus inputs to the lakes, calculating phosphorus target loads
to direct future control efforts, and analyzing in-lake biologi-
cal and chemical processes, such as whether all of the phosphorus
going into the lakes will result in excessive algae blooms and
what happens to phosphorus as it travels to the lakes in rivers
and streams. In addition, research efforts needed to better
understand these issues and their implications may not be under-
taken or coordinated. Without more accurate data on phosphorus
inputs and a more thorough understanding of how phosphorus acts
in the aging process, the United States is not in the best posi-
tion to implement control programs most likely to result in the
greatest improvement in Great Lakes water quality.
Future phosphorus control
strategy uncertain
The 1978 agreement contained estimated target phosphorus
loads for each of the Great Lakes and required the Governments to
confirm what the future phosphorus loads would be and use this
data to establish load allocations and compliance schedules for
each country. Establishing valid target loads is critical
20
-------
because they will form the basis for an overall phosphorus
control strategy to direct future Great Lakes control pr6grams.
To answer a number of unresolved phosphorus questions, IJC
in 1978 established a Phosphorus Management Strategies Task Force
comprised of representatives from government and academia.
The task force was to review and analyze data concerning phos-
phorus input loads for 1976 (the base year) and evaluate the
scientific models used to establish target loads.
In a July 1980 report, endorsed by IJC, the task force
concluded that (1) clear directions on the extent, timing, and
type of phosphorus controls are not apparent and (2) many uncer-
tainties (information needs) should be dealt with so that future
phosphorus management decisions can be more reliable. The task
force also reported that its efforts were constrained because
it had to use secondary sources of information, had little
opportunity to resolve conflicts among these sources, and had
to rely on models that could not resolve crucial issues.
In confirming what the target loads should be, the task
force accounted for some of the uncertainty by calculating both
a best estimate and a range of phosphorus input reductions
needed. The calculations assumed that the goal of reducing
wastewater treatment plant phosphorus discharges to 1.0 mg/1
would be achieved on all the lakes. The following table shows
the target loads for all the lakes and depicts the measured
uncertainty for Lakes Erie and Ontario.
21
-------
Lake
Estimated Phosphorus Loads
in Metric Tons per Year
Load after municipal
treatment plants
1976 best achieve 1.0 mg/1
estimate Target load best estimate
(note a) best estimate (note a)
3,400
5,600
4,400
14,700
9,600
Superior
Michigan
Huron
Erie
Ontario
4/200
6,400
4,900
18,400
11,800
3,400
5,600
4,400
c/ 11,000
c/ 7,000
Additional
reductions
which may
be required
best estimate
(b)
(b)
(b)
3,700
2,600
Range
(b)
(b)
(b)
0 to 9,400
200 to 5,400
a/The Task Force found that the 1976 (the base year) estimates of
phosphorus inputs had no rigid scientific or statistical basis.
The task force considered these estimates to be accurate within
plus or minus 15 percent.
b/Although the estimates for the three upper lakes are subject
to the same uncertainty as for the lower lakes, the task force
believed that to maintain the present high quality waters of
the upper lakes, only phosphorus from sewage needs to be con-
trolled.
c/The figures shown represent the best estimate. The task force
used four different models to predict the phosphorus target
loads for the lakes with each model producing similar results.
Considering the error inherent in the modeling process, coupled
with the discrepancies among the four models used, the task
force estimated that the range of uncertainty for Lakes Erie
and Ontario target loads is plus or minus 30 percent and
20 percent, respectively. (According to EPA, the amount of
error associated with models has since been reduced.)
Although the task force was not able to quantify all the
errors or uncertainties surrounding the phosphorus issue, the
two errors it measured (estimated actual loads and target loads)
alone could justify program decisions ranging from doing no
additional cleanup work to instituting massive new programs.
For example, the best estimate for Lake Erie required reducing
phosphorus inputs by an additional 3,700 metric tons per year
if treatment plants achieved the discharge goal of 1.0 mg/1.
However, because of-the mathematical uncertainty, the estimates
of control needed ranged from no additional reductions to
reducing inputs by another 9,400 metric tons per year. For
example, on Lake Erie the target load could be as high as 14,300
metric tons if the high range is accepted. Conversely, the load
after municipal treatment plants achieve 1.0 mg/1 could be as
low as 12,495 tons (minus 15 percent). Therefore, no additional
phosphorus reductions would be required for Lake Erie.
22
-------
According to the Canadian Chairman of the IJC Water Quality
Board, if the figures are viewed optimistically, they indicate
that all that is needed is to achieve the 1.0 mg/1 point source
phosphorus discharge limit on municipal sources. Conversely, if
the worst case is considered, much stricter point source controls
and nonpoint source programs would be needed.
The 1978 water quality agreement requires the two countries
to establish phosphorus loads and compliance schedules within 18
months after the effective date of the agreement. It was not
until May 1981, however, that representatives from the two
Governments met to negotiate the details of a phosphorus supple-
ment to the agreement. The result of that meeting was a draft
document entitled "Phosphorus Load Reduction Supplement to Annex
3 of the 1978 Agreement Between Canada and the United States of
America on Great Lakes Water Quality." The agreement still has
not been finalized between the two countries. In the phosphorus
supplement being proposed, the Governments basically are
(1) agreeing about the target loads in the Phosphorus Management
Strategies Task Force report and (2) beginning the process of
allocating the loads and establishing completion schedules for
each country. In addition, the Governments are proposing that
all municipal wastewater treatment plants discharging more than
1 million gallons per day achieve compliance with a 1.0 mg/1
effluent concentration (on a monthly average basis). The Govern-
ments also recognize that reductions from nonpoint sources will
be required to meet the phosphorus target loads and have proposed
measures and programs to accomplish this.
The Phosphorus Management Strategies Task Force stated that
the next major decision point in the phosphorus management pro-
gram for the lakes advocated by the task force should be in about
5 years and that the Governments should use this time to resolve
or reduce the uncertainties concerning the extent, timing, and
type of phosphorus controls needed. In addition to the problems
created by the task force's inability to calculate phophorus in-
puts to the lakes and set valid target loads, other uncertainties
remain which could have a significant impact on the selection of
an optimum phosphorus control strategy. For example, questions
about (1) the extent to which different phosphorus forms contrib-
ute to algae growth, (2) the contribution of tributaries to
phosphorus loads, (3) shoreline erosion contributions to phos-
phorus inputs, and (4) the extent to which the atmosphere con-
tributes to phosphorus inputs all remain unanswered. As dis-
cussed in appendix V, obtaining definite information regarding
any one of these issues could drastically affect the types and
extent of programs needed to control the phosphorus problem.
Needed research efforts may not
be undertaken or coordinated
The IJC Phosphorus Management Strategies Task Force reported
in 1980 that its efforts to resolve the uncertainties surrounding
phosphorus pollution and control were hampered by its inability
23
-------
to conduct its own research. For the future, the task force
recommended that a permanent organization be established within
IJC and given the responsibility for continually analyzing and
refining information concerning target loads, availability of
phosphorus for algae growth, benefits and costs of control meas-
ures, and other related phosphorus issues. According to the
Chief of GLNPO's Environmental Planning Staff, such a group has
not been established within IJC. This official further stated
that a coordinated approach to dealing with phosphorus-related
research issues does not currently exist.
EPA, as the lead U.S. agency on agreement matters, is
responsible for coordinating research efforts and ensuring that
the principal U.S. research funding agencies consider identified
Great Lakes research needs as part of their organizations'
research programs. In 1974 we issued a report ^/ critical of
EPA's research coordination efforts and calling for stronger EPA
leadership to improve Great Lakes research coordination. EPA's
research coordination efforts since then generally have been
limited, informal, and have not ensured that agreement commit-
ments are met. For example, according to the Director of EPA's
Large Lakes Research Station, since 1975 the station's coordina-
tion efforts primarily have involved periodic meetings with two
other research facilities—NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory, and the Department of the Interior's Great
Lakes Fisheries Laboratory. In addition, the EPA official said
that, beginning in May 1981, U.S. and Canadian directors of
various research organizations have met under the aegis of IJC
to discuss research projects, data collection methods, and
interpretations of research results to prevent overlapping
research. The official said that meetings are informal—
agendas, meeting minutes, or other documentation are not pre-
pared. The Director of EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory
agreed that formal coordination among EPA, the States, and other
Federal agencies, including NOAA, does not occur. This official
cited an example in which three research laboratories funded by
three different Federal agencies and located within 50 miles of
one another in one of the Great Lakes Basin States were doing
similar research work.
In 1980 EPA developed a draft of a research strategy and
5-year plan in conjunction with the Argonne National Laboratory
and two EPA laboratories. According to the Director of EPA's
Environmental Research Laboratory, the EPA plan is in its third
draft and has not been implemented because two of the participat-
ing laboratories were not funded in fiscal year 1982. We found
that the EPA plan is limited to the work performed by the three
laboratories and thus it is not a comprehensive, multiagency
JL/"Cleaning North America's Inland Seas: A Study of Federal Water
Pollution Research and Demonstration Programs on the Great Lakes"
(Vol. II, B-166506, Jan. 16, 1974).
24
-------
strategy and plan for all Great Lakes research. Officials with
the Great Lakes Basin Commission told us that an overall plan is
needed to identify research needs, establish priorities, and
coordinate efforts, but that such a plan has not been developed.
The National Ocean Pollution Research and Development and
Monitoring Planning Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-273) gives NOAA
the responsibility to develop a 5-year plan for the overall
Federal effort in ocean pollution research and development.
EPA is responsible, however, for providing input to this Federal
research plan to ensure that Great Lakes research needs, such
as those identified by the IJC Task Force to resolve the uncer-
tainties about phosphorus, are included and receive attention.
The first 5-year plan was published in August 1979. In for-
mally commenting on this plan, the Chairman of the Great Lakes
Basin Commission wrote that the plan was "incomplete, inaccurate,
and inadequate" and only superficially addressed Great Lakes
issues. The chairman further stated that the section in the plan
dealing with the Great Lakes was too general to provide a basis
for decisionmaking. Our review of the plan showed no new specific
research goals and objectives listed for the Great Lakes, no
suggested increases or decreases in funding for existing pro-
grams, and no specific proposals for interagency cooperation.
According to the Deputy Director of NOAA's Office of Marine
Pollution Assessment, the 5-year plan was intentionally made
very general to accommodate the wide range of legislatively man-
dated missions of the various Federal agencies involved in Great
Lakes pollution research. In the absence of a complete and
effective research plan and strategy for the Great Lakes, the
Great Lakes Basin Commission attempted to provide some leadership
in this area by developing such a plan. However, the Commission
received no funds for 1982 and shut down its operations in
September 1981.
NOAA is preparing its next 5-year plan and EPA's input to
that process thus far consists of a small writeup on Great Lakes
research which discusses the activities of two EPA groups—one
primarily involved in Great Lakes research and the other pri-
marily involved in surveillance and monitoring activities. The
few research activities listed are grouped into very broad areas
with no explanation of what the research is attempting to accom-
plish and how these efforts relate to a coordinated research
strategy for the Great Lakes. Further, the EPA input does not
identify any type of priority to be placed on Great Lakes
research projects, nor does it identify other Federal organiza-
tions that are or need to be involved with Great Lakes research
activities. The Director of EPA's Environmental Research
Laboratory said that EPA's research process is not geared to
setting priorities for the Great Lakes. Instead, any priorities
established are in response to EPA program office needs and an
attempt is made to balance regulatory and scientific research
within EPA. In the absence of EPA's identifying Great Lakes
25
-------
research needs and placing some type of priority on these needs,
such information is not being provided to NOAA's planning process.
On May 14, 1981, a bill entitled the "Great Lakes Protection
Act of 1981" (H.R. 3600) was introduced into the House of Repre-
sentatives. This bill would amend the National Ocean Pollution
Research Development and Monitoring Planning Act to provide
greater coordination of research efforts concerning the Great
Lakes. More specifically, the bill would direct NOAA to estab-
lish a Great Lakes research office to identify research needs
and priorities, coordinate federally supported research, and
encourage the utilization of research results and findings. As
proposed, the bill would set aside for the Great Lakes research
office a part of the funds authorized under the National Ocean
Pollution Research Development and Monitoring Planning Act.
Since the total amounts authorized under that act would be con-
sistent with previous fiscal year authorizations, the amount set
aside for the research office would not seem to require an in-
crease in the Federal budget.
EPA's efforts to coordinate research have been limited, and
NOAA's current 5-year research plan contains no specific research
goals or objectives for the Great Lakes. Enactment of H.R. 3600,
or similar legislation, would help assure that needed Great Lakes
research activities are pursued and coordinated.
NONPOINT POLLUTION SOURCES
HAVE RECEIVED LITTLE ATTENTION
In both the 1972 and 1978 water quality agreements, the U.S.
Government agreed to develop a variety of programs and other
measures for the abatement and control of pollution from nonpoint
sources. Little attention, funding, and effort have been directed
to nonpoint sources, particularly sources contributing toxic pol-
lutants, even though nonpoint sources in some areas constitute
the majority of the pollutants entering the lakes. EPA has
focused its planning efforts and funding on point sources, and
recent attempts to plan for and control nonpoint sources have not
been comprehensive or coordinated. In addition, the resources
devoted to the actual control of nonpoint sources have not been
extensive and have had limited impact. Without more attention to
nonpoint sources and a coordinated strategy and plan for dealing
with them, the Great Lakes water quality objectives may not be
achieved even if all other sources of pollution are eventually
controlled or eliminated.
Nonpoint sources may contribute
most to Great Lakes pollution
Nonpoint sources of pollution generally involve the contami-
nation of receiving waters by storm runoff. Runoff contributes
pollutants from farmlands, forests, urban streets, construction
sites, and mines. The pollutants are deposited in streams,
rivers, and lakes in a diffused manner rather than from a
26
-------
specific point. EPA estimates that nonpoint sources account for
more than half of the pollutants entering the Nation's waters.
With the exception of Lake Superior, agricultural activities
and urban storm water runoff are the major sources of nonpoint
pollution to the lakes. In volume, the major nonpoint pollutant
is sediment from soil erosion of agricultural lands. As erosion
depletes topsoil from the land, the resulting sediment transports
other pollutants, such as pesticides and excess nutrients, into
the waterways. Runoff from lands used to support livestock also
contributes large quantities of nitrogen and phosphorus. Urban
runoff contains a variety of pollutants, such as sediment, toxic
materials, oil and suspended grease, and animal litterings.
IJC and EPA have recognized that the deposition of air pollutants
into the Great Lakes is an important source of nonpoint pollution.
A 1981 IJC report shows that some of the pollutants being trans-
ported by air include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's), DDT, and
the pesticide dieldrin, which can seriously threaten human health
or biological resources. The report further shows that air trans-
port is believed to be a major route of phosphorus and a number
of other substances entering the lakes.
In 1978 the Council on Environmental Quality reported that
nutrient loadings from nonpoint sources are approximately five to
six times the loadings from municipal and industrial point
sources. IJC has supported two major studies !_/ to identify all
sources of phosphorus inputs to the lakes and determine their
relative importance. These studies confirmed that nonpoint
sources are the largest component of the overall phosphorus in-
puts to the Great Lakes. The table on the following page shows
IJC1s best estimates of the percentage of phosphorus inputs by
source for each lake.
^/International Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from
Land Use Activities, "Environmental Management Strategy for
the Great Lakes System," Final Report to the International
Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario, July 1978; and "Phosphorus
Management for the Great Lakes," Final Report of the Phosphorus
Management Strategies Task Force, July 1980.
27
-------
1976 Phosphorus Loadings by Source (Percent.)
Point Nonpoint
Lake Municipal Industrial Total Air Upstream Land Total
Superior 7 3 10 37 0 54 91
Michigan 39 5 44 26 0 30 56
Huron 11 2 13 23 14 50 87
Erie 39 3 42 4 6 49 59
Ontario 24 2 26 4 41 31 76
As shown, nonpoint sources are estimated to contribute the
greatest amount of phosphorus to all five Great Lakes, accounting
for 74 percent overall. Land uses (primarily farming) account
for about 50 percent of the total input on three lakes and about
30 percent on the other two. However, as discussed on pages 16 to
19, the major emphasis in controlling phosphorus pollution has
been in point source controls. EPA's justification for this is
that the type of phosphorus from nonpoint sources does not
affect algal growth as much as the type from point sources.
As discussed on pages 20 to 23, uncertainties exist about
phosphorus loadings. At the same time, however, much more is
known about phosphorus than is known about toxic and hazardous
substances loadings to the lakes from nonpoint sources. IJC
considers toxic and hazardous substance pollution from nonpoint
sources of equal or greater concern than nutrient loadings.
Whatever the present percentage of the total pollution prob-
lem represented by nonpoint sources, the percentage will only
increase as further progress is made in abating point sources of
pollution. On June 10, 1981, in testimony before the Subcommit-
tee on Environmental Pollution, Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works, we stated that the funds now being spent to
build facilities to control point sources of pollution may not
have as much impact on improving water quality as originally
believed because nonpoint pollution may be negating or at least
lessening the impact.
Nonpoint control efforts have been
slow and resources devoted minimal
Various provisions in the Great Lakes agreements address
the need to control pollution from nonpoint sources. Under the
1972 agreement, the Governments agreed to develop a variety of
programs and other measures for the abatement and control of
pollution from agricultural, forestry, and other land use activ-
ities and to implement the control programs and measures by
December 31, 1975. The 1978 agreement removed the target date
for the implementation of control programs and measures but
28
-------
substantially broadened the control requirements for nonpoint
sources to include measures to (1) control soil losses from
all areas, (2) encourage and facilitate improvements in land
use planning and management programs, and (3) abate and con-
trol inputs of toxic substances from nonpoint sources.
The major U.S. legislation addressing pollution from non-
point sources is the Clean Water Act, as amended. The act sets
forth specific provisions for nonpoint planning and control
efforts, including (1) grants for the development of areawide
management plans to identify and develop procedures for control-
ling nonpoint pollution sources, (2) grants for projects to
demonstrate new methods and techniques for the elimination of
pollution in the Great Lakes, (3) long-tern, contracts with rural
landowners and operators for the purpose of installing and main-
taining measures to control nonpoint sources, and (4) the design
and development of a demonstration wastewater management program
for the rehabilitation and environmental repair of Lake Erie.
Despite the significant provisions in the Clean Water Act
addressing nonpoint pollution problems on the Great Lakes, we
found that overall progress has been limited and slow, as dis-
cussed below.
Planning efforts have not been
comprehensive or coordinated
Areawide water quality management plans authorized by sec-
tion 208(a) of the Clean Water Act, as amended, were intended
to be a primary U.S. vehicle for addressing nonpoint pollution
problems in the Great Lakes. This program, which is administered
by EPA, has yet to have a significant impact on nonpoint problems
In 1978 we reported _!/ that although the planning program had
achieved some success, many problems hindered its effectiveness.
We specifically noted that the technical capability to identify
the cause and effect relationship among nonpoint pollution
sources and the expected water quality impacts of various con-
trol techniques still does not exist; planning agencies will not
continue areawide planning without Federal funds; areawide plans,
if developed, may not be implemented because of institutional
problems; and the general public has participated little in the
planning process.
No funding has been provided for the areawide planning pro-
gram for fiscal year 1982. However, the Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of 1981 (Public Law
97-117) authorize the Administrator to reserve up to 1 percent of
the sum allotted and available for construction grants for State
_l/"Water Quality Management Planning Is Not Comprehensive and May
Not Be Effective for Many Years" (CED-78-167, Dec. 11, 1978).
29
-------
grants to carry out water quality management planning, including
facility and nonpoint measures to meet and maintain water
quality standards. As noted previously, however, funding has
not yet been provided for the construction grants programs for
fiscal year 1982.
Although section 208 planning funds were for both point
and nonpoint planning activities, nonpoint planning has been
emphasized only recently. For example the 38 water quality
management planning agencies in region V have obligated about
$14 million for nonpoint planning activities in the basin since
1972, but about $11.4 million of the $14 million has been obli-
gated since 1979. In addition, the nonpoint portions of most
areawide plans have yet to be completed.
According to region V Water Division officials, the point
source portions of the areawide plans identify specific point
source problems that need to be addressed and recommend
solutions, but this level of planning does not yet exist on a
broad scale for nonpoint sources. These officials said the area-
wide plans do not generally include implementation plans and
strategies to identify and set priorities on worthwhile projects
and identify best management practices which, if successfully
implemented, would remedy specific nonpoint problems. According
to region V Water Division officials, the States are preparing
statewide strategies which will identify worthwhile projects
and rank these projects. The officials said the State of
Wisconsin is finished with its strategy but the strategies of
the other Great Lakes states are in various stages of completion
and will require more work before EPA can approve them uncondi-
tionally.
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
officials involved with water quality matters stated that the
Great Lakes States were beginning to make progress in nonpoint
planning efforts but that these plans may remain uncompleted
because the section 208 planning program has not been funded in
fiscal year 1982. These officials further stated that a question
remains as to who will coordinate the individual State plans into
an overall basinwide strategy, should they be completed, because
the primary coordinating mechanism in the Great Lakes—the Great
Lakes Basin Commission—has been abolished.
A coordinated nonpoint strategy and plan for the Great Lakes
Basin is particularly important because the authority and respon-
sibility for nonpoint programs and activities in the basin is
spread among several Federal agencies—EPA, the Army Corps of
Engineers, and the Department of Agriculture—in addition to
various State and local governments. In 1981 EPA, the Army Corps
of Engineers North Central Division, and the Soil Conservation
Service, Department of Agriculture, entered into an agreement to
(1) foster accelerated implementation of agricultural nonpoint
source controls in Great Lakes Basin areas where such sources
preclude the achievement of phosphorus goals contained in the
30
-------
1978 water quality agreement and (2) identify critical areas for
targeting nonpoint control efforts. Although a good step, the
agreement does not include Department of Agriculture agencies
other than SCS and only focuses on obtaining acceptance of
reduced tillage practices on certain soil types in the south-
western portion of the Lake Erie Basin. For example, the agree-
ment does not include the Agricultural Stabilization and Conser-
vation Service which manages the Agriculture Conservation Program
and the Rural Clean Water Program, both of which provide up to
75 percent of the cost to carry out needed conservation and
environmental measures.
Moreover, the Department's Farmers Home Administration pro-
vides water conservation and protection loans for a variety of
activities, including the construction of livestock waste storage
facilities. Its Science and Education Administration carries out
basic, applied, and developmental agricultural research, includ-
ing research directed to water quality improvements, through both
inhouse efforts and grants to State agricultural experiment sta-
tions and land grant universities. These agencies could be of
assistance in developing and carrying out more comprehensive
efforts to address agricultural pollution concerns covered by the
water quality agreement.
In our opinion, Great Lakes nonpoint pollution planning
efforts would be greatly facilitated by a coordinated approach
with a single agency because of the many Federal, State, and
local agencies involved in these activities. Furthermore, with-
out a central coordinating agency—the Great Lakes Basin Commis-
sion has been disbanded—areawide plans being developed by the
States and the plans and efforts of other agencies may not be
brought together into an overall nonpoint control strategy.
Control efforts have been minimal
Very few projects to actually control nonpoint pollution
problems in the Great Lakes Basin have been undertaken because
only limited funds have been provided for such purposes. In
addition, the implementation of control efforts or projects
undertaken are usually site specific, the use of some nonpoint
control measures requires new management skills and increased
technical assistance, and the effectiveness and acceptability of
some of the techniques is not known.
Several Federal programs provide funds for projects to con-
trol nonpoint pollution sources, but some of these programs also
serve other purposes, such as the stimulation of agricultural
production. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the total
number of projects or amount of funds in the basin specifically
directed to nonpoint control efforts. We found, however, that
Federal pollution funding for all purposes for fiscal years
1978-80, including funding for nonpoint control and planning
efforts, was very low compared to Federal funding for the
construction of municipal point source facilities during the
31
-------
same period. (See app. VI.) This is particularly significant,
given that nonpoint pollution sources may constitute the majority
of many pollutants entering the lakes.
The experimental Rural Clean Water Program authorized by
Public Law 96-108—a major nonpoint pollution control program—
provides an example of limited nonpoint control efforts to date.
This program, which provides Federal financial assistance through
long-term contracts to agricultural producers to voluntarily
adopt practices to control agricultural nonpoint pollution, was
appropriated only $50 million in fiscal year 1980 and $20 million
in fiscal year 1981. Although the Great Lakes area received
additional consideration in the selection of projects in 1980,
the program has had limited impact. Of 21 projects funded
nationwide, only 2 projects, valued at $3.5 million, are located
in the Great Lakes Basin. In addition, according to IJC and the
Department of Agriculture, the implementation program developed
in Great Lakes Basin projects, as well as the projects outside
the basin, are site specific and must be tailored to specific
problems identified at each project site.
Another major nonpoint control program authorized by the
Clean Water Act—the demonstration project program under sec-
tion I08(a)—has also had limited impact. Since 1972, EPA has
funded 10 projects, totaling about $9.9 million, to develop and
implement new methods and techniques for reducing sediment and
related pollutants from rural runoff. As of December 1981, 6 of
the 10 projects were still active. No new demonstration projects
have been funded for fiscal year 1982.
Of the 10 demonstration projects, 7, totaling about $4.7 mil-
lion in Federal funds, have been in the Maumee River Basin of
Lake Erie. The GLNPO program administrator for these projects
said that little has been accomplished in the other Great Lakes,
although Lake Ontario has been discussed as a possibility for
locating future projects if EPA region II would cooperate. The
program administrator said that none of the demonstration proj-
ects involved toxics aspects of nonpoint pollution because EPA
has been unable to decide on what type of project could be
demonstrated that would not be too costly.
According to the Chief of GLNPO's Environmental Planning
Section, most of EPA's efforts have centered around demonstrating
the feasibility of using minimum or no-tillage farming practices
at sites identified by the Army Corps of Engineers as susceptible
to erosion. Further, according to the Chief, careful measure-
ment of results has been used to create and verify a computer
simulation model to estimate loading reductions that can reason-
ably be attributed to the adoption of modified tillage practices.
EPA region V officials question, however, the acceptability
of the practices being promoted by the demonstration projects and
the willingness of program participants to continue using such
practices. They pointed out that minimum or no-tillage practices
32
-------
are not suitable for all crops, soils, and climates and EPA has
experienced difficulty in demonstrating phosphorus and sediment
runoff reductions along with equal or better crop yields at
reduced costs through the use of such practices. For example,
Ohio EPA water quality officials estimated that only about 5 to
10 percent of the farms in the Maumee River Basin currently use
no-tillage practices. A GLNPO official told us that other
farmers may be reluctant to use no-tillage practices and because
participation in nonpoint control programs is voluntary, program
acceptance may be slow and unpredictable. Another problem
related to the increased use of minimum/no-tillage practices
pointed out by the U.S. Section of IJC is that such practices may
require greater use of herbicides for the control of weeds.
Also, the Department of Agriculture pointed out that the adoption
of minimum or no-tillage technology is slow because of the need
for new equipment and increased management skills, which necessi-
tates greater technical assistance to farmers.
TOXIC POLLUTION—POTENTIALLY
THE GREATEST PROBLEM
As early as 1970 EPA and IJC recognized that toxic pollution
is potentially a greater threat to the Great Lakes than eutrophi-
cation. Toxic pollution could endanger human health, destroy
Great Lakes commercial fishing, and ultimately render the lakes
useless for a variety of desirable activities. The 1978 water
quality agreement emphasized the toxic pollution problem and
required the Governments to meet specific toxic control objec-
tives. Great Lakes toxic pollution has yet to be comprehensively
addressed, however, because too little is known about the nature,
extent, and source of such pollution. Likewise, toxic control
programs are only in their infancy and their effectiveness is not
yet known.
Emphasis on toxics is relatively new
While the 1972 agreement required the United States and
Canada to control toxic substance pollution, the emphasis was
clearly on eutrophication control. The agreement provisions con-
cerning toxic and hazardous polluting substances were limited and
very general. Since the agreement emphasized eutrophication con-
trol, the United States and Canada concentrated efforts in that
area and little was done about toxic substance pollution.
When the water quality agreement was renegotiated in 1978,
it gave increased emphasis to the problem of toxic and hazardous
substance pollution. The 1978 agreement expanded the Governments'
responsibilities by including specific objectives for certain
known, persistent toxic substances, and requiring the development
of lists of hazardous and potentially hazardous polluting sub-
stances and the development of general programs to control them.
It also called for monitoring and research programs to determine
the sources, fate, and effects of toxic substances in the Great
Lakes .
33
-------
Nature, extent, and source
of toxics are undefined
Neither IJC, EPA, or other concerned organizations have
quantified the toxic substance pollution problem in the Great
Lakes or addressed the questions needed to make effective toxic
control decisions. However, the potential harm of toxic sub-
stance pollution has been demonstrated by its effect on the Great
Lakes fishing industry. According to the Acting Chief of GLNPO's
Remedial Programs Staff, toxic substances in fish have already
severely reduced commercial fishing for some preferred species on
the Great Lakes, and if the Food and Drug Administration reduces
the allowable amount of PCB's in fish, as proposed, commercial
fishing could be further reduced.
In its 1975 annual report, IJC stated that too little was
known about toxic substances—identity, sources, amounts present,
characteristic forms and behavior, and effects. The report went
on to say that research was required to enable the establishment
of objectives and the evaluation of potential hazards. While
IJC and EPA have given increased attention to the problem of
toxic substance pollution in the Great Lakes, many questions
about toxic substances remain unanswered.
In fiscal year 1981, the IJC Toxic Substances Committee
reported that more than 30,000 chemical compounds were produced
in the Great Lakes Basin. To date over 450 of these chemical
compounds have been found in the lakes. Some of the compounds
identified are known to be toxic, but the environmental and human
health effects of many others are as yet unknown. In addition,
IJC reported that other toxic and hazardous substances will
undoubtedly be found as detection methods improve.
Information on some of the "traditional" toxic substances,
such as DDT, mercury, and PCB's, has been available for some time
because these substances have been studied fairly well, and some
control measures implemented. In 1980 the IJC Water Quality
Board reported that the levels of PCB's and DDT in Great Lakes
fish have begun to decline and attributed this decline to the
controls implemented.
Lack of data is a major stumbling block to U.S. efforts to
control toxic substance pollution. For example, in 1980 the IJC
Committee on the Assessment of Human Health Effects of Great
Lakes Water Quality reported that of 381 chemical compounds ex-
amined, data to allow for meaningful toxicity evaluations was
available for only 89 compounds. Even for the 89, the committee
said that much more information was needed to set acceptable
exposure levels and allowable limits for the safe consumption of
fish. Although the committee originally was asked to gather
exposure data in 1978, in November 1980 the acting chairman told
IJC that little progress had been made in gathering this data
because monitoring and research efforts had not provided the
needed information.
34
-------
Delays in EPA's open lake fish monitoring program have
hampered U.S. efforts to identify toxic substances and track the
lakes' status. Toxic substances are generally present at very
low concentrations in the lakes and accumulate in certain fish
over time. By analyzing the tissue of fish caught in the open
lake, EPA can determine the lake's status concerning toxics and
determine trends and the general effectiveness of control pro-
grams. According to the Chief of GLNPO's Surveillance and
Research Staff, EPA has a 3-year backlog (1978, 1979, and 1980)
of fish samples from all five Great Lakes to be tested. The
backlog resulted because funds were not available to develop the
laboratory capability to do the testing. The Chief said EPA has
now developed the capability to test these samples and plans to
gradually reduce the backlog. Michigan environmental officials,
however, questioned the value of testing 3-year old fish samples
because the fish have suffered some dehydration and any test
results may not be accurate.
Limited laboratory capability is also a major problem affect-
ing monitoring for toxic substances in the Great Lakes. The Chief
of GLNPO's Surveillance and Research Staff said that the United
States currently lacks the personnel and equipment to adequately
monitor for toxics. He said that the problem would probably be
solved by the forces of supply and demand but estimated that it
would take several years. In 1980 the Great Lakes Water Quality
Board advised IJC that all jurisdictions along the lakes were
having problems funding the needed analytical capacity and capa-
bility. The board concluded that the increasing demands for com-
plex analyses, sophisticated equipment, and skilled staff must be
met, or timely and accurate toxic pollution information will not
be available and control programs will be hindered.
In January 1981 IJC issued "Special Report on Pollution in
the Niagara River" to the Governments in which it expressed con-
cern with the extent of pollution from toxic and hazardous sub-
stances as well as the unknown impact of the pollutants on the
Niagara River and Lake Ontario. IJC also pointed out (1) the
need for a comprehensive study to identify the sources, concen-
trations, fate, and probable effects of these pollutants so that
the seriousness of the problem could be assessed and required
remedial actions pursued and (2) the need for a comprehensive and
continuing monitoring program which would allow a better under-
standing of interactions among pollutants for which agreement
objectives or human health or biological criteria do not yet
exist. The Governments have yet to respond formally to the IJC
report, but they have consulted and have begun to take correc-
tive action beginning with designating the Niagara area as a
priority area for remedial action. In addition, the Governments
are proceeding with further efforts to identify and characterize
the significant sources of persistent toxic substances entering
the Niagara River, and interagency consultations involving EPA,
the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, and Environment Canada have
been increased in an effort to expand remedial efforts. Although
35
-------
corrective action has begun, several questions and issues raised
by IJC have yet to be comprehensively addressed and the effec-
tiveness of those corrective actions already being pursued is
unknown at the present time.
Effectiveness of control efforts unknown
Just as information about toxic substance pollution is needed
to design control programs, information about toxic control programs
is needed to determine their effectiveness. By the end of fiscal
year 1981, no overall analysis of U.S. toxic substance control pro-
grams had been completed.
Early in 1980, IJC's Water Quality Board formed a Toxic
Substances Committee to evaluate the effectiveness of existing
programs. In a November 1980 report, the committee stated that the
United States has an adequate legislative base to protect people
and the environment from toxic substances but the committee was
unable to assess the effectiveness of programs under this legisla-
tion.
In testimony before IJC, the New York representative to
the IJC Water Quality Board stated that the Government's failure
to recognize the need for an integrated approach to control
toxics has been devastating. He pointed out that to date both
U.S. and Canadian toxic efforts have been piecemeal and such an
approach cannot control the discharge of toxic substances. In
1980 the Great Lakes Basin Commission reported similar findings.
The Commission stated that a major shortcoming to controlling
toxic substances is the lack of sufficient coordination and inte-
gration among State and Federal programs. For example, the Com-
mission said that confidential information on toxic substances
production collected by EPA is not available to the States, which
need it for effective State programs. Without this information
the States must create their own data programs, which places an
added burden on both the States and industry.
In a report released at IJC's November 1981 annual meeting,
the Toxic Substances Committee reported that an overall strategy
for toxic substances control activities does not exist and there-
fore the overall management of toxic substances control programs
is difficult. The committee reported that control programs were
fragmented, which resulted in incomplete program coverage, dupli-
cative activities, or limited impact on emerging problems. The
report also stated that actions are being taken in the United
States to improve toxics coordination at the Federal and State
levels. Specifically, EPA is developing a toxic substances
integration strategy and EPA regional offices as well as many of
the States have developed internal coordination mechanisms to im-
prove integration. However, these programs are in their initial
stages of development and the extent to which they will be able
to effectively coordinate toxic substances programs remains to
be seen.
36
-------
In addition to improved coordination among the various toxic
substance control programs, the United States needs to understand
how conventional wastewater treatment affects toxic pollutants
and take advantage of possible benefits. EPA's pretreatment pro-
gram to control toxic industrial pollution is an example of a
control measure that could provide these benefits. Both U.S.
legislation and the 1978 agreement require the Government to
establish requirements to pretreat industrial wastewater con-
taining toxic pollutants before they are discharged to municipal
wastewater treatment plants.
In a fiscal year 1982 report I/ on EPA's industrial pre-
treatment program, we reported that although the program was
authorized in 1972, it has yet to be fully implemented. As of
December 15, 1981, EPA has issued final standards for only 2
industries and has proposed standards for only 13 of the other
32 industries required to be regulated by U.S. law. The report
concluded that the delays were at least partially due to the lack
of data about the nature and source of toxic substances, their
impact on the environment and health, or the effectiveness of
available treatment measures. For example, an EPA study found
that conventional wastewater treatment technologies effectively
remove some toxic pollutants, but the source of these pollutants—
storm runoff, industrial discharges, or other sources—was not
identified.
EFFECTIVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING ACTIVITIES
HAVE NOT BEEN DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED
Accurate, reliable data describing existing water quality
conditions and trends, how pollution occurs, and the effect of
eliminating sources of pollution is essential to control efforts.
EPA monitoring efforts, however, have been hampered by funding
constraints and questions have been raised about their adequacy.
Also, the IJC has yet to endorse the Great Lakes International
Surveillance Plan, advocated in the agreement as the model for
monitoring activities in the Great Lakes Basin, because the
Commission has not concluded whether the plan is scientifically
effective and managerially implementable. Comprehensive and
scientifically valid monitoring efforts are needed if Great
Lakes pollution problems are to be identified, control strate-
gies are to be developed, and the effectiveness of control
measures are to be evaluated.
Importance of monitoring recognized
in water quality agreement
The 1978 agreement devotes an entire section to monitoring
and requires the United States to
!_/"A New Approach Is Needed for the Federal Industrial
Wastewater Pretreatment Program" (CED-82-37, Feb. 19, 1982).
37
-------
—determine if pollution control requirements are being met;
—identify and report on instances where agreement objec-
tives are not being achieved;
—evaluate water quality trends in order to assess the
effectiveness of remedial and preventive measures, assess
enforcement and management strategies, and identify the
need for further technology and research activities; and
—identify emerging problems in order to develop and imple-
ment appropriate pollution control measures.
The agreement also requires the United States to develop monitor-
ing programs which will allow assessments of (1) inputs from
tributaries, point source discharges, the atmosphere, and con-
necting channels and (2) whole lake data for nearshore areas,
open waters of the lakes, and fish and wildlife contaminants.
The benefits of good monitoring have been well established.
IJC has reported that early measurements of phosphorus content
in the lakes led to phosphorus controls being implemented
basinwide. Monitoring PCB levels in fish led to the closing of
Green Bay commercial fisheries, and water quality surveys of the
Cuyahoga River demonstrated the need for more stringent indus-
trial and municipal effluent controls. According to an environ-
mental advisor to IJC, reliable and comparable monitoring data is
needed to arrive at correct conclusions about the state of the
lakes so that intelligent decisions about their future can be
made.
Existing Great Lakes monitoring activities
have been constrained and criticized
Since 1969 IJC has repeatedly called for the Governments to
pay more attention to monitoring needs. For example, in February
1977 IJC reported that
"The Commission has * * * in the past emphasized to
the Governments the need to implement a comprehensive
water quality surveillance and monitoring program to
provide the information necessary to identify water
quality issues, to assess the achievement of water
quality objectives, and to relate achievement or
non-achievement of objectives to a particular cause.
The Commission reiterates the need for adequate sur-
veillance and monitoring of water quality and * * *
longterm funding * * *."
In a January 1981 interim report to the Governments, IJC
again concluded that adequate water quality monitoring is a
cornerstone to successful implementation of agreement require-
ments , but that substantial concerns cloud the Governments'
ability to meet the intent of the agreement. IJC raised concern
38
-------
that the surveillance and monitoring plan followed by the
Governments in the Great Lakes may not satisfy the specific
information and reporting requirements for the four purposes of
surveillance specified in the agreement, and may have been con-
strained in its development by budgetary considerations to the
detriment of ensuring the satisfaction of agreement requirements.
IJC also expressed concern with the adequacy of analytical
resources needed to accommodate the increased and more complex
Great Lakes water quality monitoring activities.
Funding constraints have affected EPA's ability to meet its
Great Lakes monitoring responsibilities. For example, EPA's
Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program, a cooperative effort among
nine State and three Federal agencies throughout the Great Lakes
Basin, includes both open lake and nearshore fish monitoring.
Its three objectives are to (1) identify environmental problems
and public health concerns by determining contaminant levels in
Great Lakes fish, (2) evaluate the effectiveness of remedial
programs in controlling sources and distribution of toxic sub-
stances, and (3) detect new problems by scanning appropriate
samples for the presence of a wide range of contaminants.
According to GLNPO's Chief of Surveillance and Research,
timely testing of fish samples is essential for measuring the
levels and extent of toxic contaminants. However, EPA has a
3-year backlog of fish samples because lack of funds precluded
it from contracting with a testing facility. Although the sam-
ples may still provide valid data, the Chief said that a 3-year
data gap means trend data is not being established and toxics
harmful to the environment may remain undetected.
Other EPA monitoring activities have faced funding conr
straints. In 1976 EPA completed its open lake water quality
monitoring but did not do river mouth or nearshore monitoring.
(Nearshore conditions change often and must be monitored
regularly to get good data.) In 1977 EPA completed an esti-
mated one-third of the open lake monitoring and approximately
one-half of the nearshore program, but water supply intake and
river mouth monitoring was not done. In 1980 EPA met its
requirements for open lake monitoring but completed less than
20 percent of its nearshore program.
Because of anticipated budget cuts, GLNPO will not be able
to fund some monitoring functions in upcoming fiscal years that
are essential to the overall monitoring strategy on the Great
Lakes. GLNPO's Chief of Surveillance and Research said that
budget cuts for fiscal year 1983 will result in the elimination
of open lake monitoring scheduled for Lake Superior. In addi-
tion, State agencies anticipate cutbacks in their monitoring
programs. In Michigan, for example, funding problems will result
in the State's scrapping most of its tributary monitoring activi-
ties. Since Michigan tributaries feed into four of the five
Great Lakes, cessation of tributary monitoring will reduce the
ability of the United States to measure progress toward achieving
39
-------
agreement objectives and to identify problem areas. The GLNPO
Chief said that not being able to measure tributary loadings will
keep EPA from using models to determine how the Lakes are respond-
ing and thus from establishing trend data.
Questions raised about
proposed monitoring plan
The 1978 agreement calls upon the Governments to design and
implement a strategy to coordinate and plan monitoring activi-
ties. A prototype Great Lakes International Surveillance Plan
was developed by the IJC Water Quality Board as early as 1975,
but IJC has yet to endorse a final plan.
IJC refuses to endorse the present GLISP because, as stated
in a January 1981 report, the IJC "has not concluded whether
GLISP represents a scientifically effective and managerially
implementable plan to obtain and assess the data required by
(the agreement)." Major problems with the plan include
—sampling time frame and location biases which could
produce unrealistic estimates of sampled substances,
--inconsistent sampling techniques which could result
in noncomparable data, and
—omissions of key components which could result in
the failure to monitor certain elements directly
affecting the quality of water in the lakes.
In commenting on the GLISP, an environmental advisor to IJC
stated that:
"Overall, the plan reads as though it were a eutrophi-
cation study to which has been added anything and
everything somebody thought we ought to know about
toxic substances. * * * The frequencies of sampling * * *
the station choices, data handling procedures, ration-
ales for what is done and where are unexplained.
Basically one has a phosphorus plan with an associated
menagerie of chemical tests."
Timing and location bias distort data
Knowing when and where to take water quality samples is
important for comparable and meaningful water quality measure-
ments. Sample timing bias is demonstrated by the GLISP specifi-
cations for nearshore monitoring. Although the plan requires
samples of nearshore water conditions three times annually—in
spring, summer, and fall—it does not specify the month, day, or
hour for the sampling. An environmental advisor to IJC believes
that jurisdictions and agencies doing monitoring could schedule
their activities-based on the availability of vessels, facili-
ties, and personnel and not on the basis of the best or most
40
-------
critical times for sampling nearshore conditions. Unreliable or
misleading trend data and overlooked water quality problems or
changes could result.
GLISP tributary monitoring requirements provide an example
of sample location bias. Environmental advisors to IJC criti-
cized the plan because in instances where two or more streams
or rivers meet, the plan does not require monitoring of the
tributaries above that meeting point. Rather, samples are to
be taken below or right at the meeting point. One advisor
believes that failure to sample above the meeting point prevents
assessing where specific pollutants originated. Another advisor
agreed with this observation and said that because tributaries
represent a major transport mechanism for many point and nonpoint
pollutant loads to the Great Lakes, monitoring tributaries at
improper locations will result in an inability to accurately
quantify the inputs to the lakes, as well as an inability to
identify specific sources of pollutant inputs in the basin.
A water quality consultant who reviewed the GLISP said that
data obtained from tributary monitoring may not be useful because
sampling sites are located at distances too far away from cities
and industries to identify loadings to the lakes from municipal
and industrial sources. He said to accurately assess pollution
from tributaries, samples should also be taken at the river mouth
(where the river flows into the lake), not at an isolated site
upriver of major cities and industries. An examination of sam-
pling locations for Lake Erie specified in the plan shows that two
sites—the Maumee and Sandusky Rivers--are located at least
_20 miles from Toledo and Sandusky, two large Ohio cities situated
at the river mouths. The map in appendix VII taken from the
GLISP shows that most of the sampling sites in the United States
and in Canada generally are substantially upriver from the
lakes.
Inconsistent sampling makes
data noncomparable
Data comparisons -are facilitated when the number of samples
taken and the way they are taken are identical. However, the
GLISP does not require the various State and Federal monitoring
agencies to use the same techniques and the results may not be
comparable. According to environmental advisors to IJC, because
the data may not be comparable, data users may not be able to
gain the overall basin perspective so important in making deci-
sions affecting the Great^ Lakes.
A water quality consultant told us that GLISP requirements
for monitoring nearshore fish contaminants in Lake Erie do not
provide for collecting consistent, comparable data. He found
that the monitoring requirements differed for each of the four
States performing monitoring on Lake Erie. He also found that
(1) the times for monitoring nearshore conditions are not
defined, (2) the species sampled and number of samples may differ
41
-------
for each State even when sampling is done on the same lake, and
(3) the types of samples taken (for example, fillet versus whole
fish) and the contaminants analyzed differ. For Ohio, for
example, under the categories of time sampled, species to be sam-
pled, number of samples, and sample type, the GLISP shows "N/A" or
"not applicable." The consultant believes that problems in the
fish sampling program, such as those identified above, will pro-
duce monitoring data which cannot be meaningfully compared and
interpreted.
Omissions from the plan result
in incomplete monitoring
Major omissions from the plan may further limit the GLISP's
usefulness. For example, IJC has had reservations for years
about using the herring gull as the sole indicator of how pollu-
tants affect wildlife. The current GLISP, however, does not pro-
vide for sample monitoring of other birds and animals. Further,
the GLISP does not provide for monitoring ground water that seeps
into the lakes, does not examine the relationship of wetlands to
the lakes, and does not require sampling of tributary sediments
which may release pollutants into the lakes.
The answers to many eutrophication, nonpoint source, and
toxic questions might be provided by an adequate surveillance and
monitoring program. Such a program has yet to be developed and
implemented, however, despite the importance placed on such a
program in the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
CONCLUSIONS
Progress is being made in cleaning up the Great Lakes, but
the United States has experienced difficulty in meeting its
water quality agreement commitments. A variety of factors has
hindered U.S. efforts, but if the United States is to meet its
commitments to protect the Great Lakes, greater and more compre-
hensive efforts will be needed. Municipal sources of water
pollution will not be controlled by the December 31, 1982, agree-
ment goal and it may be many years before such sources are com-
pletely controlled. Agreement phosphorus control objectives are
not being met for both municipal and nonpoint sources, and deter-
gent phosphorus limitations have met with controversy. At the
same time, however, the need for greater phosphorus controls is
clouded by possible uncertainties about phosphorus inputs to the
lakes and the target phosphorus loadings established for the
lakes. Research needed to resolve these potential uncertainties
has not been pursued and coordinated.
Although the water quality agreement emphasizes the need to
control nonpoint sources of water pollution, which may be the
largest contributor to pollution in the lakes, such sources have
received little attention. Nonpoint planning efforts under EPA's
areawide water pollution planning program have not been completed,
Federal program funding has been terminated, and the primary
42
-------
coordinating mechanism—the Great Lakes Basin Commission—has
been abolished. Actual nonpoint control efforts in the basin
have generally been experimental and an overall control strategy
or plan has not been developed. Likewise, although the 1978
water quality agreement emphasized the control of toxic pollu-
tion and set forth specific objectives, an overall toxic control
strategy has not been developed. The nature, extent, and sources
of toxic pollutants in the lakes remain relatively undefined,
and little is known about the effectiveness of the few control
efforts implemented to date.
Given the many uncertainties and the lack of information
about many eutrophication, nonpoint sources, and toxic pollution
issues included in the water quality agreement, an overall Great
Lakes surveillance and monitoring plan is needed. Despite the
importance placed on the need for a basic framework for monitor-
ing activities in the water quality agreement, an overall plan
has yet to be approved. Also, EPA's monitoring efforts have been
hampered by funding constraints and, in some instances, the ade-
quacy of the efforts has been criticized. Unless an adequate,
scientifically valid plan is developed and implemented, many
questions about Great Lakes pollution matters will likely remain.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CONGRESS
The United States and Canada are not required to make a com-
prehensive review of the operation and effectiveness of the 1978
agreement until the IJC issues its third biennial report in 1986.
Given the lack of U.S. progress in meeting its commitments under
two water quality agreements, we recommend that the Congress, in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the Administrator,
EPA, determine (1) whether the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement objectives and commitments are overly ambitious and
(2) whether sufficient funding to meet agreement objectives and
commitments can be provided given current economic and budgetary
conditions.
In view of the need to resolve the many uncertainties
associated with the Great Lakes water quality issues and agree-
ment objectives, we further recommend that the Congress pass
legislation currently pending which would amend the National
Ocean Pollution Research and Development and Monitoring Planning
Act of 1978 to require NOAA to establish a Great Lakes research
office.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR, EPA
We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, direct GLNPO to
develop a comprehensive plan and strategy to address phosphorus,
nonpoint, and toxic pollution problems in the Great Lakes Basin.
In developing such a plan and strategy, the Administrator should
direct GLNPO to:
43
-------
—Revise its interagency agreement with the Army Corps of
Engineers and SCS to include other Federal agencies
with responsibilities for nonpoint programs affecting
the Great Lakes.
—Serve as the coordinating mechanism for Great Lakes Basin
water quality plans being developed by areawide agencies
and the States; work with the States and areawide planning
agencies to ensure completion of the nonpoint portions of
the plans; and consolidate the individual State and area-
wide plans into an overall basin plan.
—Enter into an interagency agreement with NOAA to define
the duties and responsibilities of EPA and NOAA concerning
Great Lakes research activities, including specific respon-
sibilities for (1) developing an inventory of needed
research on phosphorus and toxic pollution control issues,
(2) setting priorities on identified research- needs and
incorporating such needs in NOAA's Federal ocean pollution
research and development plan, and (3) coordinating the
research efforts of agencies involved in Great Lakes
matters to ensure that work undertaken addresses identi-
fied needs.
We also recommend that the Administrator, EPA, direct GLNPO
to develop a surveillance and monitoring plan for the U.S. por-
tion of the Great Lakes. Such a plan should (l) delineate the
roles and responsibilities of various Federal, State, and local
agencies involved in Great Lakes surveillance and monitoring
activities, (2) include methods and procedures to ensure that
monitoring activities are carried out promptly and that the
data gathered is complete and consistent in order to provide
meaningful evaluations and comparative analyses, and (3) include
procedures to ensure that U.S. and Canadian monitoring efforts
are consistent.
We recognize that the actions recommended will significantly
affect GLNPO. Chapter 3 discusses GLNPO's role in the efforts
of the United States under the water quality agreement and the
need to provide GLNPO with the authority to assure that U.S.
commitments are met.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION
We provided a draft of this report to EPA, the Departments
of State, Agriculture, and Commerce, and the U.S. Section of IJC
for review and comment. The Department of Commerce provided
comments on the draft, but the comments were not received in
time to be included in this final report. The comments of EPA,
the Departments of State and Agriculture, and the U.S. Section of
IJC are included in appendixes IX to XII. The agencies' comments
on the matters discussed in this chapter are summarized below,
along with our evaluation of the comments.
44
-------
EPA comment.s
EPA had a number of comments about our understanding of the
ambitious scope of the 1978 agreement, phosphorus control activi-
ties, research, toxics, water quality monitoring, and the organi-
zational level of GLNPO. EPA's comments are included in appen-
dix IX. EPA comments and our evaluation of the comments on
matters discussed in this chapter are set forth below. The com-
ments on the organizational level of GLNPO and our evaluation of
these comments are included in chapter 3.
Scope of agreement objectives
EPA is concerned that we do not recognize the scope of the
ambitious objectives of the 1978 water quality agreement, which
does not directly control the water quality programs used to sup-
port the agreement objectives. EPA pointed out that Great Lakes
programs are not separately funded under Federal law. EPA
stated that it realizes pollution problems have not been solved
but the necessary plans, mechanisms, and facilities are generally
in place and the cleanup is progressing.
We believe we have fully recognized that the agreement
objectives are ambitious and that U.S. efforts to meet agreement
objectives are implemented through domestic laws. For example,
in chapter 1 we state that the 1978 agreement objectives are
comprehensive and stringent and a variety of remedial programs
and measures are required to meet the objectives. Chapter 1 also
recognizes that EPA implements Great Lakes activities through
existing Federal legislation. Furthermore, in the recommendation
to the Congress we specifically suggest a review of whether the
agreement objectives and commitments are overly ambitious.
Phosphorus
EPA is concerned that we failed to acknowledge the compre-
hensive nature of the agreement's phosphorus objectives and the
numerous Federal and State efforts taken to meet the terms of
the agreement. EPA also is concerned about our characterization
of the role of phosphorus in the eutrophication process and the
subsequent mix of measures to control its input into the Great
Lakes. More specifically, EPA stated that:
--Point sources of pollution produce far more bioavailable
phosphorus than nonpoint sources and are relatively more
important to the control of eutrophication.
—It should be pointed out that only 15 percent of the total
phosphorus from major municipal plants will not be con-
trolled by December 1982.
-The agreement does not define phosphorus compliance
terms of a daily average of 1.0 mg/1.
in
45
-------
—Detergent phosphate bans, which must be voluntary in
nature, have not met with "resistance" by Great Lakes
States.
—Nonpoint controls, particularly for phosphorus, can be
transferred to other areas.
We believe we have recognized the comprehensive nature of
the phosphorus objectives and the efforts taken to meet them,
as well as the role of phosphorus in the eutrophication process.
The report (see pp. 15 to 26) presents a comprehensive picture
of the importance of controls for both point and nonpoint sources,
the extent to which agreement objectives for point and nonpoint
sources are being met, and the extent to which uncertainties
about phosphorus exist and continue to cloud the question of the
most effective mix of controls to meet agreement phosphorus
objectives.
With respect to the control of phosphorus from municipal
plants, the agreement objectives are not being met. The 1972
agreement requires all major municipal plants on the two lower
lakes to meet a 1.0 mg/1 daily average. As discussed in this
chapter, the 1972 agreement remains in effect until the Govern-
ments allocate the target loadings in the 1978 agreement and
this has yet to be done. Even using a 1.0 mg/1 annual average,
which seems to be the accepted EPA measurement criteria in
recent years, not all major municipal plants are meeting this
objective. Because of demonstrated operational difficulties,
we also question the ability of many U.S. municipal plants to
meet an annual average of 1.0 mg/1 phosphorus, let alone more
stringent limits which could be imposed in the future to meet
overall phosphorus objectives set forth in the 1978 agreement.
We do not deny that, based on current knowledge, point
sources of phosphorus have a high degree of bioavailability and
need to be addressed. Progress in controlling point sources has
been made. However, the control of nonpoint sources of phos-
phorus, as recognized by EPA, is an essential part of any phos-
phorus strategy. But, as stated earlier, target phosphorus
loads have a wide error range and have yet to be allocated by
the Governments. In addition, too many uncertainties exist about
phosphorus inputs to the lakes and the extent to which such in-
puts contribute to algae growth (bioavailability). The resolu-
tion of such uncertainties could have dramatic effects on optimum
phosphorus control strategies, including the need to meet strin-
gent point source controls. Consequently, we continue to believe
that agreement objectives for both point and nonpoint sources of
phosphorus are not being met and the overall effectiveness of
U.S. phosphorus control efforts is not known.
With respect to "resistance" by key Great Lakes States to
detergent phosphorus bans, we believe our overall characteriza-
tion of such bans as "controversial" is appropriate. Undoubtedly,
Ohio and Pennsylvania, which cover a significant portion of the
46
-------
U.S. part of Lake Erie (the lake most heavily polluted with
phosphorus) and which have yet to enact detergent phosphorus
bans, are key States. To this extent, Ohio and Pennsylvania have
resisted such bans. In addition, just because the other Great
Lakes States have enacted such bans does not mean they are not
controversial. In fact, we believe the higher Canadian limit
on detergent phosphorus contributes to even greater controversy.
Finally, we agree that our characterization of the tech-
nology for nonpoint control measures as being site specific was
not correct. As the Department of Agriculture and IJC pointed
out, the technology for nonpoint sources can be transferred but
the implementation of the technology is site specific. We have
revised the report to correct this matter.
Research
EPA strongly supports the need for more effective coordina-
tion of Great Lakes research activities, but is concerned that
H.R. 3600 will fragment EPA's already established mechanisms for
addressing Great Lakes problems. EPA points out that it is
already the primary source of technical and policy expertise for
the Department of State in its Great Lakes-related diplomatic
negotiations and that it plays key roles on international boards
which advise IJC and the Governments on various research matters.
EPA believes that H.R. 3600, if passed, would place responsibility
for research coordination with another agency which has neither
the authority nor the ability to link research needs or the
results with water quality trends or the remedial actions neces-
sary to correct or abate identified pollution problems. EPA
believes that such action could jeopardize current efforts to
develop compatible and coordinated Great Lakes management pro-
grams which are responsive to both domestic mandates and inter-
national commitments.
We applaud EPA's strong endorsement for a coordinated Great
Lakes research program, but we do not agree that only EPA can be
charged with this responsibility. EPA has had Great Lakes
research responsibilities in the past and its efforts to develop
a coordinated program have been limited. Also, as pointed out
in this chapter and chapter 3, EPA's own actions in not funding
Large Lakes Research Station at Grosse Isle, Michigan, raise
questions about its willingness and ability to develop and carry
out a comprehensive, coordinated research effort in the future.
Concerning EPA's belief that separating the research
coordination responsibility from remedial actions to correct or
abate pollution problems could jeopardize its efforts to develop
Great Lakes management plans, we note that EPA's own internal
organization separates the research function from the pollution
abatement and control functions for all of its programs. We con-
tinue to believe that a coordinated Great Lakes research program
is needed if the many unknowns about Great Lakes pollution are
47
-------
to be resolved and effective remedial programs implemented. We
believe H.R. 3600 meets that need.
Toxics
EPA generally concurs with our discussion of toxics, except
for three points. First, EPA cites that some evidence indicates
that controls over toxic pollutants can be effective. Second,
EPA points out that the Food and Drug Administration sets allow-
able limits of toxic levels in fish. And finally, EPA believes
that the issue of laboratory capacity and capability is not an
issue peculiar to t:he Great Lakes.
We concur with EPA that controls over toxic pollutants can
be effective, as evidenced by the declining levels of PCB's in
some areas"and the decrease in levels of DDT in Great Lakes fish.
However, as discusser1, in the report, the major problem is that
too little is known about the overall nature, extent, and source
of toxic substance pollution in the Great Lakes. The level of
control achieved with PCB's and DDT is largely due to the fact
that these toxic substances have been carefully studied and regu-
lated for some time, and consequently more is known about them.
Further, our report discussion shows that the lack of information
about toxic substances make it difficult to assess the effective-
ness of control programs currently in place.
EPA correctly points out that the Food and Drug Adminis-
tration, and not EPA, sets allowable limits of toxic levels
in fish, and we have revised our discussion accordingly. EPA's
comment that limited laboratory capacity and capability is a
national and worldwide problem may be true. It does not alter
the fact, however, that the need for such capacity and capability
is both real and necessary to adequately address toxic pollution
problems on the Great Lakes and meet agreement objectives.
Water quality monitoring
EPA stated that it had serious reservations about the water
quality monitoring discussion. Specifically, EPA stated that:
—IJC never stated that GLISP is biased and incomplete and
lacks scientific validity, and IJC has taken no action
to approve or disapprove the plan.
— -*
—GLISP is a framework to be used to determine overall
program priorities and should not be a rigidly prescribed
set of activities and timetables.
—The discussion on tributary monitoring appears to be a
series of opinions, which do not reflect a full under-
standing of either the site selection process or the
purpose of tributary monitoring.
48
-------
—Toxic substances monitoring is quite different from
phosphorus monitoring and EPA's strategy is to look for
toxics in the most probable source areas, to locate
hot spots, and to warn the public of any acute concentra-
tions in local fish.
—The report leaves the reader with the impression that
much of the data collected through monitoring is useless
because it cannot be compared or verified, and this is not
the case.
—The discussion of the adequacy of the Great Lakes
Atmospheric Deposition Network data is not a true reflec-
tion of the current situation because at the time we were '
gathering our data for the report, the upgraded network
was not implemented.
We agree that IJC never stated that the GLISP is biased and
incomplete or lacks scientific validity and that IJC has taken no
action to approve or disapprove the plan. Before sending the
draft report to EPA, we inadvertently failed to revise the report
everywhere this language was used. We have revised the report
to reflect the actual situation.
We agree with EPA's position that the GLISP is a framework
to be used to determine overall program priorities and should be
responsive to changing environmental conditions and other factors.
But we believe that the report clearly shows that the GLISP per-
mits wide latitude for a variety of monitoring activities, in-
cluding sample timing and location, which can have a substantial
effect on consistency. Inconsistent monitoring makes data com-
parisons difficult and creates problems in evaluating the causes
of pollution and the effectiveness of various control measures.
We disagree with EPA's comment that the report gives the
impression that much of the data being collected is useless
because it cannot be compared. We recognize that EPA has quality
assurance guidelines and that laboratories participate in perform-
ance reviews, and we are not saying that the data is useless.
Our point is that data is difficult to compare if the sampling
methods, timing, locations, and circumstances are not similar.
We believe that EPA needs to develop a surveillance and monitor-
ing plan for the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes that is consist-
ent with Canadian efforts and which, among other things, ensures
that the data gathered can be used to provide meaningful evalua-
tions and comparative analyses.
We also do not agree that our discussion of monitoring
reflects a misunderstanding of either the site selection process
or the purpose of tributary monitoring. While the discussion
does contain opinions, they are the opinions of environmental
advisors to IJC and a water quality consultant who has reviewed
the GLISP and believes it needs improvement.
49
-------
EPA states that tributary monitoring sites were selected to
avoid lake effects, which greatly complicates monitoring at river
mouths, and by adding point source loadings entering the tribu-
tary downstream from the monitoring sites to the loadings deter-
mined at the monitoring sites, total loadings to the lakes can
be determined. This comment, however, does not consider nonpoint
contributions to tributaries between the monitoring site and the
lakes. As discussed in the report, nonpoint sources contribute
substantially to total pollution loadings to the lakes and adding
direct discharges between the monitoring site and the lakes will
not account for total tributary pollution loadings to the lakes.
Likewise, we do not agree that effluent monitoring alone
will determine tributary sources of pollution. Knowing the
source of pollution is important to determining how to control
pollution, and failure to sample secondary tributaries could lead
to erroneous assumptions about the source of pollutants. Also,
the nature of specific pollutants can change as tributaries flow
to the lakes, the pollutants may settle out or combine with other
pollutants only to be released by a storm or other events, or
they may be masked by other pollutants. Therefore, we believe
that improper sampling locations can result in inaccuracies in
the identification of both quantities and sources of pollution.
We agree with EPA's position that toxic monitoring is
different from phosphorus monitoring and we agree with EPA's
stated toxic monitoring strategy. As pointed out, however, EPA's
toxic monitoring efforts have been hampered by a lack of funding
and the GLISP does not provide for consistent monitoring in terms
of location, species, sample timing, and types of samples. In
addition, although EPA identifies the sampling of sediments as
an important auxiliary monitoring medium, the GLISP does not pro-
vide for the sampling of tributary sediment, which may release
pollutants to the lakes.
With respect to EPA's comment about its Atmospheric Deposi-
tion Network, we agree that the upgraded network was not imple-
mented at the time we gathered our information for the report.
The information provided by EPA indicates that the upgraded net-
work corrects many of the problems associated with the old
network, and therefore we have deleted our discussion of the
Atmospheric Deposition Network from the report.
Department of State comments
The Department stated (see app. X) that the draft report did
not include reference to its recent work in developing a proposed
supplement to the 1978 agreement on phosphorus control or new
initiatives and cooperative efforts to deal with toxic pollution
in the Niagara River. The Department stated that including
material on these subjects would make the report more useful.
At the time we conducted our fieldwork, the phosphorus
supplement was being developed and negotiated and little
50
-------
information on the subject was available. Also, as the Department
noted, the Niagara River cooperative efforts are recent and were
taken after we completed our fieldwork. We agree, however, that
these matters are important, and we have included them in this
report. (See p. 23 and pp. 35 and 36.)
Department of Agriculture comments
The Department's comments (see app. XI) related primarily to
its role in nonpoint pollution activities and the Rural Clean
Water Program. The Department noted that the coordination of
nonpoint programs in the Great Lakes Basin is a persistent prob-
lem because no formal agreements exist between the Department
and EPA regarding who is responsible for implementing agricul-
tural nonpoint control programs. The Department also noted that
the primary coordinating mechanism for the lakes—the Great Lakes
Basin Commission—has been abolished and that the Department has
no formal representation on UC boards. The Department also
stated that good communication exists at informal staff levels
but that no formal arrangements exist. The Department stated
that it would welcome the opportunity to participate in a coor-
dinated program to correct agricultural nonpoint sources of water
pollution in the Great Lakes.
We agree with the Department's position on the problem of
coordination of Great Lakes nonpoint activities and the need for
a coordinating mechanism and formal interagency arrangements.
Our recommendations to the Administrator, EPA, address this
matter.
With respect to the transfer of nonpoint source control
technology, such as minimum or no-tillage farming methods, the
Department stated that although individual water sheds have dif-
ferent characteristics which must be recognized and considered,
such technology can be transferred. The Department pointed out,
however, that implementation of the technology must be tailored
to the specific site. The Department also pointed out that
technology such as minimum or no-tillage farming is adopted
slowly because it requires new management skills and increased
technical assistance.
We agree with the Department's comments on this matter and
have revised the discussion in the report (p. 33) to clarify that
the implementation of technology is site specific, rather than
the technology itself. We have also included in the discussion
the need for new management skills and increased technical
assistance.
The Department also suggested some changes to the report to
correct or clarify several matters on its program or activities.
The report has been changed where appropriate to reflect the
Department's suggestions.
51
-------
U.S. Section of IJC comments
The U.S. Section provided detailed comments on our draft
report. Most of the comments were technical and suggested clari-
fications of IJC positions or provided additional information on
matters discussed. Appendix XII contains the U.S. Section com-
ments and our evaluation. Changes have been made to the report,
where appropriate.
52
-------
CHAPTER 3
EPA SHOULD GIVE GREATER VISIBILITY
TO ITS GREAT LAKES ACTIVITIES
EPA, the lead U.S. agency for carrying out water quality
activities and implementing the Great Lakes Water Quality Agree-
ment, has broad and complex responsibilities requiring it to work
and cooperate with a variety of Federal, State, and local agen-
cies as well as IJC and Canadian environmental agencies. EPA's
Great Lakes National Program Office has had difficulty obtaining
the cooperation needed from other EPA offices, other Federal agen-
cies, and the States because it does not have the visibility,
authority, and resources needed to assure that its Great Lakes
water quality program can compete with other important national
issues.
GREAT LAKES RESPONSIBILITIES
ARE BROAD AND COMPLEX
Article VI of the 1978 agreement and the attached annexes
call for over 50 programs and other measures to deal with virtu-
ally the entire spectrum of environmental concerns. In addition
to EPA, many other Federal agencies administer programs or activ-
ities directly affecting the Great Lakes. (See app. I.) Three
Federal agencies—the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and Defense
(Army Corps of Engineers)—have major responsibilities for pro-
grams and activities specified in the agreement. EPA is charged
with coordinating these Federal efforts, as well as working with
the eight Great Lakes States which are responsible for implement-
ing and administering many of the Federal environmental programs.
In addition, EPA must work through IJC to coordinate with
Canadian Federal and Provincial environmental agencies.
The chart in appendix VIII illustrates the tangled network
of interrelationships among EPA, other major Federal participants,
and the Great Lakes States involved in carrying out agreement
commitments.
Within EPA, virtually every major program office is respon-
sible for activities covered under the agreement. In addition to
region V (Chicago), EPA's regions II (New York) and III (Phila-
delphia) are involved in Great Lakes activities. Region II is
especially important because it covers the entire U.S. border on
Lake Ontario and a significant portion of Lake Erie.
The numerous programs and measures called for in the agree-
ment, and the multitude of entities involved in carrying them
out, require that a high-level office have the authority and the
resources needed to oversee and coordinate the activities of the
various agencies involved. The EPA office responsible for
53
-------
overseeing and coordinating Great Lakes activities—GLNPO—does
not meet this critical need.
PROBLEMS LIMIT EPA EFFORTS
TO MEET AGREEMENT OBJECTIVES
Though its lead agency responsibilities are heavy and
require a high level of visibility, through the years EPA has
placed Great Lakes program responsibilities at a relatively low
level within the organization; thus, GLNPO lacks the authority
to carry out the broad U.S. mandate under the water quality
agreement. In addition, EPA funding of the Great Lakes program
has been erratic. As a result, GLNPO has had difficulty carrying
out the Great Lakes program.
Great Lakes responsibilities are
handled at a low organizational level
The Great Lakes Initiative Program (started in 1973) was
EPA's first attempt to centrally manage an EPA program for the
Great Lakes. The program was to serve as the focal point for
coordination of program planning and budgeting within EPA to
carry out its assigned responsibilities under the agreement. The
program was delayed in fiscal year 1973, however, because (1) EPA
transfered research funds to a higher priority program, (2) not
enough research staff were assigned to the program, and (3) the
administration impounded $3.5 million in program funds in fiscal
years 1973 and 1974.
The program relied on a coordination committee made up of
representatives from various EPA headquarters and regional
offices, with the region V administrator serving as the national
program manager. Under the region V administrator, a Great Lakes
coordinator with a small staff was responsible for carrying out
program activities. Most program functions, however, continued
to be conducted by other EPA divisions.
In fiscal year 1978 EPA established GLNPO to administer the
Great Lakes program. Located in region V, GLNPO was to integrate
and consolidate EPA Great Lakes activities and to provide coordi-
nated support to the IJC Great Lakes Water Quality Board. GLNPO
is headed by a director reporting to the region V administrator,
who reports to the Administrator of EPA. The region V administra-
tor is the Great Lakes national program manager and the U.S.
cochairman of the IJC Water Quality Board.
According to the GLNPO Director, GLNPO was located in region
V for several reasons. GLNPO was intended to support the U.S.
cochairman of the IJC Water Quality Board, who is also the
region V administrator, and such support could be best provided
if GLNPO was a region V office. Also, because region V carries
out the major Great Lakes activities, locating GLNPO in region V
would allow it to work closely with region V program staffs.
54
-------
According to the U.S. Section of IJC, the relatively low
priority given to Great Lakes program responsibilities has
caused many of the problems related to fulfilling the require-
ments of the agreement. Further, the U.S. Section believes that
there is no incentive for the involved regional offices or asso-
ciated laboratories to attach any particular significance to
agreement activities if a similar commitment is not evident at
the EPA headquarters level.
Although we understand the rationale for the organizational
location of GLNPO, we agree that the situation has created ser-
ious problems. GLNPO, as an EPA national office not administered
out of headquarters, has had difficulty in carrying out some of
its functions and in gaining attention for Great Lakes issues at
the national level. A 1979 internal EPA evaluation found that
GLNPO
—lacked a written strategy to tie together all EPA programs
dealing with the Great Lakes,
—suffered from uncertainties regarding staff and resource
levels from one year to another, and
—needed to further integrate the program with the other
regions.
Although GLNPO has prepared documents for fiscal years 1980
and 1981 outlining its goals, objectives, and work plans, we
found that these documents have not been used to assess GLNPO's
effectiveness in achieving the objectives of the agreement. Had
EPA management compared GLNPO's objectives and accomplishments,
we believe the comparison would have revealed that GLNPO was hav-
ing difficulties achieving coordination and cooperation within
EPA and with other Federal agencies and the States. These diffi-
culties are discussed below.
Lack of authority frustrates GLNPO's
ability to carry out responsibilities
In addition to low visibility, GLNPO lacks the authority
to ensure that those responsible for developing and implementing
agreement programs and measures focus sufficient attention on
them. As noted previously, EPA implements nationwide environ-
mental protection activities in accordance with specific Federal
legislation covering air, water, toxic substances, and other
programs. Great Lakes agreement activities generally are not
funded separately under Federal law, and therefore Great Lakes
agreement activities and programs must take place within the
context of existing Federal legislation.
Without the authority to specifically direct EPA's, States',
and other Federal agencies' Great Lakes activities, GLNPO has
been frustrated in its attempts to carry out its responsibilities
for meeting water quality agreement objectives. The following
55
-------
examples of GLNPO's problems in carrying out its responsibilities
were provided by GLNPO officials and staff. Although we did not
analyze the examples to determine if the decisions ultimately
made were justified, we do believe the examples demonstrate the
frustrations GLNPO has experienced.
In one case, GLNPO attempted to obtain revisions to a
State's annual water quality program plan to provide greater
detail on what the State planned to do to address Great Lakes
issues. GLNPO's objective was to determine the adequacy of the
State's efforts in meeting water quality agreement objectives.
The GLNPO director first expressed concerns about the
State's fiscal year 1981 program plan in an August 1980 memoran-
dum to the region V Water Division director. The memorandum
characterized the State's draft plan as being overgeneralized,
inaccurate, and incomplete. Specifically, the memorandum stated
that the plan did not summarize program objectives and program
outputs or performance measures for Great Lakes activities as
requested in GLNPO guidance. In January 1981 GLNPO again com-
mented on the specific inadequacies in the State's program plan
and the corrective actions needed. Despite GLNPO's objections,
the Water Division director approved the program plan on the
basis of the State's financial needs and what he considered to
be an inconsequential part of the plan over which GLNPO expressed
concern.
The controversy between GLNPO and the region V Water Divi-
sion about the adequacy of the State's program plan resulted in
delays in EPA's approval and funding of the State plan. State
officials told us that the plan was submitted to EPA 6 months
before the start of fiscal year 1981 but was not approved until
9 months into the fiscal year (June 1981). As a result, several
Great Lakes project completion dates had to be extended and some
State monitoring activities (which needed to be carried out in
the spring) had to be written out of the 1981 program.
In another case GLNPO experienced problems in obtaining
region V Water Division cooperation in developing a strategy for
controlling pollution from nonpoint sources. In 1980 GLNPO
requested that the region V Water Division develop a nonpoint
source regional strategy for both urban and rural pollution
sources, including criteria for priority ranking and funding
for Great Lakes geographic areas with significant nonpoint
source water quality problems. According to GLNPO officials, it
emphasized the importance of developing this strategy by making
it an objective in both the fiscal year 1980 and 1981 Great Lakes
strategy documents.
To date the Water Division has not developed such a strategy.
The Chief of the Division's Water Quality Management Branch told
us that the region does not consider this objective to be a
high-priority issue. He said that the region is relying on the
States to develop individual nonpoint strategies, but for various
56
-------
reasons, including financial limitations, political constraints,
and low priorities, the States may not develop timely, complete,
or otherwise acceptable nonpoint strategies. Michigan water
quality officials told us that, while EPA has requested the State
to develop a strategy for controlling nonpoint pollution, they
believe the State has far more serious problems such as toxics,
hazardous wastes, and municipal discharges. As a result, the
State has put most of its effort into addressing these higher
priority concerns.
Interregional cooperation has also created frustrations for
GLNPO. Although it has responsibility for Great Lakes agreement
activities, GLNPO is located within region V and is not on the
same organizational level as the other two Great Lakes regions—
regions II and III—and has no authority over these regions.
Effective cooperation with region II is especially important
because it includes significant portions of the two most polluted
Great Lakes (Erie and Ontario) and the toxic laden Buffalo Harbor/
Niagara River.
Both the administrator of region V and the GLNPO director
told us that regions II and III are reluctant to commit resources
to Great Lake activities because they are not specifically funded
for such purposes. According to these officials, GLNPO and the
region V program divisions have had to carry out most of the work
directed to Great Lakes agreement objectives without assistance
from regions II and III. For example, the 1980 Great Lakes
strategy documents prepared by GLNPO did not designate any agree-
ment responsibilities to regions II and III. Only 2 of 59 objec-
tives in the 1981 strategy require a minor amount of involvement
by regions II and III, and GLNPO continues to carry most of the
burden for activities involving Lake Ontario.
Regions II and Ill's lack of involvement in Great Lakes
activities also affects State efforts under the agreement. State
of New York officials told us that the lack of EPA guidance is a
major reason the State has not directed its attention toward Great
Lakes issues. Also, three States (Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio)
are responsible for gathering fish samples from Lakes Erie, Huron,
and Michigan as part of the total effort to assess toxic pollution
problems. Although the strategy document also focuses on problem
areas in Pennsylvania and New York, these States are not involved
in fish sampling or analysis activities .
GLNPO has also experienced problems in directing and coordi-
nating the efforts of other Federal agencies involved in Great
Lakes activities. As discussed in chapter 2, GLNPO has not
developed a comprehensive nonpoint control strategy which in-
cludes the Department of Agriculture and has had research coor-
dination problems with NOAA. (See pp. 29-31 and 24-26.)
57
-------
Funding problems limit. Great Lakes act.ivit.ies
The resources necessary for EPA to function as the lead U.S.
agency under the 1978 agreement have not been provided. As noted
on page 54, the scheduled 1973 start of EPA's Great Lakes Initia-
tive Program was delayed until 1974 because funds earmarked for
the program were transferred to a higher priority program. A
proposed major cut in fiscal year 1979 funding for Great Lakes
activities,was avoided only when the Office of the Vice President
raised concern about the impact of funding reductions.
The table below for fiscal years 1977-82 shows that funding
and staff positions for GLNPO have declined since 1978.
Full-time
positions Funds
(millions)
1977 27 $4.0
1978 36 7.5
1979 22 6.4
1980 15 6.5
1981 18 6.1
1982 (proposed) 15 3.9
Funding cutbacks have affected and will continue to affect
Great Lakes activities. For example, as discussed on pages 38
and 39, monitoring has been reduced or will be eliminated by
budget cuts. EPA travel cutbacks occasionally have limited
employee attendance at important IJC functions. Also, congres-
sional committee intervention was required to prevent the fiscal
year 1982 closing of EPA's Large Lakes Research Station at Grosse
He, Michigan. This station has been "zeroed out" in the fiscal
year 1983 budget. According to the research station director,
closing the station would eliminate station contributions to
eutrophication issues and toxic substance problems and eliminate
participation by the station's staff on six IJC work groups or
committees, one of which—the Toxic Substances Control Committee—
is studying toxic control measures and their effectiveness. In
addition, the U.S. Section of IJC believes that closing the sta-
tion not only would result in the loss of a major Great Lakes
research activity but would also make the IJC work related to
the agreement more difficult to accomplish.
According to its director, GLNPO may also be eliminated in
fiscal year 1983 because of budget cuts. Should this occur, EPA
may no longer have an office entity to oversee and coordinate
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement activities within EPA or with
other Federal agencies, IJC, or Canadian ministries and agencies.
58
-------
CONCLUSIONS
EPA's responsibilities as the lead U.S. agency for matters
under the water quality agreement are broad and complex and
require the cooperation and assistance of a variety of EPA divi-
sions, offices, and regions as well as other Federal agencies and
the Great Lakes States. Yet EPA has assigned Great Lakes program
responsibilities at a relatively low level within EPA. As a
result, GLNPO does not have the authority to specifically direct
the Great Lakes activities of other EPA divisions, offices, and
regions much less the Great Lakes activities of other Federal and
State agencies. GLNPO has been frustrated in its attempts to
ensure that U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement commitments
are met.
Funding cuts have also hampered GLNPO's and EPA's efforts
to meet agreement responsibilities. Great Lakes activities have
had difficulty competing with other EPA programs for funding.
GLNPO funding and staffing have been reduced over the last
several years and may be terminated in fiscal year 1983. Should
this occur, EPA will not have an office to oversee and coordinate
its lead agency responsibilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, EPA
We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, raise GLNPO to a
high level in the organization and give it the authority and
resources necessary to
—develop and implement specific action plans to carry out
U.S. responsibilities under the agreement,
—coordinate internal EPA actions aimed at improving Great
Lakes water quality,
—coordinate with other Federal agencies and the States to
ensure their input in developing water quality strategies
and their support in achieving agreement objectives, and
—serve as the liaison with and provide input to IJC and
EPA counterparts in Canada.
Further, we recommend that the Administrator, EPA, direct
GLNPO and the various EPA organizational elements involved in
Great Lakes activities to enter into agreements specifically
delineating (1) the Great Lakes duties and responsibilities of
each entity, (2) time frames for carrying out assigned duties
and responsibilities, and (3) the resources to be committed to
these duties and responsibilities.
59
-------
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION
EPA and Department of State comments on the matters dis-
cussed in this chapter and our evaluation of the comments are
summarized below.
EPA comments
EPA did not agree with our recommendation to elevate the
function of GLNPO to a high level in the organization. (See
appendix IX.) EPA stated that its experience over the years has
shown that elevating GLNPO to a headquarters function was not
conducive to sound environmental data gathering, day-to-day
coordination of remedial programs, and international working
relationships. EPA further stated that the question of how
regions II-and III and headquarters support relate to GLNPO1s
authority can be resolved by an Administrator's directive to
focus operating program attention on Great Lakes problems with
coordination by GLNPO. Also, while EPA did not disagree with
the tasks we recommended for GLNPO, it believed such tasks will
require substantially more resources.
We disagree with EPA's position on these matters. This
chapter and the report in general contain numerous examples of
the frustrations experienced by GLNPO in attempting to coordinate
and direct Great Lakes matters without the authority necessary to
do so. In addition, as discussed in this chapter, funding for
GLNPO has been declining since 1978 and GLNPO may be eliminated
in 1983.
The Great Lakes situation is highly complex; involves numer-
ous Federal, State, and local organizations; and is exacerbated
by the lack of specific funding for Great Lakes activities.
Under such circumstances we believe that GLNPO's present position
within EPA and its lack of resources further fragment Great Lakes
activities and hinder attainment of Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement objectives. We believe that our recomendations con-
cerning GLNPO are appropriate and should be implemented.
Department of State comments
The Department stated that it noted with great interest the
recommendations to elevate GLNPO's functions within EPA and was
sympathetic to such a step, assuming the concurrence of EPA.
(See p. 90.) The Department noted that the Government of Canada
places a high priority on joint, cooperative efforts to protect
and preserve the Great Lakes and the Department has relied
heavily on EPA and GLNPO in implementating the agreement. We
agree with the Department's comments.
60
-------
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
SELECTED FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION AND
AGENCIES AFFECTING THE GREAT LAKES
The principal Federal law which guides nationwide water
pollution control efforts is the Federal Water Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (com-
monly referred to as the Clean Water Act). This comprehensive
law authorizes a variety of nationwide planning, regulatory,
financial assistance, demonstration, monitoring, and research
programs as well as programs specifically for the Great Lakes.
These programs have been the primary U.S. mechanism for meeting
the goals of the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), established
in 1970, is the principal Federal agency responsible for imple-
menting both the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the
Clean Water Act. EPA sets environmental standards, develops and
issues regulations and guidelines, provides research and techni-
cal support, and administers grants.
The following sections provide details on U.S. laws appli-
cable to and agencies involved in Great Lakes water quality
improvement efforts. Section I describes critical U.S. Federal
legislation while section II lists the principal Federal agencies
involved. While State and local laws, programs, and agencies
also have a significant impact on Great Lakes water quality, they
are not described in this document.
SECTION I
ENABLING U.S. FEDERAL LEGISLATION
THE CLEAN WATER ACT
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) established goals to attain water qual-
ity by 1983, wherever possible, suitable for recreational contact
and the protection and propagation of fish and wildlife, and to
eliminate any discharges of pollutants into the Nation's waters
by 1985. Moreover, it established specific deadlines for con-
trolling municipal and industrial discharges. The 1977 Clean
Water Act (Public Law 95-217) amended the act to revise defini-
tions and timetables, continue funding, and to further address
toxic substances. The act contains various provisions, most of
which the States have assumed responsibility for implementing.
The legislation addresses both point and nonpoint sources
of pollution and both conventional and toxic pollutants. It
authorizes a number of nationwide planning, regulatory, financial
assistance, demonstration, monitoring, and research programs and
some programs specific to Great Lakes water quality. These major
programs have been utilized as the primary mechanism for meeting
61
-------
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
some of the goals of the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
The more pertinent programs are described below.
Research program
Section 104(f) authorizes special ambient water quality and
waste treatment studies to protect Great Lakes water quality. It
calls for research, technical development work/ and studies of the
lakes' water quality, including an analysis of the present and pro-
jected future quality, an evaluation of water quality needs and
disposal practices, and a study of alternate means of solving
pollution problems.
Grants for administration of
pollution control programs
Section 106 provides for annual grants to States to assist
them in administering programs for the prevention, reduction, and
elimination of pollution. The funds are for operations and imple-
mentation activities, such as monitoring, evaluation, enforcement,
and administration.
Pollution control in watersheds
of the Great Lakes
Section 108(a) authorizes the Administrator of EPA to enter
into agreements to carry out one or more projects to demonstrate
new methods and techniques and to develop preliminary plans for
the elimination or control of pollution within all or any part of
the Great Lakes watershed.
Section 108(d) directs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
develop a wastewater management program for the rehabilitation and
environmental repair of Lake Erie, and under the 1977 amendments,
the Corps of Engineers was authorized additional funds for Lake
Erie to develop alternative waste control measures for point and
nonpoint sources and contaminated sediments.
Construction grant program
Section 205 provides Federal grants for planning, designing,
and constructing municipal sewage treatment facilities. These
grants provide between 75 and 85 percent of the facilities'
eligible costs. The States determine the specific facilities to
be constructed and may provide additional funding support.
Section 205(g) of the act authorizes an EPA-approved State
to use $400,000, or 2 percent of its construction grant allocation
(whichever is greater), to support State program administration
costs. This grant supplements other moneys provided to the
States for program administration.
62
-------
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
Areawide planning program
Section 208 provides grants to State and local agencies to
encourage and facilitate the development and implementation of
areawide water quality management plans to address all water
quality problems within a geographic area.
Section 208(j) authorizes the Department of Agriculture,
with the concurrence of EPA, to establish and administer a Rural
Clean Water Program to enter into 5- to 10-year contracts with
owners and operators to apply and maintain best management prac-
tices on rural lands to control agricultural nonpoint source
pollution. For fiscal years 1979 and 1980, $200 million and
$400 million, respectively, was authorized for the program. Un-
der the contracts, owners and operators were to receive Federal
matching funds for up to 50 percent of the total project cost,
to an upper limit of $50,000 on the cost share to an individual.
The Department's Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service was to be responsible for administering the program, and
the Department's Soil Conservation Service was to provide techni-
cal assistance to landowners. This section of the Clean Water
Act, however, has never been funded. In its place, an experi-
mental Rural Clean Water Program was included in the Department
of Agriculture appropriations in 1980 and 1981 with funding
levels of $50 and $20 million, respectively.
NPDES permit program
Section 402 authorizes the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which is the basic
enforcement mechanism for reducing or eliminating point source
pollution from industrial, municipal, commercial, and certain
agricultural discharges. The eight Great Lakes States issue per-
mits for all discharges into U.S. waters within their jurisdic-
tion. An NPDES permit generally specifies discharge limitations
for specific pollutants, establishes schedules for upgrading con-
trols to meet such limits, and requires periodic reports on
compliance.
Dredge and fill program
Section 404 authorizes the dredge and fill program, which is
a permit program to control the discharge of dredged and/or fill
material into navigable waters. This program is administered by
either the Army Corps of Engineers or the States. The permits
are issued through the application of guidelines developed jointly
by EPA and the Corps.
THE CLEAN AIR ACT
The Clean Air Amendments of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.)
provide the basic Federal statutory provisions for control of
air contaminants. This legislation establishes a joint Federal-
State program to protect and upgrade the Nation's air quality.
63
-------
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
Under this program, the States have primary responsibility for
controlling air pollution from stationary sources while EPA is
responsible for controlling pollution from mobile sources, such
as automobiles.
THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION
AND RECOVERY ACT
In 1976 the Congress passed the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901) to protect health and the environ-
ment and conserve valuable material and energy resources. This
mandates a national program to control hazardpus wastes from
their generation point to ultimate disposal and sets forth a pro-
gram to manage nonhazardous solid wastes. The act was intended
to be implemented primarily by the States.
Under subtitle C (hazardous wastes) of the act, EPA must
establish a national regulatory program to control hazardous
wastes, which the Federal Government will operate and enforce
when EPA does not approve the State program. "Cradle to grave"
hazardous waste control is to be achieved by (1) establishing
Federal standards for hazardous waste generators, transporters,
and facilities for treatment, storage, and disposal, (2) using a
nationwide manifest system to track hazardous waste movement,
(3) issuing permits for new and existing treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities, and (4) enforcing these Federal require-
ments. States can receive financial and technical aid to develop
hazardous waste programs meeting EPA requirements.
Hazardous wastes include wastes which can be toxic, carcino-
genic, mutogenic, or teratogenic. This program therefore promises
to have a significant mitigating impact on the amount of toxic
material entering the Great Lakes by establishing a national
management system designed to control waste handling and preclude
the entry of hazardous wastes into surface waters, groundwater,
and air. In addition, the disposal of any material dredged from
the lakes, if found to be hazardous, would need to comply with
the act.
THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
In December 1974 Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act
(42 U.S.C. 300f, et. seq.) to ensure that public water supply
systems throughout the Nation meet minimum national health stand-
ards. This act was the first national commitment to safeguard
all public drinking water supplies. Another major provision of
the act addresses the protection of underground water sources by
controlling subsurface fluids injection.
The emphasis of the act for the Great Lakes is on control-
ling the use of the lakes, and the act deals mainly with standards
for water supplied to consumers rather than the raw water supply.
Under the act, sources contributing to elevated toxicant levels
affecting drinking water systems can be ordered to limit their
64
-------
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
discharges. It was intended that the individual States would
assume primary responsibility for implementing the act. However,
EPA continues to be responsible for monitoring State implementa-
tion efforts and is either responsible or has assumed responsi-
bility for implementing the provisions of the act in those States
which have not assumed the lead role.
65
-------
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
SECTION II
FEDERAL EXECUTIVE AGENCIES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The Environmental Protection Agency, established in 1970,
is charged with the basic mission of mounting an integrated,
coordinated attack on the environmental problems of air and water
pollution, solid waste management, pesticides, radiation, and
noise. Generally, EPA is responsible for establishing environ-
mental standards, developing and issuing regulations and guide-
lines, providing research and technical support/ awarding and
administering grants, and enforcing various environmental laws.
These laws usually provide for State implementation of air, solid
waste, pesticide, and water pollution programs within bounds
established by EPA and for EPA to carry out the programs when a
State elects not to do so. The congressional intent is clearly
that EPA and the States act in partnership to implement these
programs.
The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), located in
Chicago, is responsible for planning, coordinating, and oversee-
ing EPA's pollution control programs as they affect the implemen-
tation of the U.S. portion of the 1978 water quality agreement
between the United States and Canada. GLNPO's primary responsi-
bility is to work with other EPA divisions and the States to
identify Great Lakes problems and recommend solutions. It also
is EPA's focal point for coordinating and communicating with
other agencies and the public.
The Large Lakes Research Station, located on Grosse lie,
Michigan, studies pollutants in the Great Lakes. It determines
what those pollutants are and finds out where they go and how
they affect water quality.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Several agencies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture
administer programs which relate to and/or involve nonpoint source
pollution.
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conversation Service (ASCS)
ASCS administers the Agricultural Conservation Program which
provides cost sharing assistance to farmers and ranchers to carry
out conservation measures on their land, such as practices to
control erosion and sedimentation and pollution from animal wastes.
ASCS also administers the Rural Clean Water Program authorized
under the Clean Water Act.
66
-------
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
SCS is responsible for developing and carrying out a national
soil and water conservation program and assists in agricultural
pollution control and environmental improvement. SCS assists
local units of government (208 planning agencies) in implementing
soil and water quality management plans and provides financial
and technical assistance for watershed projects to improve water
quality and reduce soil erosion. SCS also cooperates with ASCS
in administering the Rural Clean Water Program.
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA)
FmHA provides credit for those in rural America who are
unable to get credit from other sources at reasonable rates and
terms. Its loan coverage includes water conservation, watershed
protection, and resource conservation projects and efforts.
Science and Education Administration (SEA)
SEA conducts and funds research programs in agricultural
sciences and communicates and demonstrates the research results to
farmers. The agricultural research staff administers a basic,
applied, and developmental research program which includes cover-
age of "the use and improvement of soil, water, and air." The
cooperative research staff administers Federal grant funds for
agricultural research. The extension service staff administers
Federal funds for constructing cooperative extension education
programs.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
The Corps of Engineers is involved in the entire field of
water resources planning and development, including commercial
navigation, shore and beach erosion protection, water quality
management, and wastewater management. In the basin the Corps
has
—administered the permit programs for discharge or place-
ment of fill or dredged material in navigable waterways
and for creation of alternatives to obstructions in
navigable waterways,
—studied the feasibility of winter shipping on the lakes,
and
—carried out a wastewater management study under sec-
tions 108 (d) and 108(e) of the Clean Water Act aimed
at developing a plan for managing phosphorous inputs
into Lake Erie.
67
-------
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAAl
NOAA provides Federal leadership in promoting wise and
balanced management of the Nation's coastal zone, including the
award of grants to States for developing and carrying out plans
for the management of their coastal zones.
In addition, NOAA provides satellite observations of the
environment by establishing and operating a national environ-
mental satellite system and conducts an integrated program of
research and services relating to the oceans and inland waters.
NOAA also administers and directs the National Sea Grant
program by providing grants to institutions for marine research,
education, and advisory services, and promotes the development
of technology to meet future needs of the marine community.
In the basin NOAA operates a Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The laboratory con-
ducts research directed toward understanding the environmental
processes and solving problems in research management and environ-
mental services in the Great Lakes and their watersheds.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
The Coast Guard has major responsibilities in implementing
the Nation's policies for protection of the marine environment.
The program objectives are to maintain or improve the quality of
the marine environment and to minimize the damage caused by pol-
lutants discharged into it.
The functions conducted include boarding tank vessels,
monitoring transfer operations, and inspecting liquid bulk
facilities to ensure compliance with the laws, executive orders,
and agreements that constitute the legal mandate for the marine
environmental protection program. A national strike force also
has been established to respond in the event of a major pollution
incident.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. Geological Survey
The U.S. Geological Survey provides the hydrologic informa-
tion and understanding needed for optimum use and management of
the Nation's water resources. This is accomplished through
cooperation with other Federal and non-Federal agencies by
(1) collecting systematically data needed to continually deter-
mine and evaluate the quantity, quality, and use of the Nation's
68
-------
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
water resources, (2) conducting water resource appraisals
describing the occurrence, availability, and the physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of surface and ground
waters, (3) conducting basic and problem-oriented research in
hydraulics, hydrology, and related fields, (4) disseminating
water data and research through reports, maps, computerized
information services, and other public releases, (5) coordinating
the activities of other Federal agencies concerning water data
for streams, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, and ground waters, and
(6) providing scientific and technical assistance in hydrologic
fields to other Federal, State, and local agencies, licensees
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and international
agencies on behalf of the Department of State.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
In the area of resource management, the Fish and Wildlife
Service provides leadership for the protection and improvement
of land and water environments (habitat preservation) which
directly benefit the living natural resources and add quality
to human life. Activities include
—biological monitoring through scientific research;
surveillance of pesticides, heavy metals, and thermal
pollution; studies of fish and wildlife population;
and ecological studies; and
—environmental impact assessment through river basin
studies, including hydroelectric dams, nuclear power-
sites, stream channelization, dredge and fill permits;
associated research; and environmental impact state-
ment review.
The Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory located in Ann Arbor,
Michigan, carries out research on the fish resources of the Great
Lakes. Laboratory research concentrates on the effects of pollu-
tion, lamprey predation, and habitual changes of food and game-
fish. Research results are given to State and Federal agencies
to help them develop fishery management plans.
69
-------
Appendix II Appendix II
SELECTED AND ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
OF GAP REPORTS INVOLVING
WATER QUALITY ISSUES IN THE
UNITED STATES
"Better Monitoring Techniques Are Needed To Assess the Quality
of Rivers and Streams," Volumes I and II (CED-81-30, Apr. 30,
1981) .
This report describes how the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Geological Survey use sam-
pling networks, which generally sample once a month
at widely spaced sites, to assess the quality of the
Nation's rivers and streams. It concludes that water
quality is far too complex to be monitored by these
networks and nationwide reports based on data from the
networks are unreliable.
"Cleaning North America's Inland Seas: Study of Federal Water
Pollution Research Demonstration Programs on the Great Lakes"
(B-166506, Jan. 16, 1974).
This report describes how certain factors have
limited EPA's efforts to meet the lakes' research and
development needs. It concludes that greater Federal
agency coordination and teamwork with EPA leadership
are needed if the U.S. contribution under the water
quality agreement is to be effective.
"Cleaning Up the Great Lakes: United States and Canada Are Mak-
ing Progress in Controlling Pollution from Cities and Towns"
(RED-75-338, Mar. 21, 1975).
This report describes how the United States and
Canada are progressing in controlling pollution from
cities and towns. It concludes that the United States
will substantially meet 1972 water quality agreement
requirements for construction of municipal waste treat-
ment facilities by 1978; however it will take many years
and cost millions of dollars before combined sewer over-
flows are controlled.
"Combined Sewer Flooding and Pollution—A National Problem. The
Search For Solutions in Chicago," Volumes 1-6 (CED-79-77, May 15,
1979).
This report describes the combined sewer and
flooding problems in the Chicago metropolitan area.
It questions the project's continuation because of its
70
-------
Appendix II Appendix II
high cost (estimated at $11 billion by 1983) and its
uncertain impact on water quality.
Volume 1, an executive summary, synopsizes infor-
mation in the other volumes. Volume 2 describes the
current status and impact of the Chicago Tunnel and
Reservoir Plan; Volume 3 profiles the extent and
location of flooding and damage in the Chicago metro-
politan area? Volume 4 summarizes the limited availa-
bility of funds to correct the problems; Volume 5
describes several alternatives for local communities
and individual citizens to consider; and Volume 6
contains summaries of the flooding experienced by each
of the 54 Chicago area communities, actions planned or
taken to alleviate or mitigate the problem, and the
anticipated impact of the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan.
"Congressional Action Needed To Provide a Better Focus on Water-
Related Research Activities" (CED-81-87, June 5, 1981).
This report describes how water-related research
and development activities are fragmented among 28
Federal organizations that planned to spend about $380
million during fiscal year 1981. It concludes that
more effective use of these funds is needed.
"Continuing Need for Improved Operation and Maintenance of
Municipal Waste Treatment Plants" (CED-77-46, Apr. 11, 1977).
This report found that operational and mainte-
nance problems at treatment plants have caused ineffi-
cient plant operation and discharging of unnecessarily
high pollution loads into the Nation's waterways. It
concludes that EPA must strengthen its regional office
and State efforts to improve plant operation and mainte-
nance and that EPA, the States, and local communities
must place a higher priority on plant operation and
maintenance.
"Costly Wastewater Treatment Plants Fail To Perform as Expected"
(CED-81-9, Nov. 14, 1980).
This report describes how despite a Federal in-
vestment of $25 billion, plus several billion more in
State and local funds to construct new wastewater
treatment plants or to modify and expand existing
plants, many are not treating wastewater at the effi-
ciency levels they were designed to achieve. These
treatment plant failures were usually the result of a
combination of often overlapping problems. It con-
cludes that a change to the construction grants
funding program is needed to assure that wastewater
treatment plants, once constructed and paid for, will
operate as intended.
71
-------
Appendix II Appendix II
"Federal-State Environmental Programs—the State Perspective"
(CED-80-106, Aug. 22, 1980).
This report describes how the States, which
are primarily responsible for carrying out Federal
environmental programs, overwhelmingly believe that
Federal requirements—legislative, regulatory, and
administrative—and the uncertainties of Federal
funding impede their management of these programs.
It concludes that because of these obstacles the
Federal-State partnership envisioned by the Congress
for administering Federal environmental programs has
not materialized.
"Large Construction Projects To Correct Combined Sewer Over-
flows Are Too Costly" (CED-80-40, Dec. 28, 1979).
This report describes how neither the Federal
Government nor local communities can supply the
billions of dollars required for the large construc-
tion projects usually needed to stem pollution and
flooding caused by combined stream sewer and sewage
systems. It identifies a number of new control
techniques which offer promise and are far less
expensive than the construction projects.
"Many Water Quality Standard Violations May Not Be Significant
Enough To Justify Costly Preventive Actions" (CED-80-86, July 2,
1980).
This report describes how advanced waste-
water treatment for municipal sewage, with few
exceptions, may not be worth the tremendous costs—
estimated by the Environmental Protection Agency at
$10 billion. Although it recognizes there may be
times when advanced treatment is justified, such
as phosphorus removal from the Great Lakes to comply
with water quality agreement commitments, it con-
cludes that funding of these projects should be
curtailed.
"Millions of Dollars Could Be Saved by Implementing GAO Recommen-
dations on Environmental Protection Agency Programs" (CED-81-92,
May 5, 1981) .
This report discusses opportunities to
realize substantial savings through legislative and
administrative changes in the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency's water pollution control and hazardous
and solid waste programs. It focuses on the recom-
mendations to the Congress and to the Agency con-
tained in seven reports on these two programs.
72
-------
Appendix II Appendix II
"National Water Quality Goals Cannot Be Attained Without More
Attention to Pollution from Diffused or 'Nonpoint1 Sources"
(CED-78-6, Dec. 20, 1977).
This report describes how nonpoint pollution,
which currently produces more than half of the pollu-
tants entering the Nation's waterways, will prevent
the achievement of 1983 water quality goals. It con-
cludes that there is a need for a greater Federal,
State, and local effort to control nonpoint sources
of pollution.
"River Basin Commissions Have Been Helpful, But Changes Are
Needed" (CED-81-69, May 28, 1981).
This report describes how river basin commissions
(including the Great Lalces Basin Commission), which
spend $3 million annually, contribute toward water
resource planning and development. It concludes that
the commissions, as they are now operating, do not
accomplish optimum planning. While they have provided
a forum for Federal and State members to exchange views
and have assisted States in various water studies, they
have fallen short of meeting some of their legislative
objectives.
"Water Quality Management Planning Is Not Comprehensive and
May Not Be Effective for Many Years" (CED-78-167, Dec. 11, 1978)
This report describes how the Environmental
Protection Agency has administered a planning program
for geographic areas with substantial water quality
control problems. It points out the problems that have
hindered the effectiveness of the program and the
problems being experienced by the States and areawide
agencies which do the planning. It concludes that
although the program has had a number of accomplish-
ments in a relatively short period of time, planning
has not been comprehensive and it may take many years
before the program can be fully effective in cleaning
the Nation's waters.
73
-------
APPENDIX III
APPENDIX III
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION
DATES FOR MAJOR U.S. MUNICIPAL
TREATMENT PLANTS, LOWER GREAT LAKES
Jurisdiction
Lake Erie:
Ohio (69)
Mich. (22)
Ind. (4)
Pa. (2)
N.Y. (9)
Year
1981*
35
19
3
1
6
1982*
6
0
0
1
2
1983*
5
3
0
0
0
1984*
12
0
1
0
1
1985*
or later
11
0
0
0
0
Total (106) 64
Lake Ontario
N.Y. (44)
14
11
Total not Percent
meeting not meet-
1982 ing 1982
deadline deadline
24
13
28
3
1
0
J.
33
14
41
14
25
0
11
31
32
Total (150) 88 15 21 14
12
47
31
*Completed or abandoned during given year (1981 includes previous years totals)
() denotes total number of plants.
74
-------
APPENDIX IV
APPENDIX IV
GREAT LAKES BASIN FUNDING
FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
Period
State
EPA
region State
V Ind.
Mich.
Minn.
Ohio
Wis.
Total (note b)
II N.Y.
Ill Pa.
Total
(fiscal year)
(note a)
1973-81
1972-81
1973-80
1972-81
1972-81
1973-79
1977
Number of
projects
114
756
44
275
269
1/458
123
2
JLjrSjtt
Eligible
costs
$ 304.7
1,855.4
127.2
947.0
482.7
3,717.0
1,136.6
1.8
$4,855.4
Federal
share
- (millions) -
$ 231.5
1,374.7
95.5
700.0
360.0
c/ 2,761.8
852.7
1.4
$3,615.9
and local
share
$ 73.2
480.7
31.7
247.0
122.7
c/ 955.2
283.9
0.4
$1,239.5
a/Covers period July 1, 1971, through February 1981. Gaps in fiscal years
shown for the States indicate that EPA did not approve any grants in that
State's portion of the Great Lakes basin during those years.
b/Although Illinois is in region v, the cost of sewage treatment plants in that
State are excluded because none of the plants discharge wastes directly into
the Great Lakes or their tributaries.
c/Columns do not total due to rounding.
75
-------
APPENDIX V APPENDIX V
ADDITIONAL UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT
GREAT LAKES PHOSPHORUS CONTROLS
Four areas of uncertainty remain to be resolved concerning
phosphorus control measures on the Great Lakes:
—The extent to which different phosphorus forms contribute
to algae growth.
—The contribution of tributaries to phosphorus loads.
—The contribution of shoreline erosion to lake phosphorus
inputs.
—The extent to which the atmosphere contributes phosphorus
to the lakes.
Resolution of these four relative unknowns could drastically
affect the types and extent of programs needed to control the
lakes' phosphorus problems.
EXTENT TO WHICH DIFFERENT PHOSPHORUS
FORMS CONTRIBUTE TO ALGAE GROWTH
According to experts from IJC and the Great Lakes Basin
Commission, phosphorus bioavailability remains one of the most
critical considerations in assessing the desirability and
effectiveness of phosphorus control programs on the Great Lakes.
(The term bioavailability refers to phosphorus that is immediately
available for algae growth or that can become available for algae
growth over a short time period.) Some forms of phosphorus, such
as those in sewage treatment plant effluent, are more readily
available or harmful than other forms, such as those in urban and
rural runoff.
Although recent studies have focused on different phosphorus
forms, much still remains to be learned. Still unresolved are
questions about which sources contribute the largest amount of
harmful phosphorus, what conditions affect the amount and rate
at which phosphorus is used in the lakes, and how different
sources should be controlled to achieve water quality objectives
in the most cost-effective way. In its 1981 annual report to IJC,
the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board concluded that techniques
to provide a meaningful assessment of the bioavailability problem
do not exist and that such techniques would not likely be developed
without a significant increase in research efforts.
Management practices for controlling Great Lakes eutrophica-
tion historically have been directed toward all phosphorus (total
phosphorus) whether harmful or not. The target phosphorus loads
developed for the 1978 agreement have been based on total phospho-
rus values, because little information exists on the inputs of
different forms of phosphorus from various sources. However, the
76
-------
APPENDIX V APPENDIX V
importance of the bioavailability issue is widely recognized by
EPA, IJC, and others within the Great Lakes scientific community
and deserves particular attention when evaluating phosphorus
management strategies for the lakes. It makes little sense
to design an expensive strategy for controlling total phosphorus
if the possibility exists that only some unknown part of the
total phosphorus load is actually harmful.
CONTRIBUTION OF TRIBUTARIES
TO PHOSPHORUS LOADS
Tributaries carry phosphorus from both wastewater treatment
plants and urban and rural runoff, but uncertainty exists concern-
ing when and how much phosphorus in tributary sediment is released
to the lakes after it has originally settled to the bottom. To
minimize the impact of the backwater of the lake on the measure-
ments taken, tributary loads are estimated from measurements made
in rivers and streams at a point upriver from where the tributary
flows into the lake. However, the 1980 final report of the IJC
Phosphorus Management Strategies Task Force indicated that much
could happen to the phosphorus before it reaches, if it ever
reaches, the lakes. The phosphorus could, for example, settle in
river bottoms and either never be released or be released little
by little over time and with no assurance of how much would be
harmful. The Phosphorus Management Strategies Task Force
believes that tributary phosphorus loads to the Great Lakes
could be underestimated by 10 to 30 percent because traditional
methods for estimating tributary phosphorus loadings also do
not adequately take into account periods of high flow, such as
those that occur after a storm. According to the task force, no
consistent or comprehensive data base with associated analysis
exists concerning the effect of storm runoff on phosphorus inputs
to the Great Lakes.
SHORELINE EROSION CONTRIBUTIONS
TO PHOSPHORUS INPUTS
Erosion from the thousands of miles of Great Lakes shoreline
contributes a potentially large share of the total phosphorus
loadings to the lakes. Yet, shoreline erosion has not been fac-
tored into current phosphorus input estimates and target loads.
The Phosphorus Management Strategies Task Force concluded that
any development of target loads based on total phosphorus for
the Great Lakes should include any source, such as shoreline
erosion, which could affect lake eutrophication. The task force
admits that excluding shoreline erosion may result in overesti-
mating the benefits from controlling phosphorus from tributaries
and other sources. If these benefits are overestimated, the
most cost-effective control measures may not be selected.
The amount of total phosphorus that shoreline erosion contrib-
utes to the Great Lakes is significant, especially when compared
to the amount of total phosphorus inputs contributed by all other
sources. The following table, taken from the final report of the
77
-------
APPENDIX V APPENDIX V
Phosphorus Management Strategies Task Force, issued July 1980,
shows this relationship.
Shoreline Erosion as a Source
of Lakewide Total Phosphorus
Total sediment Total phosphorus
from shoreline from shoreline 1976 total phosphorus
Lake erosion erosion from all other sources
(metric tons per year)- ---------
Superior 11,279,000 3,800 4,200
Michigan 21,778,000 3,800 6,400
Huron 1,763,000 794 4,900
Erie 11,131,000 10,536 18,400
Ontario 3,206,000 1,280 11,800
In calculating the target loads for the lakes, the task force
assumed that phosphorus from shoreline erosion settles near the
shore and does not enter lakewide processes. If it does settle
rapidly, the impact of this source of pollution would be lessened,
but no data base exists to determine what percentage of these
loads actually does settle and is not available to the lakes.
According to a 1981 Great Lakes Basin Commission report, some
experts have estimated that anywhere from 1 to 40 percent of
the total phosphorus from shoreline erosion actually contributes
to eutrophication. Because of the potentially large amount of
phosphorus that could be available to the lakes, the exclusion
of shoreline erosion raises serious questions about the integrity
of the target loads proposed to direct future control efforts on
the Great Lakes.
CONTRIBUTION OF ATMOSPHERIC
DEPOSITION TO PHOSPHORUS LOADS
Phosphorus is one of several inorganic but biologically
active elements deposited in significant quantities from the
atmosphere. While the atmospheric waste was suspected of being
of major importance in the movement and behavior of pollutants
in previous years, the atmospheric deposition of pollutants like
phosphorus to the Great Lakes had not really been addressed.
Studies to date indicate, however, that the atmosphere may con-
tribute a large percentage of the phosphorus loads to Lakes
Huron, Michigan, and Superior and to a much lesser extent to
the loads for the two lower lakes. The upper lakes are partic-
ularly susceptible to atmospheric inputs because of their large
surface areas and air mass circulation patterns.
78
-------
Appendix V Appendix V
In a January 1981 interim report under the water quality
agreement, IJC recommended that the Governments act to overcome
the lack of sufficient monitoring data and to fulfill the need
for a well-designed, coordinated, efficient sampling network
and monitoring study to identify and measure the atmospheric
deposition occurring thoughout the Great Lakes Basin. As of
February 1982, the U.S. Section of IJC continues to believe that
more accurate information on the quantities and types of phosphorus
entering the lakes by air is needed. We agree and can only
conclude that the lack of understanding surrounding atmospheric
inputs of phosphorus to the lakes adds to the uncertainty about
what the overall U.S. phosphorus control strategy should be for
the Great Lakes.
79
-------
APPENDIX VI
APPENDIX VI
FEDERAL GRANT OUTLAYS FOR
POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS AND
ACTIVITIES IN THE GREAT
LAKES BASIN, 1978-1980
750-
CO
rr
O
Q
g
I
500-
250-
967.7
941.6
753.2
672.5
1978
1979
874.4
801.8
1980
EPA CONSTRUCTION GRANTOUTLAYS FOR GREAT LAKES BASIN
FEDERALOUTLAYS FOR OTHER GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAMS
SOURCE: The Geographic Distribution of Federal Funds Reports for fiscal years
1978 through 1980 compiled by The Community Services Administra-
tion.
80
-------
APPENDIX VII
APPENDIX VII
oo
O
-
OS
-------
APPENDIX VIII
APPENDIX VIII
I
82
-------
APPENDIX IX APPENDIX IX
v,to si-*,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 51982
OFFICE OF
POLICY AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Mr. Henry Eschwege
Director
Community and Economic
Development Division
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
Dear Mr. Eschwege:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the
General Accounting Office (GAO) draft report entitled "Great
Lakes Cleanup Efforts Need More Focus and Direction". Public Law
96-223 requires the Agency to submit comments on the report for
consideration prior to publication of the final report. We
believe that our corrections, clarifications and comments,
presented in this letter and its enclosure, would improve the
final report and should be addressed in the report to Congress.
We are concerned that GAO does not fully recognize the
scope of the ambitious objectives of the 1978 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement, which does not directly control the water
quality programs used to support these objectives. Great Lakes
programs are generally not separately funded under federal law,
and therefore, specific water quality activities usually take
place only within the context of existing and broadly targeted
federal pollution control legislation. Such water quality programs
include National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit and Construction Grants Programs. We realize that the
pollution problems, both point and nonpoint source, have not
been solved; however, pollution control plans, mechanisms and
facilities are generally in place and the cleanup is progressing.
In addition, we believe the draft report is deficient in a
number of areas. First, its major emphasis on phosphorus control
measures and Great Lakes monitoring fails to acknowledge both
the comprehensive nature of the Agreement and the numerous Federal
and State actions undertaken to meet the terms of that Agreement.
We are also concerned with the apparent lack of technical and
scientific expertise expressed in the draft regarding the role
of phosphorus in the eutrophication process and the subsequent
mix of measures to control its input into the Great Lakes system.
83
-------
APPENDIX IX APPENDIX IX
-2-
We do not concur with the GAO recommendation that H.R.3600 should
be enacted to better coordinate Great Lakes research. We strongly
support the general goal of this bill, i.e., the more effective
coordination of U.S. Great Lakes research activities. However, we
seriously doubt that the goal will be achieved if the bill, as
written, is enacted.
EPA representatives co-chair and provide staff assistance to
the two principal joint U.S.-Canada Boards created by the Agreement
to advise the International Joint Commission (IJC) and the governments
on research needs, program policies and Agreement progress. In
addition, EPA is the primary source of technical and policy
expertise for the State Department in its Great Lakes related
diplomatic negotiations with the Canadian government. If H.R.3600
is passed, this established mechanism for addressing Great Lakes
problems would be fragmented by placing responsibility for research
coordination in a separate office which has no authority or ability
to link research needs or the results with water quality trends or
the remedial actions necessary to correct or abate identified
pollution problems. This separation of research from monitoring
and pollution control programs would, in our opinion, seriously
jeopardize current efforts to develop, with the States, compatible
and coordinated Great Lakes management programs which are responsive
to both domestic mandates and international commitments.
The draft report notes that the organization and funding for
Great Lakes research and surveillance merits close examination.
In many respects, the present system for administering these
programs has been ineffective. This situation can be attributed
to the complexity of organizations involved in the Great Lakes
pollution control programs, as cited in the draft report. We
also do not agree that the Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) has to be "elevated within the Agency" to exercise more
authority over U.S. programs affecting Great Lakes water quality.
The Agency has found, through experience over the years, that
elevation of GLNPO to a Headquarters' function was not conducive
to sound environmental data gathering, day-to-day coordination
of remedial programs and international working relationships.
The question of how Region II and Ill's and Headquarters' support
relate to GLNPO authority can be positively resolved by an
Administrator's directive to focus operating program attention
to Great Lakes problems under the coordination of GLNPO.
While we do not disagree with the tasks GAO recommends be
undertaken by GLNPO, we believe GAO is calling for an unnecessarily
resource-intensive effort to carry them out.
Phosphorus
One important reason both the U.S. and Canada have emphasized
control of municipal sewage discharges as the first and major
component of their control strategies is that these point sources,
in general, produce far more bioavailable phosphorus than other
sources and, therefore, are relatively more important in the
control of accelerated eutrophication. This is not to diminish
84
-------
APPENDIX IX APPENDIX IX
-3-
the current emphasis on the control of nonpoint sources, but
rather to put the control of point sources of phosphorus into
its proper scientific context and to suggest that future phosphorus
control strategies, as contemplated in the current U.S.-Canada
negotiations, will emphasize the most cost-effective means of
further reducing phosphorus inputs.
We do not disagree with the statement that the December 31,
1972 Agreement goal for adequate treatment of all municipal
sewage discharges to the Lower Lakes will not be met. However,
it is the amount of phosphorus entering the Lakes which will
ultimately determine the success or failure of control programs,
not the number of small facilities in or out of compliance. Hence,
we believe it is significant to point out that the plants not
in compliance by December 1982 will represent only 15% of the
total major plant flow and that 85% of the sewered flow from
these facilities will be complying with 1.0 mg/1 phosphorus
limits.
The Agreement does not define 1.0 mg/1 compliance in terms
of a daily average. The IJC has been tracking plant performance
on the basis of an annual average. State NPDES permits, with
the exception of those in Indiana, have required compliance on
a monthly average basis. Indiana permits have required compliance
with a daily maximum of 1.0 mg/1. As a result, the annual Indiana
average for phosphorus removal facilities in the Great Lakes Basin
is below 0.8 mg/1.
On the matter of detergent phosphate limitations, we find
the statement regarding "resistance" by key Great Lakes States
to be misleading. We believe the fact that six out of eight
Great Lakes States have voluntarily adopted detergent phosphate
limits is evidence of strong State support of just one of many
measures available to control the input of excessive phosphorus
into the Great Lakes system. It also should be noted that it is
EPA policy that any ban should be voluntary.
We concur, as stated earlier, that the control of nonpoint
sources is an essential part of any phosphorus strategy. But
we do question several of the conclusions relative to technology
transfer. Our experience with the section 108(a) demonstration
program leads us to the opposite conclusion, i.e., technology
can and has been transferred to other areas. We are also unaware
of the "EPA and IJC Reports" mentioned on page 29 which also
refer to the lack of technology transfer. We view section 108(a)
as only one of the available programs to actually implement and
test new nonpoint source control techniques. However, it is our
policy to use this program to continue that testing of innovative
practices and look to our cooperative efforts with the States
and other Federal agencies to carry out any long-term program.
While we agree that no formal and official U.S. nonpoint source
strategy has been adopted, we again point to the current bi-lateral
negotiations on Annex III, which should address this question in
more detail.
85
-------
APPENDIX IX APPENDIX IX
-4-
Toxics
Concerning the toxic pollution discussion, we generally concur,
but three items should be noted. First, we do have some evidence
that controls can be effective. For example, there has been a
90% decrease in the levels of DDT in Great Lakes fish since
that ban was imposed, and there is evidence that levels of
PCBs are declining in some areas. Secondly, on page 31, the
report should read that the Food and Drug Administration, not EPA,
is responsible for setting allowable limits in fish. And finally,
the issue of laboratory capacity and capability is not limited
to the Great Lakes. It is both a national and worldwide problem.
Water Quality Monitoring
We have serious reservations about the water quality monitoring
discussion, especially as it relates to the Great Lakes International
Surveillance Plan (GLISP), tributary monitoring, toxics monitoring
and quality assurance. To our knowledge, the IJC has never stated
that the GLISP is "biased, incomplete and lacks scientific validity."
In fact, the IJC has taken no action to approve or disapprove the
Plan. Moreover, it is the Parties' responsibility, ultimately, to
adopt such a Plan. From our Agency perspective, the current GLISP
is a framework which the jurisdictions use in determining their
overall program priorities. It is not, nor do we believe it should
be, a rigidly prescribed set of activities and timetables which
are unresponsive to changing environmental conditions, knowledge
gained through past experience, and the use of advanced modeling
techniques.
The discussion of tributary sampling appears to be a series
of opinions. The comments do not, we believe, reflect a full
understanding of either the site selection process or the
purpose of tributary monitoring.
For example, the location of tributary monitoring sites have
been carefully selected to avoid lake effects. Each stream has an
estuary near its mouth with complex intermixing of river and lake
water. This greatly complicates any river monitoring program at
these sites. The plan clearly states that the point sources located
downstream from tributary monitoring sites are to be treated as
direct discharges to the lakes and simply added to the river loadings
monitored upstream.
The comments regarding sampling of secondary tributaries lose
sight of the fundamental purpose of sampling the tributaries,
which is to determine loadings and not to find sources. Effluent
monitoring is a far more efficient method of determining sources
of nutrients and metals. Sediment and fish sampling is much more
efficient for determining sources of most trace organics accumulating
in the environment. Effluent monitoring is not covered by GLISP
and is the responsibility of the discharger under self-monitoring
requirements of the NPDES permits and the jurisdictions.
86
-------
APPENDIX IX APPENDIX IX
-5-
In regard to toxic substances monitoring, the problem is quite
different from phosphorus. We must determine where they are, where
they come from, and what threat they pose. We know relatively well
where phosphorus comes from and the threat it poses. Toxics are
not a problem to human health unless the human is exposed to them.
Humans will be exposed in nearshore areas and by eating fish. Toxics
are most likely to be found near their sources which, except for
atmospheric deposition, are in nearshore areas. Therefore, our
toxics monitoring strategy must concentrate on most probable source
areas and on fish, both local and lakewide. Since many toxics
accumulate in sediments, and sediments can be associated with
sources far more easily than fish, sediments are a very useful
auxiliary monitoring medium. Our strategy, therefore, is to look
for toxics in the most probable source areas, which are harbors and
rivermouths, and to look at fish from both the open waters and
harbors and rivermouths. Immediate objectives are to locate hot
spots, if they exist, and warn the public of any acute concentrations
in local fish. Longer-term objectives are to establish the general
pattern of organic contamination in the basin and to monitor trends.
The question of quality assurance and data comparability is
also of serious concern to us, other U.S. jurisdictions and
Canada. The draft report, however, tends to leave the reader
with a sense that much of the data collected is useless because
it cannot be compared or verified. This is not the case. For
example, all EPA Great Lakes monitoring grants or contracts
include requirements for adherence to Agency quality assurance
guidelines and require that laboratories participate in the
Water Quality Board's review of both U.S. and Canadian laboratory
performance.
Specifically, the discussion of the adequacy of the the
Great Lakes Atmospheric Deposition (GLAD) network data is not a
true reflection of the current situation.
When the basic data for the GAO report was being gathered,
the upgraded atmospheric deposition network was not implemented.
The report correctly cited inadequacies of the old network,
i.e., lack of equipment, poor collection location, and different
collection techniques. The Great Lakes National Program management
also recognized these deficiencies and is implementing a plan to
correct the noted deficiencies.
"State of the Art" collection equipment was purchased and
deployed to the field. The heart of the collection equipment is
the Aerochemic Metric Collector, which is identical to that used
in the national acid rain studies. The bulk collector was
redesigned to eliminate leakage, evaporation, sample degradation
and contamination. The bulk collector is also capable of collecting
organic toxics data. The GLAD network is using the basic equipment
that has been recognized by the scientific community with reliability
for collecting precipitation samples.
87
-------
APPENDIX IX APPENDIX IX
-6-
The GLAD network was sited to collect data from a variety of
demographic and land uses. Topographic maps, emissions data and
meteorological data were used to select the network sites. The
collectors were installed using EPA guidelines for installing
ambient air quality monitors. Thus, local contamination and
influences are minimized. In many cases, the deposition collectors
are co-located with conventional ambient pollution monitoring.
While the National Acid Rain Program is contemplating the additions
of gaseous monitors, the GLAD network is collecting its second
year of gaseous pollution data at selective sites to determine the
impact of gaseous deposition. Collectors on the lakes are impractical
for several reasons. The most important reason, disclosed in a
recent GLNPO study, is that collectors on the lakes are collecting
significant amounts of lake water which may mask the atmospheric
deposition.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft
report prior to its publication. We hope that you find our
comments useful in clarifying the report and its analysis.
Sincerely yours,
»*• (SI
>h A. Cannon
ActingXkssociate Administrator
for Policy and Resource Management
Enclosure
88
-------
APPENDIX IX APPENDIX IX
Corrections, Clarifications and Comments on GAP Draft Report
'lTGreat~ Lakes Cleanup Efforts Need More Focus and Direction" ~
Page ii/ Digest, second paragraph
The first sentence indicates that little funding has been directed
to controlling discharges from combined sewers. As a matter of
fact, construction grant priority systems do not distinguish between
sanitary and combined sewer discharges.
Combined sewer overflows continue to be a problem because utilization
of available funds for facilities to treat the more concentrated
portion of these wastewaters has been more effective in improving
water quality. With achievement of secondary treatment goals and
requirements on phosphate removal, efforts will be directed toward
treatment of combined sewer overflows where necessary to achieve
water quality standards. Increasing consideration is being given
to nonpoint source pollutants in the development of wasteload
allocations and effluent limits for publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) to determine the most overall cost effective solution. It
may prove to be more cost effective in some cases to control nonpoint
source phosphorus discharges than to treat small POTW wastewaters
or provide very high levels of treatment to achieve additional
removal at major treatment plants.
[GAO Comment: State construction grant priority
systems very often distinguish between sanitary and
combined sewer discharges and, as discussed on p. 14,
the States have given combined sewers low priority
compared to other treatment needs. We have, however,
revised the report (see p. 14) to state that available
funds have been used to treat more concentrated por-
tions of wastewater. Also we agree that increased
consideration should be given to nonpoint sources
of pollution, such as combined sewer overflows, to
ensure that pollution control efforts are the most
cost effective.]
The Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of
1981 recognize the problem of combined sewer overflows by providing
for Step 3 grants after October 1, 1984, upon request by the Governor,
where such discharge is a major State priority.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 14) has been revised
to reflect the combined sewer provisions of the 1981
amendments.]
GAP Note; page numbers in this appendix have been
changed to refer to the final report.
89
-------
APPENDIX IX APPENDIX IX
Page ii, Digest, third paragraph
The statement regarding 41 major U.S. treatment plants is ambiguous
with language such as "may not meet the 1972 agreement phosphorus
limitation because the plants may not have the necessary equipment
and/or may have operational difficulties." This conclusion on
operation of treatment plants is not substantiated in the report
(page 12)/ but is based on use of a percentage value derived from a
1980 report "Costly Wastewater Treatment Plants Fail to Perform as
Expected". Such percentage values derived on a national basis do
not justify this conclusion on water basins. It is suggested this
statement be revised to cover only equipment deficiencies.
[GAO Comment: We did not use a percentage value
derived from our 1980 report. We specifically reviewed
the performance of 26 Great Lakes Basin plants included
in the 1980 report and found that 24 of the 26 plants
are not making permit requirements.]
Page iii, Digest, third and fourth paragraphs
We agree with the principal thoughts expressed throughout the draft
report that much needs to be done to further clean up pollution in
the Great Lakes Basin. Considerable effort has already been exerted
by EPA, however, to initiate the development and implementation of
State and local control programs, particularly with regard to the
nonpoint sources of pollution. State and local Agencies have the
prime responsibility for control of these sources. Under authority
provided by the Clean Water Act, the Agency has provided grant
funds, institutional guidance, and technical assistance to these
water quality management agencies throughout the United States, as
well as to other Federal and State organizations, for development
of these programs, many of which are now being implemented. Although
other Federal agencies deal with portions of the pollution problem,
EPA's water quality management program is the only Federal program
with a mandate to comprehensively address the nonpoint sources.
[GAO Comment: We believe the discussion (see pp.
26-33) on nonpoint sources comprehensively sets
forth the status of nonpoint planning and control
efforts. While EPA and others have provided funding
for nonpoint efforts, much remains to be done.]
Glossary
The third sentence defining the term "toxic substance" should be
deleted. Oxygen-consuming substances such as organic matter are
not considered "toxic substances" by the Agency.
[GAO Comment: The report (see glossary) has been
revised as suggested.]
90
-------
APPENDIX IX APPENDIX IX
Page 5
The chart omits the USDA Cooperative Extension Service. It
should be included due to its major role in providing education
and assistance for agricultural practices needed to control nonpoint
sources. This comment also applies to Appendix I pages 53 and 54.
[GAO Comment: The Extension Service is part of the
Science and Education Administration. As suggested
by the Department of Agriculture, a discussion of
the Extension Service has been added to appendix I.
(See p. 67.] **
Pages 11 and 12
While current estimates indicate that 31% of the larger municipal
facilities (flowj> 1 MGD) discharging to the Lower Lakes will not
have finished construction to meet phosphorus limits, these plants
represent only 15% of the total major plant flow. In other words,
85% of the sewered flow from these facilities will be complying
with 1.0 mg/1 phosphorus limits. Since the effluent of many U.S.
plants, having completed and operating phosphorus removal facilities,
averages significantly lower than 1.0 mg/1 of phosphorus, it can
be expected that the aggregate U.S. municipal flow would be at
1.0 mg/1 or less at the end of 1982. This effect was noted in the
1981 Great Lakes Water Quality Board's Report to the International
Joint Commission. The report states on page 51 "The Board notes,
with gratification...these efforts have resulted in initial achieve-
ment of an average phosphorus effluent limitation of 1.0 mg/1 at
all municipal treatment facilities in the Lower Lakes Basin, as
called for in the 1972 Agreement." The report goes on to note, that
in Lake Michigan (which lies wholly within the United States) the
gross municipal plant effluent averaged 0.96 mg/1 phosphorus in
1980. This was achieved despite the fact that not all municipal
treatment facilities in the Lake Michigan Basin have finished
their construction programs.
[GAO Comment: We do not agree with EPA. The discussion
refers to construction completion dates, not to whether
the plants will comply with the discharge limits. We
do agree, however, that EPA's comment about aggregate
flow is important and have revised the discussion
(see p. 12) to include the information on flow.]
Page 12, first paragraph
The attempt of the GAO report to extrapolate its earlier findings
regarding national plant performance to Great Lakes plant performance
for phosphorus removal is not valid. As noted on pages 15 and
16, 123 facilities of 240 Great Lakes municipal facilities discharge
treated effluent at 1.0 mg/1 or less. There are 16 facilities
as per the cited GLNPO report, whose 1980 loading data showed
levels in excess of 1.0 mg/1. These 16 facilities include:
A) 2 facilities that completed plant start-up in FY 1980; and
B) 4 facilities experiencing start-up and/or operational problems.
91
-------
APPENDIX IX APPENDIX IX
Thus, of the total 139 facilities that should have been in compliance
only 4 or 2.2% were out of compliance due to poor performance.
It should also be noted that the report does not acknowledge the
existence of interim measures and treatment systems installed by
municipalities having facilities under construction.
This has resulted in a large number (22) of facilities in early
compliance or discharging at near compliance levels. Their
effluent levels average well below the 4-7 mg/1 range associated
with municipal effluent not treated for phosphorus.
[GAO Comment: As discussed in our evaluation of a
previous EPA comment (see p. 90), we did not extrapolate
the findings from our report. We have, however, revised
the report (see pp. 18 and 19) to more clearly show
the status of the performance of Great Lakes municipal
facilities, as suggested by EPA. Also, although munic-
ipalities with facilities under construction may have
installed interim measures and treatment systems, the
plants are still not meeting the agreement objectives
as discussed in the report.]
Page 13, first paragraph
It is stated that lack of funds "has not been an obstacle to
meeting the Agreement requirements for constructing waste treatment
facilities." While it is true that many other factors operated to
limit the pace of construction, funding limits have slowed municipal
compliance in several respects.
1. With the advent of a program for large Federal grants,
communities were no longer willing to construct facilities
using only local funds.
2. States have not had sufficient funds to provide grants to low
priority projects which are typically the small plants which
constitute the large number of plants that will fail to meet
the December 31, 1982 deadline.
3. During 1973 and 1974, EPA attempted to shift funding to munic-
ipalities discharging to the Great Lakes by calling upon the
States to give them added priority within the state priority
systems. Congress responded with language prohibiting such
priority and in the Clean Water Act of 1977 (section 216)
assigned authority for setting priorities to the States.
[GAO Comment: The report has been revised (see p. 13)
to include the matters suggested.]
Page 14, second paragraph
The report under combined sewer overflows cites the 1981
IJC reports as identifying 51 problem areas. The 1981
Water Quality Board report to the IJC identifies 39 areas of
concern in Canada and the United States. We are unable to
find a reference to 51 areas.
92
-------
APPENDIX IX APPENDIX IX
[GAO Comment: The IJC report was issued in 1981
but contains calendar year 1980 data. The report
(see p. 14) has been revised to clarify this matter.]
Page 6, first paragraph, Discharge limits not being met;
The decision to reduce the 1 mg/1 limit to 0.5 mg/1 in the lower
lakes as per the 1978 agreement is pending.
[GAO Comment: The remainder of the discussion (see
p. 16) sets forth the status of this matter.]
Page 16, last paragraph
The characterization of large quantities of "harmful" sludge
generated as a result of phosphorus removal process is incorrect.
The additional sludge being generated is in no way more harmful
than that generated by the normal treatment processes. Second,
at some facilities the same chemical would be added for solids
control, although not in such quantities.
[GAO Comment: The term "harmful" has been deleted.
(See p. 16.)]
Page 15, second paragraph
U.S. municipal facilities are not required to achieve as a body
a 1.0 mg/1 daily average limit by the end of 1982.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 16) has been revised
to show that the agreement pertains to major dischargers.]
Page 17 , Table
This table is potentially misleading in its evaluation of progress
made in achieving 1.0 mg/1 Total Phosphorus limitation. This table
should list total flow presently treated, not number of facilities.
[GAO Comment: Information on flow has been added to
the report (see p. 17) as suggested.]
Page 18, first paragraph
This same Task Force report indicated that existing treatment
technologies would not achieve effluent levels in the range
0.1-0.5 mg/1. As GAO's own analysis on page 16 shows, 31% of
the facilities meeting 1.0 mg/1 are discharging effluent having
0.5 mg/1 phosphorus or less.
[GAO Comment: We agree that the technology exists,
but, as the discussion points out, many plants are
having problems meeting the discharge limits. It
is not a question of technology, but performance.]
93
-------
APPENDIX IX APPENDIX IX
Page 18, last paragraph
We do not concur with the GAO conclusion. We believe that the
aggregate U.S. municipal flows will reach 1.0 mg/1 and that
interim noncompliance of remaining smaller plants will be
compensated by greater than expected performance of larger
facilities. Plant performance reviews in the past year have
shown that many facilities using existing phosphorus and solids
removal facilities can, with good operation and maintenance,
remove phosphorus to low levels consistently without new technology.
[GAO Comment: We do not agree. While good operation
and maintenance of municipal facilities is needed to
help achieve the discharge limits, we continue to
believe that achieving the 1.0 mg/1 limit is unlikely,
as discussed in the report.]
Pages 20 and 21
The pertinent concern should be whether uncertainty about phosphorus
target loads and inputs has been sufficiently reduced to allow the
selection of a logical and reliable course of action. This question
underlies the summary items which begin in Chapter 2 on page 9
and a series of items on pages 18, 19 and 20. The first phrase
on page 18 states, "the Task Force also reported that all that
may now be necessary for phosphorus control on the Lower Lakes
is municipal treatment at 1.0 mg/1" this is substantially repeated
in the first paragraph of page 20. This is accurate only in the
sense that the extreme range of probability reported by the Task
Force included the possibility that no further abatement would be
needed. This is an extremely remote possibility. Further work was
reported during the public hearing on the Task Force reportl that
clearly shows that such action will not be adequate without
further measures. This evidence showed a substantial reduction
in the range of target loads predicted by the models for Lake Erie.
The result is that the range of load reductions necessary to
meet the targets was also narrowed, thus showing a need to achieve
further load reductions even under the full range of possible
outcomes from current control efforts.
[GAO Comment: The report (see pp. 19 and 20) has been
revised to show that additional information made avail-
able since the task force report suggests that further
controls may be needed, rather than maintaining the
status quo or even less controls.]
We agree with the stated need to further reduce uncertainty; but,
we know that it cannot be eliminated entirely. Thus, a prudent
management strategy includes the use of low cost measures to
address nonpoint sources while further efforts are made to reduce
uncertainties before pursuing higher cost measures, if these prove
necessary. This is the central theme of the Phosphorus Management
Strategies Task Force and the informally accepted strategy within
EPA. This is also the approach developed with the U.S. Corps
of Engineers Lake Erie Wastewater Management Study nearing
completion under section 108(d) of the Clean Water Act.
94
-------
APPENDIX IX APPENDIX IX
[GAO Comment: EPA has no assurance that its approach
of low-cost controls is really the needed strategy.
The uncertainties discussed, if and when studied,
could have a dramatic effect on the U.S. strategy.
As stated in the report, we are concerned that efforts
needed to resolve the uncertainties and their implica-
tions for future control strategies may not be undertaken
and coordinated.]
Page 21, first paragraph
The paragraph states that the Task Force included representatives
from industry. They were not actually members of the Task Force.
[GAO Comment: The report (p. 21) has been revised
as suggested.]
Page 26
It should be acknowledged that resources available to GLNPO have
been used in a very logical and systematic manner over the past
ten years in evolving an agricultural nonpoint source strategy
that is now reflected in the coordinated EPA/USDA/USCOE projects
in western Lake Erie.
[GAO Comment: We do not agree. We believe that the
report clearly shows that EPA efforts have been slow;
have not been comprehensive; and, to a large extent,
they have not been coordinated. EPA, Agriculture, and
Corps of Engineers efforts in Western Lake Erie are
discussed in the report (see pp. 29 to 33) and the
discussion shows that the efforts have been limited.
Also, the Department of Agriculture stated in its
comments that coordination with EPA has been hampered
by a lack of formal agreements between EPA and the
Department. ~]
Page 26, third paragraph, Nonpoint Pollution Sources Have Received
Little Attention;
This statement fails to recognize efforts to control
agricultural and urban nonpoint sources of pollution. For
instance, seven out of eight States bordering the Great Lakes
have developed their agricultural nonpoint source control priorities
sufficiently to participate in the Department of Agriculture
administered Rural Clean Water Program. This pollution control
implementation program requires that State priority lists for
agricultural nonpoint source problems be developed similar to
the Construction Grants priority lists.
1 V.J. Bierman, Jr., Presentation to the International Joint
Commission November 19, 1980
95
-------
APPENDIX IX APPENDIX IX
Wa?er S^f J^M* "^ usually Developed as part of the statewide
Man?9ement plans. Five of the seven States which
n have
n Gu6at Lakes t0 represent their most
pollution problems.
[GAO Comment: We believe our assessment is correct.
The 1972 agreement objectives for nonpoint controls
for agriculture, forestry, and other land use activities
were not met. The 1978 agreement nonpoint objectives
are much broader and include matters such as soil
losses, land use planning and management, and toxic
substances. Little has been done in any of these areas,
particularly toxic substances. As discussed at length
in the report, phosphorus controls for agricultural
sources have been limited (primarily to the Western
Lake Erie Basin) , comprehensive implementation plans
are lacking, and control efforts are voluntary and
have been slow to be accepted (only 5 to 10 percent
of the farms in the Maumee Basin have accepted tillage
controls) . The Department of Agriculture also pointed
out in its comments that only two projects under the
Rural Clean Water Program have been in the Great
Lakes Basin. Therefore, we believe that much nonpoint
work continues to be needed.]
In the area of urban nonpoint source control, the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) is designed to provide assistance in
the development of water quality plans and focuses on determining
the significance of urban runoff as a source of pollution. Of the
28 cities participating in the program, 6 are located with the
Great Lakes Watershed. They are: Rochester, NY; Detroit, MI;
Ann Arbor, MI; Lansing, MI; Chicago, IL; and Milwaukee, WI . These
cities, as well as the other 22, are concentrating on problems they
have identified. They are determining what pollutants are causing
water quality impacts and then characterizing these pollutants as
to concentration, loads, effects, and controllability.
[GAO Comment: The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
is a very limited effort. According to the program
director, it covers only five pollutants, it has
received only $6 million in funding nationwide over
a 3-year period, and the projects are very specific
to the communities in which they are located. The
program director also stated that the future of the
program is unknown at this time.]
Page 28
The Table and first paragraph statements that nonpoint sources
are the largest contributor of total phosphorus are accurate, but
misleading. The type of total phosphorus from nonpoint source
does not impact algal growth as much as the type from point sources
(primarily ortho-P).
96
-------
APPENDIX IX APPENDIX IX
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 28) has been revised
to add the information suggested.]
Page 32
Discussion of the section 108(a) Great Lakes Demonstration Grant
Program omits mention of several projects which have addressed
combined sewer overflows.
[GAO Comment: We are aware of only five section 108(a)
projects which have been funded to demonstrate such
technology as swirl concentrators and hydrobrakes for
urban combined sewer problems. Also, this comment
relates to a discussion of rural nonpoint runoff,
not combined sewers.]
Page 32, next to last paragraph
The last paragraph does not give an accurate picture of the
section 108(a) program or the GLNPO staff chief's view. The
section 108 agricultural nonpoint source control demonstrations
began with implementation and detailed monitoring of resulting
water quality benefits in the Black Creek Project in Allen County,
Indiana. Based upon those results and later results from the
Corps of Engineers project in the Sandusky River Basin, current
projects have concentrated on tillage practices. Careful measure-
ment of results have been used to create and verify a computer
simulation model (ANSWERS) which estimates the results of implemen-
ting various practices under various conditions. Since it is
far too costly to monitor ambient results throughout entire
river basins, the predictive model is used to estimate loading
reductions based upon information on the adoption of modified
tillage practices.
[GAO Comment: The GLNPO Chief's comments have been
clarified as suggested. (See p. 32.)]
Page 32, last paragraph
This statement may accurately reflect the opinion of an EPA
staff member; but, it is contrary to our general experience.
The statement is typical of those made by skeptics at the outset
of most tillage projects. We do not consider no-till practices
to be a panacea, but are satisfied as to its benefits and have
found that most skepticism is reversed by the end of each
demonstration.
It is quite true that only 5-10% of farms in the Maumee River
Basin currently use no-till practices and is why demonstration
projects are needed.
[GAO Comment: Both the IJC and Department of Agricul-
ture comments on this report support the position
that new technology will be slow to be implemented.
Therefore, we agree that demonstration projects are
needed.]
97
-------
APPENDIX IX APPENDIX IX
Page 43, first paragraph
The second paragraph contains the statement, "an overall control
strategy or plan has not been developed" (for nonpoint sources).
While we agree that no formal, official overall strategy has
been adopted for the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes, we submit
that an informal and quite workable strategy has evolved among
the various agencies. This strategy reflects the knowledge
gained from studies and demonstrations supported by the IJC and
various State and Federal agencies and the main recommendations
of the Phosphorus Management Strategies Task Force. The strategy
is incremental and adaptive in nature, emphasizing the implementation
of low cost measures while deferring costlier measures while
further information is gathered.
[GAO Comment: We do not agree that an overall
strategy exists. The report clearly points out that
the authority and responsibility for nonpoint efforts
is spread among several Federal agencies and States
and that the nonpoint problem will be addressed ade-
quately only if an overall, comprehensive strategy
and plan is developed to delineate the responsibili-
ties of the many parties involved.]
Page 56
With respect to the example of differences between GLNPO and
Region V-Water Division, we do not dispute that fact that there
are differences in opinion between organizational units, usually
due to differences in the programs that they administer. However,
by working closely with operating programs at the Regional Office
level, GLNPO has been successful in redirecting program efforts
to optimize operating program activities to the Great Lakes
benefit. It should be noted that during the same time an impasse
developed over the Michigan State program grant, substantial
modifications were successfully negotiated in the programs for
all five of the other States in Region V. It should also be
noted that the delay in approving the Michigan grant was not due
to the question of whether GLNPO's concerns would be met, but
due to disagreements between Region V and Michigan concerning
other matters. Unfortunately, the debate over those other issues
operated to obscure GLNPO's concern.
Also in respect to GLNPO's relationship to Region V's operating
divisions, it should be noted that during this same timeframe
GLNPO convened and chaired the Region V Phosphorus Committee
which has enjoyed outstanding success in obtaining standardized
compliance tracking and acceleration of actual compliance by
Great Lakes municipalities. By focusing attention on key dis-
chargers, the Committee representatives from enforcement,
construction grants, and water quality programs in cooperation
with the State of Ohio, have been able to ensure compliance with
target dates and, in several cases, actually advance the dates
for phosphorus compliance by as much as a full year.
98
-------
APPENDIX IX APPENDIX IX
With reference to the State nonpoint sources strategies, it
should also be noted that they were funded at the direction of
the Water Division Director, utilized section 208 funds (funding
source administered by the Water Division Director) and will
provide for priority consideration of Great Lakes impact. Far
from downplaying the impact of nonpoint source control, these
funding actions taken in the face of extremely limited funds are
solid evidence of the importance attached by Water Division to
Great Lakes matters generally and nonpoint source control matters
specifically.
[GAO Comment: We agree that GLNPO has achieved some
success at its present level. But it has difficulty
getting cooperation from other EPA program offices and
regions for its Great Lakes pollution control activi-
ties, and it lacks resources to carry out its respon-
sibilities. We believe that elevating GLNPO to a
higher level within EPA will help to ensure that the
water quality agreement receives the resources and
status it needs to meet the U.S. commitments.]
Page 74
This table contains an addition error for Pennsylvania in the
1981 column.
[GAO Comment: The addition error (p. 74) has been
corrected.]
Page 75
The Funding Table ignores construction cost of Illinois
facilities built to eliminate direct municipal discharges to
Lake Michigan.
[GAO Comment: We agree that the table (p. 75) does
not include Illinois facilities as noted in footnote b
to the table.]
99
-------
APPENDIX X APPENDIX X
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Comptrollrr
Washington, D.C. 20520
March 8, 1982
Mr. Frank C. Conahan
Director
International Division
U. S. General Accounting Office
Washington, D. C.
Dear Frank:
I am replying to your letter of January 26, 1982, which
forwarded copies of the draft report: "Great Lakes Cleanup
Efforts Need More Focus and Direction."
The enclosed comments on this report were prepared by the
Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of European Affairs.
We appreciate having had the opportunity to review and comment
on the draft report. If I may be of further assistance, I
trust you will let me know.
Sincerely,
Roger/B. Feldman
Enclosure:
As Stated.
100
-------
APPENDIX X APPENDIX X
GAO DRAFT REPORT: "Great Lakes Cleanup Efforts Need More
Focus and Direction"
I am pleased to comment on the General Accounting Office
draft report on implementation of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement.
We have noted with interest the recommendations of the
report in favor of elevating the functions of the Great
Lakes National Program Office to a higher level in the
Enviromental Protection Agency. This Department would be
sympathetic to such a step, assuming the concurrence of
EPA. The Great Lakes National Program Office has been the
focus of US work to comply with obligations under the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada. The Government
of Canada places a high priority on joint, cooperative
efforts to protect and preserve the Great Lakes. This
Department has relied heavily on the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Great Lakes National Program
Office in the US implementation of the agreement.
In considering the draft report, we have noted the lack
of reference to work over the past months to meet
US-Canadian responsibilities in two important areas under
the Great Lakes Agreement. The two countries developed a
proposed supplement to the Agreement on phosphorus control
in a series of meetings last year. The draft text is in
final stages of negotiation. The US and Canada have
recently increased cooperative efforts to deal with toxic
pollution in the Niagara River. Announcement of new US
initiatives, to be undertaken in cooperation with Canada, is
expected shortly. The inclusion of material on these
subjects would enhance the usefulness of the report.
I hope these comments are helpful to you.
Thomas M. T. Niles
Deputy Assistant Secretary
for European Affairs
101
-------
APPENDIX XI APPENDIX XI
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 2O250
MAR0 4)982
Mr. Henry Eschwege
Director
Community and Economic
Development Division
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
Dear Mr. Eschwege:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the GAO draft report entitled,
"Great Lakes Cleanup Efforts Need More Focus and Direction."
It is noted that several persons from this Department were interviewed
during the preparation of this report. Agricultural water quality
management is a very complex area. There are several areas covered
within this report that require clarification. Our enclosed comments
are not suggested word changes, but comments of clarification in three
general areas—coordination, implementation, and nonpoint sources.
We hope that these general comments will be of value to you in preparing
your final report.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
102
-------
APPENDIX XI APPENDIX XI
Comments on GAP Draft Report Entitled, "Great Lakes Cleanup Efforts Need
More Focus and Direction"
COORDINATION:
The Great Lakes Basin Commission has been the primary coordinating mechanism
in the Great Lakes. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) did have a
representative from the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) on the Commission.
This group has gone out of existence. Coordination with the International
Joint Commission (IJC) and its Boards has been on an informal staff basis.
There is no formal representation of USDA on any of the Boards at this time
but some informal discussions concerning this have taken place. The SCS
has had a full-time liaison position with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region V since 1978. This position includes liaison to the
Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO). The SCS has entered into an
agreement (page 28) with EPA and the Corps of Engineers (C/E). The reduced
tillage program mentioned was not the primary focus of this agreement but
was an early action by EPA to implement some of the findings of the
Lake Erie Study by the C/E.
The USDA Work Group on Water Quality, chaired by SCS has taken this agreement
and is currently developing a draft departmental position paper regarding
the Great Lakes. The reason behind this effort is the development of common
goals for all of the agencies in the Department as they relate to their
individual program responsibilities.
The persistent problem of coordination is that no formal agreements regarding
responsibility for implementation of agricultural nonpoint control programs
exist between USDA and EPA. In relation to the Great Lakes, there is no
mechanism now in place to include USDA representatives on any of the Boards
of the IJC where nonpoint source issues can be addressed.
l
Implementation of agricultural nonpoint source control programs must of
necessity include many of the agencies of USDA. USDA would welcome the
opportunity to participate in a coordinated program to correct agricultural
nonpoint source water quality problems in the Great Lakes. We do not see
EPA as the director of our activities (page 55) but do see their role as
handling coordination.
The statement (page 57) that GLNPO has had difficulty in dealing with USDA
is misleading. There is good informal staff communication as already noted.
The difficulty is that there are no formal arrangements for the EPA or the
GLNPO to communicate with USDA. The informal communications are through SCS
to the USDA Work Group on Water Quality.
IMPLEMENTATION:
The implementation which has occurred in the Great Lakes has included USDA
agencies since it depended on the existing agricultural delivery system
including Soil and Water Conservation Districts. This included technical
assistance, information and education, and in some instances additional
cost share funds. Most of the demonstration funds for implementation were
GAP Note; Page numbers in this appendix have been changed to
refer to the final report.
103
-------
APPENDIX XI APPENDIX XI
-2-
directed to the Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The USDA agencies
assisting these Districts responded to these projects to supply the
necessary support. These projects were in response to identified problems
and were generally successful. It required the USDA agencies to respond
to the grant, and did not allow for participation in the selection of project
areas or take into account their existing manpower commitments.
RURAL CLEAN WATER PROGRAM:
The section on the areawide planning program (page 63) refers to Section 208j.
This amendment to Public Law 92-500 in 1977 has not been funded. The
experimental Rural Clean Water Program was included in the USDA budgets
(Public Law 96-108) in 1980 and 1981 with funding levels of 50 and 20 million
dollars respectively. It is administered by the Department's Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) as stated. This section and
the paragraph on ASCS (pages 32 and 57) confuses Section 208j of the
Clean Water Act and the present experimental Rural Clean Water Program. It
should be noted that the Great Lakes area received additional consideration
in the selection of projects for 1980. Only two projects presented a
sufficiently strong proposal for selection.
NONPOINT SOURCES:
Several references are made to the fact that technology cannot be transferred
(page 33) from one project area to another. It is true that individual
watersheds are different from the standpoint of soils, land use, farming
enterprises, runoff characteristics, etc. It is likewise true that not all
streams are impacted by pollution from agriculture. It is also true that
other nonpoint sources do exist and may contribute pollution to streams
within an agricultural area. It is the implementation program that is site
specific rather than the technology. It is necessary to determine within each
new project area the cause or causes of the problem and to tailor the
implementation program to treat the cause. The minimum or no-tillage program
(page 32) referred to was an effort to accelerate the adoption of the technique
in those counties where adaptable soils were present as identified by the
Lake Erie Study^ not to sites identified, as stated. The monitoring program
mentioned is to tract the adoption rate not the water quality benefits. This
program is designed to run for three years.
The adoption of minimum or no-till technology is slow because of the need for
new equipment and increased managerial skills. When increased technical
assistance is made available to assist with learning these new skills,
adoption rates increase rapidly. The programs funded by EPA in the
Lake Erie Basin are designed to provide this assistance from employees hired
by Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The reluctance of farmers to
adopt these new practices (page 33) is not the result of higher costs or
lack of desire. Minimum and no-till technology requires new managerial skills.
It has been demonstrated that increased technical assistance will accelerate
the adoption rate. The present statement in the report indicates an overall
reluctance to adapt which is misleading, if not further qualified.
104
-------
APPENDIX XI APPENDIX XI
- 3 -
The section on Sewage Treatment Goals (page 11) suggests that the
United States is doing a less adequate job than Canada in municipal
point source control. It does not take into account the vast difference
in the magnitude of the needs of the two countries. The 1981 Annual Meeting
of the International Joint Commission reported substantial progress by the
United States in meeting the goals of the agreement.
The paragraph about the Science and Education Administration (SEA)
(page 67) does not reflect the current agency status of the Agricultural
Research Service (ARS), Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) and the
Extension Service (ES). The Extension Service is not listed. A suggested
statement for their function is as follows: "The Extension Service staff
administers Federal funds for conducting Cooperative Extension education
programs."
The planning efforts (page 29) referred to were authorized by Section 208(a)
rather than Section 208(b). The reference in Appendix I (page 50) referring
to the cost share rate under the experimental Rural Clean Water Program should
state that...owners and operators may receive Federal matching funds for up
to 75 percent...
105
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
UNITED STATES AND CANADA
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20440
February 26, 1982
Mr. Frank C. Conahan
Director, International Division
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
Dear Mr. Conahan:
The International Joint Commission has received the GAO
report entitled, "Great Lakes Cleanup Efforts Need More Focus
and Direction" for Commission review and comment. The
Commission appreciates the opportunity to provide comments
regarding the report and hopes they are of value to the GAO.
Commission staff has been encouraged to comment on both the
general thrust and specifics of your report. Attached you will
find these general and specific comments. We hope you find
them useful as your prepare your final draft. Should you have
questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (202) 673-6222.
Yours very sincerely,
David A. LaRoche
Secretary
United States Section
Attachment
106
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
Comments on Draft GAO Report:
Great Lakes Clean-Up Efforts
Need More Focus and Direction
Page 4, para 4, line 5: The participation by states in Great Lakes
cleanup activities is basically under the federal mandate. The state
programs are not usually designed to specifically address Great
Lakes concerns, but rather are state programs which have been
incorporated -into the federal Great Lakes program. It is somewhat
misleading, therefore, to imply that the states have active interest
in Great Lakes cleanup efforts, per se. Since the Agreement does
not have the force of domestic law, the main effort must rest on the
federal level.
[GAO Comment: While we agree that States' partic-
ipation in Great Lakes activities is under the
Federal mandate, we do not agree that our charac-
terization of the States' roles is misleading.
The report clearly notes that the agreement does
not have the force of domestic law, but U.S. environ-
mental laws provide for a strong State role in
implementing environmental programs. In particular
the Clean Water Act, which is a major factor in
U.S. Great Lakes cleanup efforts, provides for
an active State role.]
Page 4, para 4, line 6: Other federal agencies do support
activities related to the Agreement. It must be recognized,
however, that the relative efforts of the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Interior, Transportation, etc., in
regard to Great Lakes' matters vary considerably.
[GAO Comment: We believe that appendix I clearly
spells out the roles and responsibilities of the
various Federal agencies.]
Page 5, para 4, line 4; It is stated that the efforts of the above
noted groups in Agreement activities "must be tied to the
International Joint Commission". The meaning of this statement is
unclear. The IJC relies heavily on the goodwill of the various
agencies associated with the Agreement. This goodwill and
cooperation is a mainstay of IJC activities in regard to Agreement
commitments and, indeed, the work of the Commission in general.
There is, however, no mandate which requires these agencies to work
with the IJC.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 5) has been
revised to make it clear that efforts of agencies
and departments involved in Great Lakes activities
should be coordinated with IJC.]
GAP Note; Page numbers in this appendix have been changed
to apply to the final report.
107
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
Page 5, Figure; The Department of Transportation should be added to
the "Canadian Agencies" box. The Great Lakes Basin Commission and
the Water Resource Council should be omitted from the "U.S.
Agencies" box, since these agencies no longer exist.
[GAO Comment: The Canadian Department of Trans-
portation has been added to the chart and a footnote
has been added to show that the Great Lakes Basin
Commission has been terminated. The Water Resources
Council continues to exist, however.]
Page 6, para 4, 1st item in list: It is stated that GAO contacted
EPA headquarters in Washington, Region V, the Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO) and the Large Lakes Research Station to
obtain information for its report. Was the EPA's Environmental
Research Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota contacted? Research
related to the Agreement is conducted at this laboratory. If it was
not contacted, this is a noteworthy omission.
[GAO Comment: EPA's Environmental Research
Laboratory was contacted during our review and
has been added to the report. (See p. 6.)3
Page 7, para 3, line 15; It is stated that EPA headquarters staff
were interviewed by the GAO. Unfortunately, EPA headquarters
appears to have displayed little interest in recent years for the
Great Lakes Basin as an international concern. It is unclear,
therefore, that relevant insights can be obtained from this source.
The IJC experience is that there is somewhat of a "gulf" in recent
years between the interests of EPA's headquarters staff and those of
EPA Region V regarding the requirements of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement.
[GAO Comment: EPA headquarters plays an important
role in carrying out U.S. environmental programs,
and therefore it was important that headquarters
staff be contacted and interviewed.3
Page 8, para 3, line 11; It is stated that staff of the Council on
Environmental Quality were interviewed. It is noted, however, that
most of the information on the Great Lakes in recent CEQ reports has
been supplied by IJC headquarters staff in Washington.
[GAO Comment: Information provided to us by CEQ
may have been provided initially by the IJC staff,
but CEQ plays an important advisory role in U.S.
environmental activities. Therefore, the views
of the CEQ staff were important to us.]
Page 10, 5th item in list; It is stated that the Great Lakes
continue to experience problems because effective surveillance and
monitoring activities have not been developed and implemented. This
is only partially true since some information is, in fact, obtained
as a result of these activities. The major problem is that such
activities are not sufficient to give a comprehensive indication of
108
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
\
overall water quality^conditions and trencfs in the Great Lakes.
Rather, attempts are made to extrapolate overall conditions based on
the concentrations of a limited number of conventional and toxic
1 pollutants. This can lead to erroneous conclusions, since some
pollutants in the lakes do not respond in the same manner nor in the
same time frame to clean-up efforts as do other pollutants.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 10) has been
revised to state that comprehensive and effec-
tive surveillance and monitoring activities
have not been developed.]
Page 11, para 4, line 9: It is stated that meeting the requirements
for secondary treatments satisfies the 1978 Agreement requirements
for adequate municipal treatment. This is incorrect, at least in
regard to phosphorus limits. The Agreement calls for a 1 mg/L
phosphorus effluent limit for municipal wastewater treatment plants
discharging more than one million gallons per day. This limitation
usually requires some degree of phosphorus removal at the plants,
which is not normally a component of secondary treatment.
[GAO Comment: A footnote has been added to the
report (see p. 11) to indicate that phosphorus
limitations are discussed separately later in
the chapter.]
Page 11, para 5, line~T; It is stated that only 64 percent of the
sewered population in the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes Basin has
adequate sewage treatment, compared to 99 percent in Canada. It
would be informative to point out the scale of the effort in both
countries. With a U.S. basin population of approximately 30 million
people versus about seven million in the Canadian basin, this means
approximately 19 million people in the United States are sewered
versus about seven million in Canada. Thus, if absolute numbers are
considered, one could conclude that the U.S. have achieved an effort
almost three times greater in scope than that of Canada.
[GAO Comment: No doubt the U.S. effort has been
larger than Canada's in terms of absolute numbers,
but as also noted the U.S. Great Lakes Basin popu-
lation is much larger than Canada's. Also, although
Canada has the right to 50 percent of the assimila-
tive capacity of the Great Lakes (with the exception
of Lake Michigan), the United States currently con-
sumes a much greater percentage because only
64 percent of the sewered U.S. population receives
adequate treatment. /Therefore, we believe that the
report accurately reflects the U.S. contribution
to Great Lakes pollution problems.]
109
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
Page 12, para 2, line 3; A 1980 GAO report on wastewater treatment
plants is cited as a basis for the observation that municipal
facilities nationwide are experiencing severe problems which limit
their ability to treat wastes. It should also be pointed out,
however, that more overall effort has probably been expended in the
Great Lakes Basin toward the proper operation of municipal
facilities, in large part because of the requirements of the
Agreement. It may not be appropriate, therefore, to compare or
extrapolate the results of a nationwide study (in which operation of
municipal facilities may not have the same priority) to conditions
in the Great Lakes Basin.
[GAO Comment: We did not extrapolate the results
of our 1980 nationwide report. The discussion
clearly shows that we specifically reviewed the
performance of 26 Great Lakes Basin plants included
in our report and found that 24 are not meeting
their permit requirements. Plants in the Great
Lakes Basin may have received more attention and
effort in terms of proper operation, but they are
still not meeting their permit conditions.]
Page 13, para 3f line 2: It is stated that the 1978 Agreement
requires pretreatment for industrial wastes discharged into
municipal treatment systems. This is only partially correct. The
Agreement requires pretreatment for industrial wastes only where
such wastes are not amenable to adequate treatment or removal using
conventional municipal treatment processes. The Agreement does not
automatically require pretreatment of industrial wastes.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 13) has been
revised to clarify this matter as suggested.]
Page 14, para I, lines 6 and 7; It is stated that only "limited progress"
has been made in regard to control of combined sewage discharges.
The title of this section, however, says that such discharges
"continue unabated". It is suggested the correct observation is
that limited progress has been made.
[GAO Comment: The caption for this section
(see p. 14) has been changed as suggested.]
Page 15, para I, line 1; A 1979 GAO report is cited as the source
of a number of innovative/alternative technologies for control of
combined sewer overflows. It is worth noting the indicated
technologies were suggested earlier as possible nonpoint source
control measures in the 1978 PLUARG Final Report to the IJC.
[GAO Comment: We do not believe that additional
reference to the IJC report is needed.]
110
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
Page 16, para 1, line 3;; It is stated that more accurate data on
phosphorus inputs and an understanding of the eutrophication process
is necessary for the United State to select the most "effective mix"
of phosphorus control programs. This is misleading. More accurate
data and understanding would obviously be helpful in selecting such
measures. However, various mixes of point and nonpoint measures
have already been suggested by several Great Lakes' groups,
including PLUARG and Task Group III. These suggested mixtures have
a considerable technical basis and should be given more serious
considation by the Governments.
[GAO Comment: This comment is the same as the first
comment on p. 117 and is addressed there.]
Page 16, para 2, line 5: It is stated that the 1972 Agreement calls
for a daily average of 1 mg/L in sewage treatment plant effluents.
It should be indicated, however, that the annual average
concentration has been used in recent years as the basis for
assessing how well the jurisdictions are achieving the 1 mg/L
effluent limitation.
[GAO Comment: The Governments may be using an
annual average, but the 1972 agreement calls for
a daily average. EPA raised the same comment,
which is addressed on p. 46.]
Page 16, para 2, line 12; it is stated that the pnosphorus
limitations in the 1978 Agreement do not take affect until the
Governments have determined the allowable future phosphorus loads
("target loads") for the Great Lakes and that this has not yet been
done. It should also be mentioned that this should have been done
by May 22, 1980, 18 months after the signing of the 1978 Agreement.
The Governments have, in fact, extended this date twice since then
and have still not reached formal agreement concerning allocation of
the loads between the two countries. Until this is done, it is not
likely that there will be any significant concern paid to the more
stringent phosphorus requirements called far in the 1978 Agreement.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 16) has been
revised to incorporate this suggestion.]
Page 16, para 3, lines 3 & 6; Reference is made to the 1972
requirement of a "daily average discharge of 1 mg/L". A subsequent
reference is made to a federal requirement of a "maximum phosphorus
discharge of 1 mg/L". This inconsistency should be corrected. An
average versus maximum concentration are two different concepts. A
maximum phosphorus discharge of 1 mg/L can be considerably more
stringent than an average concentration of 1 mg/L. The same general
comment regarding the meaning of the word "average" applies to the
next several pages.
[GAO Comment: As noted above, the 1972 agreement
calls for a daily average. The report (see p. 16)
has been revised, however, to be consistent with the
terms of the permits, which with tne exception of
111
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
Indiana, require a monthly average discharge of
1.0 mg/1. Indiana pe-rmits require a daily maximum
discharge of 1.0 mgl . ]
Page 16., para 4,, line 12: Reference is made to large quantities of
"harmful sludge" resulting from phosphorus removal efforts. Sludge
can, in fact, contain elevated levels of heavy metals and other
pollutants, depending on the types of wastes entering a waste
treatment plant. It is not necessarily true, however, that all
sludges contain such pollutants. If a treatment plant receives
primarily municipal wastes and little or no industrial wastes, the
resultant sludge is often an excellent fertilizer for crops. Heavy
metals and pollutants in sludge usually become a problems only when
a sewage plant receives significant quantities of industrial wastes,
in addition to municipal wastes.
[GAO Comment: We agree that not all sludge is
harmful and have revised the report as suggested.
(See p. 16.)]
Page 17, para 1, line 4t it is stated that it is unlikely many U.S.
municipal plants will be achieving a "daily average" phosphorus
discharge of 1 mg/L by December 31, 1982. It should also be pointed
out, however, that the 1978 Agreement does not indicate a phosphorus
limit based on a daily average. It is the understanding of the IJC
that the 1 mg/L effluent limitation called for in the 1978 Agreement
refers to a monthly average concentration, at least in the current
phosphorus negotiations of the Governments. The "daily average"
limitation called for in the 1972 Agreement has, in fact, been
ignored in recent years and instead the annual average has been used
as the basis for the limitation.
Comment: We agree that the daily average
limitation called for in the 1972 agreement has
been ignored. The 1972 limitation remains in
effect, however, because phosphorus allocations
called for in the 1978 agreement have not yet been
agreed to by the Governments. This matter is fully
discussed on p. 16 of the report. 3
Page 17, para 4, line 5; it is stated that once the phosphorus
target loads are agreed upon, a 0.5 mg/L effluent limitation for
municipal treatment plants will take effect for the lower lakes. It
should be noted that this effluent limit applie^ he <-*
necessary to achieve the proposed phosphorus ta^yet loads. The
particular "mix" of measures to achieve the allocated target loads
is actually left to the discretion of the two countries. The only
requirement is that the loading allocation be met in each country.
It is possible, for example, that the United States may employ some
nonpoint source control measures in place of more stringent sewage
effluent limitations. This particular aspect of the Agreement
should be kept in mind when examining the effluent "requirements" of
the Agreement.
112
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 17) has been
revised to show more clearly that the 0.5 mgl
limitation applies only where necessary to achieve
the proposed phosphorus target loads.]
Page IB, para 2, line 4: It is stated that the IJC Phosphorus
Management Task Force suggested that effluent limitations in the
range of 0.1-0.5 mg/L may be needed for the lower lakes. This is
only partially correct. The Task Force presented this range only as
a possibility if other suggested measures did not prove effective.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 18) has been
revised as suggested.]
Page 18, para 2, line 5; Reference is made to the January 1981 IJC
supplemental report on phosphorus. It is stated that the IJC
recommended that Governments adopt an interim strategy requiring
most municipal plants on Lakes Erie and Ontario to be operated at a
level below 1 mg/L. This is not correct. The IJC suggested
phosphorus limitations below 1 mg/L be implemented where it is found
to be technically and economically feasible. It was recommended
that the Governments assess the ability of plants in the Basin to
achieve concentrations below 1 mg/L, and where it is found to be
relatively easy to do so, a more stringent limitation be considered.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 18) has been
revised as suggested.]
Page 19, para 2, lines 5 and 6; It is stated that the 1972 and 1978
Agreements advocate detergent pnosphate limitations. It should also
be indicated, however, that these limitations are advocated only as
necessary to achieve the target loads. Neither the IJC nor the
Governments have advocated a limitation other than as a possible
measure for helping to achieve the target loads.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 19) has been
revised as suggested.]
Page 19, para 2, line 4; Reference is made to the 1972 and 1978
Agreement limitations on phosphorus in detergents. It should be
pointed out that this requirement relates to household detergents
rather than all types of detergents, at least in the 1978 Agreement.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 19) has been
revised as suggested.]
Page 19, para 2, line 8; Reference is made to "increased costs to
consumers" as a result of detergent phosphate limitations. It does
not appear, however, that any states other than Ohio and
Pennsylvania (where no limitations are currently in effect) have
brought up the issue of increased costs to consumers. Where the
detergent phosphate limitation currently exists, there has been no
significant reference by consumers to increased costs.
113
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
[GAO Comment: We believe that the discussion
clearly shows that Ohio and Pennsylvania have
opposed the ban on the basis of increased costs
to the consumer. We have no knowledge of consumer
concerns or the lack thereof in other States.]
Page 19, para 3f lines 4 and 6; It is stated that the Great Lakes' states
have been slow to implement detergent phosphate limitations. This
is an incomplete statement. Those states that did implement a
detergent phosphate limitation did so relatively quickly. The real
problem is that not all the states have implemented a limitation
and, therefore, it is not a Basin-wide requirement. This factor has
been the basis for some controversy in the Basin regarding the need
for detergent phosphate limitations.
[GAO Comment: We have revised the report (see p. 19)
to eliminate the reference to some States being
slow to implement the ban and have clarified the
discussion.]
Page 19, para 3, line 12; It is stated that various Great Lakes
states have enacted detergent phosphate limitations, but that the
process took some time after controls were first believed
necessary. Again, this is an incomplete statement (see above
comment). It is also stated that Canada's limitation is 2.2 percent
(by weight) as opposed 0.5 percent in the United States. This
uneven limitation has been the basis for some controversy in the
Great Lakes community. The observation has made that while Canada
enacted a detergent phosphate limitation relatively quickly
following the signing of the 1972 Agreement, the Canadian limitation
is less stringent than that presently in effect in most of the U.S.
portion of the Basin. It is unfair, therefore, to directly compare
the extent and timing of the Canadian and United States limitations.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 19) has been
revised to eliminate the reference to the length
of time needed to implement the phosphorus limita-
tions and to clarify that the higher Canadian
limitation has been the basis for controversy.]
Page 19, para 4, line 3; It is stated that the Soap and Detergent
Association believes it is more cost-effective to remove phosphorus
at sewage treatment plants than to limit its use in detergent. This
belief requires some additional discussion. The industry belief is
that when all direct and indirect costs are considered, it is more
cost-effective overall to remove phosphorus at sewage treatment
plants. These costs include the projected costs for additional hot
water, whiteners, water softeners, etc., which the industry contends
are necessary to achieve the cleaning power of phosphate
detergents. The industry position, however, does not have overall
acceptance in the Great Lakes community. The IJC has itself raised
a concern that the soap and detergent industry has not considered
all the possible phosphate substitutes in its cost-analysis studies
and, therefore, its conclusions may be premature.
114
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
[GAG Comment: The discussion (see p. 19) has
been revised to note that the industry believes it
is more cost effective overall to remove phosphorus
at treatment plants and to indicate the additional
costs.]
Page 19, para 4, line 12; Reference is made to a 1979 Colorado State
University report to NOAA which states that detergent phosphate
limitations would have little or no observable effect on overall
Great Lakes water quality. This is only a partial conclusion which
does not address the entire question. Little or no effect will
likely be seen if the waterbody is only considered on a whole lake
basis. If the various sub-basins and nearshore regions of the Great
Lakes are considered, however, the results and conclusions would not
necessarily be the same. The conditions considered in the study
have no direct relevance to expected conditions within the
sub-basins or the nearshore regions. The effect of "averaging" the
effects of a detergent phosphate limitation across the entire lake,
as was done in this study, is technically inappropriate. Inputs of
phosphorus at specific points in a lake can have significant impacts
on a regional or local basis which would be masked if only the
average whole-lake load and response are considered.
[GAO Comment: The additional information provided
by IJC on sub-basin and nearshore areas clarifies
the overall position of the Colorado State Univer-
sity study, and therefore we have eliminated the
discussion of the study from'the report.]
Page 19, para 4, lines 20 and 21; it is stated that the iJC's Phosphorus
Task Force reported that a 1 mg/L effluent limitation may be all
that is necessary for phosphorus control in the two lower lakes.
This may be true, but only if several assumptions regarding the
range of uncertainties around the input loads and the lakes
responses are correct. There is an equally valid possibility,
however, that more stringent control measures may be necessary if
the other extreme in the assumptions is considered It is more
significant, in fact, that the Task Force endorsed achievement of
the target loads in spite of these uncertainties. Assuming
"average" conditions exist in the lakes (as Task Group III did),
more stringent control measures may well be necessary for the lower
lakes.
CGAO Comment: This matter is discussed on p. 18
of the report and a reference to that discussion
has been made on p. 20.3
Page 20, para 2, lines 13-18; A number of reasons are given as
rationale for the detergent phosphate limitations. An additional
rationale not mentioned is that there are a number of "marginal"
plants existing in the Basin, i.e., plants which barely achieve
their 1 mg/L effluent limitation. If the detergent phosphate
limitation were suddenly removed, these plants may no longer be able
to meet a 1 mg/L effluent limitation. As noted on page 17,
115
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
detergents account for about 20-35 percent of the phosphorus
entering wastewater treatment plants. Therefore, an immediate
increase of about 20 to 35 percent in the quantity of phosphorus
entering municipal treatment plants would be expected if the
detergent phosphate limitation were suddenly removed. Under such
conditions, marginal plants may no longer be able to achieve their
effluent limitation.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 20) has been
revised to incorporate the suggestion about the
effect of detergent phosphate limitations on
"marginal" plants.]
Page 20f para 3, lines 6 and 7; The suggestion is made that uncertaintj.es
regarding the extent oTTthe phosphorus problem exist in part because
the Governments have not been able to calculate "valid" phosphorus
target loads. This is a misleading statement. The methods used to
develop the Agreement target loads have undergone refinement since
they were first used. However, subsequent analyses with these
refined methods produce target loads which are basically the same as
the original target loads. The Agreement target loads are, in fact,
still the "best" estimates that have been developed to date. It is
unlikely that better target loads will be developed in the
foreseeable future.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 20) has been
revised to recognize more clearly the difficulty
in resolving these uncertainties. We agree that
the proposed target loads are the best estimates
developed to date and it may be unlikely that
better target loads will be developed in the future.
We believe these matters are fully set forth in
the subsequent discussion.]
j*age 20, para 3, lines 10 and 11; It is stated that phosphorus going into
the lakes is "harmful". In this case, "harmful" refers to the
excessive growth of algal blooms which interfere with the beneficial
use of the water resource by man. Phosphorus, per se, is not a
harmful pollutant in the same sense as toxic substances.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 20) has been
revised as suggested.]
116
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
Page 20, para 3, lines 14 and 14; it is suggested that without more
accurate phosphorus input data and understanding of the
eutrophication process, the most "effective mix" of control programs
cannot be selected. This is a misleading statement. Does the word
"effective" mean cost-effective? If so, PLUARG, the Phosphorus
Management Task Force and the IJC have already proposed a mix of
phosphorus control measures which they deem to be cost-effective,
given the present state of knowledge and experience. It is not
accurate, therefore, to say that the United States cannot now select
an effective mix of control programs. It is also observed that a
lake does not care how the phosphorus load is reduced; rather, it is
only important that it be reduced. Thus, the notion of "effective"
or "cost-effective" can make a convenient smokescreen for those who
desire no further phosphorus control measures at the present time.
[GAO Comment: We do not agree. We believe that the
resolution of these uncertainities is very important.
If the uncertainties are not resolved, the Governments
could spend substantial resources on actions which
may later prove to be unproductive or marginally
productive. EPA agrees these uncertainties need
to be studied, as we stated on pp. 20 to 23 of the
report, to allow selection of the most prudent
control strategies.]
Page 20, para 4, line 1; It is stated that the 1978 Agreement
requires the Governments to confirm what the future phosphorus loads
"should be". It is more accurate to use the words "would be".
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 20) has been
revised as suggested.]
Page 21, para 2, line 1; It is stated that the IJC established its
Phosphorus Management Task Force "to help the governments" meet the
Agreement objectives. This is not the case. The Task Force was
established to answer a number of unresolved phosphorus questions
arising from the PLUARG study and the Water Quality Board. The
Governments have, of course, subsequently used the reports of the
Task Force and the IJC in their own work.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 21) has been
revised as suggested.]
Page 21, para 3, line 4; It is stated that many uncertainties
regarding phosphorus control must be dealt with so that future
management decisions can be made more reliable. It would be better
to use the world "should" instead of "must". While uncertainties
may make selection of a phosphorus control program more difficult,
it is not necessary to completely clear up such uncertainties before
effective phosphorus management decisions can be made.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 21) has been
revised as suggested.]
117
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
Page 22, Table; Footnote C contains a comment regarding uncertainty
and error in the modelling process. However, an assumption inherent
in this footnote is that all the associated errors are going to be
additive in nature This is in effect an assumption of worse case
conditions. It is equally possible that the errors may work to
cancel each other out, at least in regard to their effect on the
ultimate predictions of a model. The result, therefore, may be a
reasonably accurate estimate or prediction. Such possibilities must
be examined on a case-by-case basis.
[GAO Comment: The language used in the footnote
is not our language but that of the task force.
The errors discussed may, as the comment suggests,
be additive, but we must present the information as
set forth by the task force.]
Page 22, para 1, lines 2 and 3; it is stated that the two errors measured
by the Task Force could justify management decisions ranging from
doing no additional work to implementing massive new control
phosphorus programs. The comment made above about the additive
nature of error also applies here. The extreme conditions assumed
in the above statement do not necessary apply in a given situation
or even under normal conditions. Managers usually plan Tor
"average" conditions. They would normally use average load,
responses, etc., in their management calculations. There is little
justification, therefore, for concluding either that no additional
work will be needed or that massive new programs will be needed.
The same comment applies to the use of "optimistic" versus
"pessimistic" conditions discussed in the second paragraph. As a
related example of this possibility, it is pointed out that the
phosphorus control goals for Lake Erie stated in Annex III of the
1978 Agreement are unclear. In order to achieve the stated Lake
Erie control goals, a more stringent target load will be needed.
This confusion has been mentioned in the past by PLUARG and the
IJC. However, it has not yet been clarified by the Governments.
[GAO Comment: As discussed above, we are merely
presenting the information as set forth by the task
force. We do not conclude that either no additional
work will be needed or massive new programs will be
needed. We merely stated that the task force said
actions could range between these extremes.]
Page 23, para 2, line 1; it is stated that the Governments
tentively agreed to use the proposed target loads in establishing
compliance schedules for each country, but that questions have
arisen about the relative merits of proceeding any further at this
time because of uncertainty surrounding the target loads. This is
illogical and contradictory. It is also stated that the U.S.
co-chairman of the Phosphorus Management Task Force described any
efforts to allocate the target loads "as a waste of time." It
should also be pointed out that this comment does not reflect the
opinion of the Task Force itself, which provided considerable detail
regarding a timed, sequential approach for achieving the target
loads.
118
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 23) has been
revised to delete the U.S. cochairman's statement.]
Page 23, para 3, line^; it is stated that the Phosphorus
Management Task Force indicated the next major decision point for
the lakes will be in about five years. This is incorrect. The Task
Force stated was that the next major decision point in their
suggested approach should be in about five years. Obviously, if
their recommended plan was not used, the five year "decision" period
has no relevance.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 23) has been
revised to clarify the task force position.]
Page 23, para 3, lines 15-18; It is suggested (in relation to Appendix
V) that obtaining definite information about any of the uncertainty
issues could drastically effect the types and extent of programs
needed to control phosphorus. It should also be pointed out,
however, that further definite information may not have much of an
effect on selecting phosphorus control programs. The Governments
are already capable of providing a reasonable estimate of the types
and extent of programs necessary to achieve the target loads.
[GAO Comment: This comment is similar to the first
comment on p. 117.]
Page 24, para 2, line 1; It is stated that since the IJC lacks a
single group for coordinating research efforts in the Great Lakes
Basin, this responsibility is given to the EPA. The reference to
the IJC is a misstatement. The 1978 Agreement gives the IJC's
Science Advisory Board the responsibility of advising jurisdictions
of relevant research needs and of soliciting their involvement in
promoting research coordination. This responsibility is a
coordinating effort for research activities in the Basin within the
structure of the IJC.
[GAO Comment: We did not intend to imply that
IJC is responsible for coordinating research
efforts and have revised the report (see p. 24) to
clarify this matter.]
Page 25, para lf lines 2-5; It is stated that officials of the Great
Lakes Basin Commission felt that an overall plan for identifying
research needs and coordinatint efforts is needed, but has not been
developed. There have been some efforts by EPA's Environmental
Research Laboratory at Duluth, Minnesota to establish research
priorities. The effort, however, has consisted mainly of attempting
to identify and fund research activities related to the Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem, rather than developing an overall plan for the
Basin.
[GAO Comment: We believe that the report clearly
reflects that we are referring to an overall research
plan for the basin.]
119
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
Page 25, para 4, line 10; I± is stated that the EPA has not
prioritized Great Lakes research projects. It is worth noting that
the IJC's Science Advisory Board will be providing a report to the
IJC on the "state of research" regarding the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem and the priorities which it feels should be placed on
research efforts in the Basin.
[GAO Comment: As noted, the Science Advisory Board
has not yet provided the report. In addition, we have
no knowledge as to whether EPA will endorse the priori-
ties as established by the board.]
Page 26, para 2, line 1; Reference is made to the Great Lakes
Protection Act of 1981. The Bill calls for the establishment of a
Great Lakes Research Office to identify research needs, set
priorities, coordinate research activities, etc. It is noted that
the IJC presently has a mechanism in place, the Science Advisory
Board, which could attempt to perform at least part of these
functions. The Board is, in fact, the only group on the Great Lakes
which would likely have knowledge of research efforts in both
countries and such information could be used to identify research
needs and help set priorities in both countries.
[GAO Comment: We do not believe the use of the
Science Advisory Board to perform these functions
would be acceptable. The board is part of an inter-
national organization which has only advisory powers
and therefore would not be in a position to set
priorities and direct research efforts. Although
the board could provide valuable advice, we believe
a U.S. Government organization needs to carry out
this function.]
Page 26, para 5, line 5; it is stated that nonpoint pollutants
enter lakes in "a diffused and diluted form". The meaning of this
statement is unclear. Nonpoint pollutants are in a "diffused
form". However, nonpoint pollutants would not necessarily be in a
more diluted form than if they were discharged from a given point
source. It all depends on the specific pollutant source in each
case.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 26) has been
revised to eliminate the reference to diluted forms.]
Page 27, para 2, line 1: It is stated that agricultural activities
and urban stormwater runoff are the major sources of nonpoint
pollution in the Basin. This is true only if the unit area loads
from these sources are being considered. It may not be the case,
however, when the total load entering a lake is considered. For
example, the major nonpoint source of phosphorus in the Lake
Superior basin is forestry activities, rather than agricultural or
urban land use activities. The unit area loads for agricultural and
120
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
uroan areas in the Lake Superior basin are, in fact, higher than for
forested areas. There is so much more forested area in the
watershed, however, that the total load from forests is greater than
the agricultural or urban inputs.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 27) has been
revised to note that, with the exception of Lake
Superior, agricultural and urban runoff are the
major sources of nonpoint pollution when both
unit area and total loads are considered.]
Page 27, para 2, line 16; It is stated that a 1981 IJC report
indicates air transport is believed to be a major source of
phosphorus except for the lower two lakes. The surface areas of the
lakes must be considered, however, when examining the significance
of atmospheric inputs. It is true that the atmospheric inputs of
phosphorus in the lower lakes are considerably less than in the
upper lakes. That is due, however, to the fact that the surface
areas of the lower lakes are smaller and, therefore, there is less
opportunity for phosphorus to enter the lakes from the atmosphere.
The main point to be made is that the atmosphere is a major route
for phosphorus and a number of other substances to enter the Great
Lakes.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 27) has been
revised to show that air transport is a major
source for a number of other substances entering
the lakes.]
Page 28, Table: The last row is entitled "Great Lakes Average".
What is meant by the word "average"?
[GAO Comment: The average has been deleted (see
p. 28) because it was not needed to illustrate our
position.]
Page 28, para 2, line .L: It is stated that although the severity of
the nonpoint problem is not known, nonpoint pollution contributions
are nevertheless believed to be significant. It is interesting that
the stated concerns about "uncertainty" do not appear to apply in
regard to nonpoint source pollution as they did in regard to the
control of phosphorus. In spite of a stated lack of knowledge, the
report nevertheless calls for more vigorous nonpoint pollution
control efforts. This is an inconsistency which weakens the whole
argument regarding the need to clear up uncertainty before effective
pollution control measures can be implemented.
[GAO Comment: We believe that our message on this
matter has been misinterpreted and have revised the
report (see p. 28) to clarify it. While we recognize
that uncertainties exist over phosphorus loadings
to the lakes, much more is known about phosphorus
nonpoint sources than other nonpoint sources, such
as toxic and hazardous substances. In addition, as
stated later in the discussion of nonpoint sources,
121
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
even when phosphorus from nonpoint sources has been
identified as a problem, little has been done to
actually control it. We do not agree that the
report is calling for more vigorous nonpoint efforts
where significant uncertainty exists. We do believe,
however, that where data is available to pinpoint
problem areas, control measures should be developed
and instituted. To the extent that this has not been
done, as provided in the agreement, the United States
is not meeting the agreement objectives.]
Page 29, para 2, line 6; It is stated that the Clean Water Act has
provisions for grants to demonstrate new methods and techniques for
eliminating nonpoint pollution "in the Great Lakes". Is the Act
this specific as to location? It should be mentioned that the Soil
Conservation Service can play a significant role in addressing
nonpoint pollution in the Great Lakes Basin. Their recognized
expertise in the area of erosion control and associated pollutant
generation, as well as their long history of work with the states
and the EPA, suggest such a role.
[GAO Comment: Section 108(a) of the Clean Water
Act specifically refers to the Great Lakes.
Also, the role of the Soil Conservation Service
is spelled out in the report.]
Page 29, para 4, line 9; It is suggested the technical capability
to identify cause and effect relationships between nonpoint sources
and water quality impacts does not exists. This is not the case.
What doesn't exist is the technical capability to accurately and
precisely identify cause and effect relationships between sources
and impacts. There are some mechanisms to identify such
relationships, however, which do presently exist. One such project
is the OECD international eutrophication study which developed
statistical relationships between nutrient loads and water quality
in lakes and impoundments.
[GAO Comment: In our previous report we specifi-
cally stated that the technical capability to
identify cause and effect relationships does not
exist. We continue to stand by that statement
based on that report and other work we have done.
Also, we have no knowledge of the OECD report or
the reliability of the statistical relationships
which could be used to prove an actual cause and
effect relationship.]
Page 30, para 4, line 9; The Great Lakes Basin Commission is
called a "primary coordinating mechanism". This description isn't
really correct. The Basin Commission was primarily a planning
agency, not a coordinating agency, per se. The same comment applies
to page 28, para 3, line 5.
122
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
[GAO Comment: We are stating the position of SCS
officials who were actively involved in nonpoint
planning efforts with the Basin Commission. We
believe the officials' comment are correct based on
our discussions with others, including representa-
tives of the Commission.]
Page 31, para 4, line 4; It is stated that little nonpoint control
technology developed in the Great Lakes Basin can be transferred to
other areas. This is an incomplete statement. There is no reason
to believe that the techniques developed in the Basin cannot be
applied elsewhere. It just appears that nobody is making the effort
to do so.
[GAO Comment: The discussion (see p. 31) has been
revised based on comments from the Department of
Agriculture concerning implementation of the tech-
nology. ]
Page 32, para 1, line 2: it is stated that nonpoint pollution
sources "constitute the majority of pollutants entering the lakes".
This is incorrect as a general statement. Nonpoint sources do not
constitute the majority of all pollutants entering the lakes,
especially in the case of toxic substances. Industrial dischargers
contribute considerably greater quantities of many toxic pollutants
than do nonpoint sources. Thus, while nonpoint sources do
contribute significant quantities of many pollutants to the Great
Lakes, they do not contribute the majority of all pollutants
entering the lakes.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 32) has been
revised as suggested.]
Page 32, para 2f lines 13-15; it is again stated that little technology
developed in Great Lakes Basin projects (as part of the Rural Clean
Water Act) can be transferred to other areas. As noted above, it is
not so much that such technology can't be transferred, but rather
that nobody seems to be making the effort to do so.
[GAO Comment: See first comment on this page.]
Page 33, para 1, line 1; It is stated that EPA Region V officials
feel minimum/no tillage practices are not suitable for all crops,
soils and climates. It should also be mentioned that there is a
potential for greater use of herbicides for the control of weeds
when employing minimum/no tillage practices.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 33) has been
revised as suggested.]
123
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
Page 33, para 2, line 5; it is stated that toxic pollutions can
render the lakes "useless." Realistically, it is not likely that
the Governments would ever allow toxics pollution to render the
lakes useless. An admittedly ridiculous example is the fact that,
however bad conditions might become in the lakes, the water could
nevertheless always be used to put out fires or float ships for the
transportation of goods. It is the degree to which the lakes are
polluted so that it interferes with the beneficial use of the water
resource that is the real issue.
[GAO Comment': The report (See p. 33) has been revised
to show that the lakes could be lost to a variety of
desirable activities.]
Page 33, para 2, lines 1-10; The observation is made that toxic
pollution is a very serious problem in the Great Lakes. At the same
time, it is also stated that Great Lakes toxic pollution has not
been comprehensively addressed because "too little is known" about
the problem. This is a contradictory and illogical statement. It
would seem that the very seriousness of the problem, as implied in
this paragraph, suggests that toxic control programs be implemented
as rapidly as possible, even if the "nature, extent and source of
such pollution" is not precisely known. If the problem is as
serious as suggested in this paragraph (and indeed it may be), this
suggests massive efforts be undertaken to attempt to control the
problem. Adjustments to such programs can be made as more is
learned about the problem, not vice versa.
[GAO Comment: The report discussion (p. 33)
states that toxic pollution is "potentially" a
greater threat than eutrophication, but that the
extent of toxic pollution is not known and the
problem is not being comprehensively addressed.
We do not find this to be contradictory or
illogical and we cannot agree that a massive
program should be undertaken to control toxics
regardless of the state of knowledge about toxics.
To do so could, in our opinion, result in massive
resources being devoted to a potential problem
which may not exist or may not be as serious as
perceived. Such an approach can rapidly lose its
credibility as additional information becomes
available and can result in a substantial waste of
resources. We believe that attention needs to be
devoted to toxic substances, including data gather-
ing and research and, if justified by reliable
information, the implementation of specific
control measures. Unfortunately, little has been
done in any of these areas.]
124
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
Page 34, para 1, lines 6-10; it is stated that if the EPA reduces
allowable PCB levels in fish, commercial fishing would be "totally
eliminated". This is an inaccurate statement. There will likely
always be places in the lakes where PCB levels in fish are not be
exceeded. Further, it is the FDA, not the EPA, which determines the
allowable amounts of PCBs in fish. It is also stated that toxic
substances in fish have "already severely reduced" commercial
fishing. .There are fisherman who would disagree with this
statement. What has actually happened is that several preferred
fish species have basically disappeared from the lakes. The overall
tonnage of fish caught in the lakes, however, does not appear to
have decreased significantly in recent years.
TGAO Comment: The report (see p. 34) has been
revised as suggested.]
Page 34, para 4, lines 2-4; it is stated that DDT, mercury and PCBs
"have been carefully studied and regulated". This is an
overstatement. They have probably been studied fairly well. It is
a matter of opinion, however, as to whether or not these substances
have been "carefully regulated".
[GAO Comment: The discussion (p. 34) has been
revised to state that these substances have been
studied and control measures implemented.]
Pay 35, para 1, lines 5-7; The use of fish tissue to determine "the
lakes' status relative to toxics" and the effectiveness of control
programs is mentioned here. Some care must be used in such
assessments. In the case of substances which bioaccumulate, for
example, the use of fish tissue may not generate much information
about the effectiveness of control programs. It should also be
pointed out that fish and other organisms can be looked upon as
"integrators" of the effects of multiple inputs of toxics. That is,
a fish lives in an environment containing many pollutants. The
"state" of the fish reflects the cumulative impacts of all these
pollutants.
[GAO Comment: Analysis of fish tissue is an
accepted method of measuring levels of toxic
substances and therefore the effectiveness of
control measures for specific toxics. We do
not believe the comment affects the matters
discussed in the report.]
Page 35, para 2, lines 2-4; it is stated that the Chief of the GLNPO
Surveillance and Research Staff said that the U.S. currently lacks
the resources to adequately monitor for toxics. Does this statement
apply only to EPA resources or to all the available U.S. resources
in the Basin? Other agencies do have personnel and equipment that
could be used in toxics monitoring activities related to the
Agreement if the U.S. chose to use them in such efforts.
125
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
[GAO Comment: The statement is from a key
official in a position to have knowledge of the
availability of resources from a variety of
agencies and does refer to overall U.S. resources.]
Page 35 , para 2, lines 5-7; it is stated that lack of equipment and
personnel would probably be solved by "the forces of supply and
demand". The meaning of this statement is unclear.
[GAO Comment: We believe that the statement is
clear. As the demand for information and labora-
tory capability to provide such information
increases, the laboratory capability and other
needed resources will become available.]
Page 33 , para 2, line 8; It is stated that actions are now been
taken in the U.S. to improve toxics coordination at the state and
federal level. What actions are being referred to and who is doing
them?
[GAO Comment: The report (p. 36) has been revised
to provide additional information as suggested.]
2f 11in-~i; Ifc is stated that EPA has proposed
* 1-~
wnniHK * ? y ? ne °f 34 industries required to be regulated.
made tnus far? me t0 indicate why such slow Progress has been
[GAO Comment: We do not believe it is necessary
to go into the detail suggested. We have provided a
reference to the report for those interested in
pursuing this matter further.]
Page 37 , para 3, line 7; Reference is made to the Great Lakes
International Surveillance Plan (GLISP) as "the basic framework for
monitoring activities in the Great Lakes Basin required by the 1978
Agreement". This is an incomplete statement. GLISP is mentioned in
the Agreement only as a model, not as the required monitoring
program. The Governments themselves must provide the required
monitoring program. The degree to which GLISP will play a role in
the development and implementation of the required monitoring
program is not clear at present, even though GLISP is being touted
by some as the program called for in the Agreement.
[GAO Comment: The discussion (p. 37) has been
revised to clarify that GLISP is intended to be
a model. ]
Page 37 , para 3, lines 9 and 10; it is stated that "the Commission believes
that the plan (GLISP) is biased, incomplete and lacks scientific
validity". This is incorrect. While advisors to the IJC have
presented their personal technical critiques on the scientific
126
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
validity of GLISP, the IJC itself has not yet come to any
conclusions regarding GLISP. As an information item, it should be
pointed out in the GAO report that the opinions of individual IJC
staff members do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the
IJC on any given issue,
[GAO Comment: The report (p. 37) has been revised
as suggested. Another reference to this matter was
revised in the draft report before it was sent to IJC,
but the appropriate revision to this passage was
inadvertently not made.]
Page 38, para 5, line 4; It is stated that in a January 1981
interim report, the IJC reported "substantial concerns cloud the
governments abilities to meet the intent of the Agreement". It
would be informative to expand on this observation.
[GAO Comment: The discussion (pp. 38 and 39) has
been revised to delineate the specific concerns.]
Page 39, para 2, line 4; Reference is made to a cooperative effort
among nine state and three federal agencies. There are only eight
states in the Basin.
[GAO Comment: Ohio is represented by two agencies,
thus the total of nine.]
Page 39, para 4, lines 2, 5, and 7;Reference is made to the EPA's open
water and nearshore monitoring efforts and their associated
inadequacies. It would be informative to indicate why the EPA has
experienced such difficulty with its monitoring efforts related to
the Agreement.
[GAO Comment: The previous sentence states
reasons—funding constraints.]
Page 40, para 2; The statement is made that "the IJC
believes the EPA's Atmospheric Deposition Network is inadequate
This is not correct. The IJC has made no comment on the EPA
Atmospheric Deposition Network.
[GAO Comment: The reference to EPA's Atomspheric
Deposition Network has been deleted from the report.
In its comments, EPA agreed with our assessment that
the network was plagued by problems such as lack of
equipment, poor collection location, and different
collection techniques. However, EPA also pointed out
that substantial changes have been made to the network
since we made our assessment and that our report dis-
cussion was not a true reflection of the current
situation. We applaud EPA's efforts to upgrade its
atmospheric deposition monitoring system for the lakes
and have deleted our assessment of the old system.]
127
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
Page 40, para 2; It is stated that because differences
exist in the way the U.S. and Canada collect samples, no
international comparison of data can be made. This is not correct.
Comparisons can be made, although such differences require careful
interpretation of the data by those making the comparisons.
[GAO Comment: The discussion has been eliminated
because it was part of the discussion of the air
deposition network (see previous comment).]
Page 40, para 4, lines 3-10; it is stated that the rationale for
much of which is included in GLISP is unexplained. An unexplained
rationale, however, isn't necessarily a bad rationale. It is worth
mentioning here that in spite of what may be shortcomings in GLISP,
when the large extent of the area being monitored is considered,
GLISP probably represents one of the best cooperative surveillance
plans in the world at the present time. GLISP is also the only
cooperative monitoring program in the Basin between the two
countries.
[GAO Comment: The statement is a direct quote by
an IJC official. Also, for the reasons discussed at
length in the report, we do not believe that GLISP
is a good plan or model.]
Page 40, para 5, line 1; It is stated that "knowing when and where
to take water samples is important". It should also be pointed out,
however, that no one "knows" unequivocally when and where to take
samples in all situations. There are always differences of opinion
as to what constitutes the best locations and frequencies for
sampling in a monitoring program.
[GAO Comment: We agree, but, as discussed subsequently,
GLISP provides a wide range of latitude which could
have substantial effects on the monitoring results.]
Page 40, para 5, 1 ine 6; it is stated that GLISP does not specify
month, day, or hour for sampling. Such "specifying" can lead to
problems in some cases. It may result in an inflexible monitoring
program in which a waterbody is sampled in a more or less mechanical
manner, regardless of whether or not the sitution calls for it. An
inflexible program, for example, might not allow for sampling during
storm events if such events do not happen to occur in accordance
with the schedule incorporated in the sampling program. It is also
stated that monitoring activities may be scheduled on the basis of
the availability of vessels or other resources. This is obviously
not an ideal situation. Such occurrences, however, may represent an
unfortunate economic reality in some cases, and this possibility
should be considered in developing monitoring programs. It is also
noted that the last sentence in this paragraph could be reworded for
clarity.
128
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
[GAO Comment: We agree that rigid specificity can be
detremental and some latitude must be provided. But
as discussed above, the GLISP provides a great deal
of latitude which can have a substantial effect on
consistency and comparability. Consistency is important
for comparison purposes. Also, the remainder of the
discussion does note that sampling needs to take place
at critical times.]
Page 41, para 2, line 7; It is stated that failing to sample above
a "meeting point" prevents one from assessing where specific
pollutants originated. This is not necessarily the case. The
origins can sometimes be identified simply by looking at Upstream
dischargers. If a specific pollutant is detected in a stream and
there is only one or a few possible dischargers upstream of the
meeting point, such sources are likely to be the pollutant source.
Some common sense obviously must be involved.
[GAO Comment: We do not agree. As discussed in
the nonpoint pollution section, all pollution does
not come from dischargers. Knowing the source of
pollution is important in determining how to control
the pollution. Therefore, failure to sample above
the meeting point could lead to erroneous assumptions
about the source of the pollution.]
Page 41, para 2, line 12; It is stated again made that sampling in
"improper locations" can result in an inability to accurately
quantify pollutant inputs to lakes. One can most accurately
quantify inputs of pollutants to lakes by sampling at tributary
mouths, whereas the identification of specific sources of a
pollutant may require sampling upstream from the tributary mouth.
[GAO Comment: This is the opinion of one of IJC's
own environmental advisors. The nature of specific
pollutants can change as the tributary flows along
and the actual amount of a pollutant can be masked
by other pollutants if sampling is done only at the
mouth. We continue to believe that improper sampling
locations can result in inaccuracies in both quantity
and source.]
Page 41, para 3, line 3; It is stated that sampling sites may be
located too far from cities and industries to identify loadings to
the lakes. Again, this is not necessarily the case. Sampling at
the tributary mouth might be sufficient to quantify pollutant
inputs. It is just a question of the desired accuracy. The easiest
way to attempt to quantify inputs to the lakes from municipal and
industrial sources is to directly sample the discharges themselves,
rather than attempting to sample the contents of the tributaries.
[GAO Comment: We believe that the statement is
correct. Many things can happen to a specific
129
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
pollutant as it moves to the lakes in tributaries.
The pollutant may settle out, change composition,
or combine with other pollutants. Therefore, it is
important to know the source of the pollutant and
only sampling discharges may not identify such
sources . ]
Page 41 , para 3, line 10; Two cities on the Maumee and Sandusky
rivers are used as examples of problems related to sampling
i^,,, 4- ,-«„,, Tne pOint beina ma^o in this sentence is unclear.
[GAO Comment: The discussion (p. 41) has been
changed to clearly state that the cities are
located at the river mouth, much below the tribu-
sampling location.]
Page 41, para 4, line 1; It is stated that samples have to oe taKen
in exactly the same manner to allow for data comparisons. This is
not necessarily the case, although the data comparisons would
obviously be more difficult under such circumstances. It is also
suggested that if data are not exactly comparable, an overall basin
perspective can not be gained. Again, however, this is a question
of the specific information being sought.
[GAO Comment: The discussion (p. 41) has been
revised to state that data comparisons are facil-
itated by similar sampling methods.]
Page 41 , jaara 5, line 6; It is stated that the specific times for
monitoring nearshore conditions were not defined in GLISP. While
such omissions obviously make it difficult to critically assess
GLISP, it is remarked again that not defining the monitoring times
does not mean that bad data will necessarily be obtained. Also,
item 2 says that "species sampled and number of samples made
differ". The word should be "may".
[GAO Comment: The point being made is not that
the data is bad, but that data will be difficult
to compare if the methods, timing, etc., are
not similar. The typographical error has been
corrected. ]
Page 42. para 4. ling 11; It is stated that the detergent phosphate
limitations have been met with controversy. It should also be
pointed out, however, that with the exception of two states in the
Basin, the limitations have been in effect in both countries for a
number of years. The "controversy" over this issue comes primarily
from the soap and detergent industry and the two concerned states,
not the Basin population, per se.
[GAO Comment: The point remains that the ban is
controversial at least in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
The ban may, in fact, also be controversial else-
where because of the higher Canadian limitations.]
130
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
Page 42, para 4f lines 12 and 13; It is stated that the need for qreater
phosphorus controls "is clouded by uncertainties" about phosphorus
inputs and other factors. The point is made again, however, that
the existence of uncertainties does not mean that basic errors have
been made in the identification of overall phosphorus control
programs needed in the Basin. It would be better to call them
"possible" uncertainties when discussed in relation to Great Lakes
phosphorus control programs.
[GAO Comment: The report (see p. 42) has been
revised as suggested.]
Page 43, para 2, lines 3 and 4; It is stated that "an overall Great Lakes
surveillance and monitoring plan is needed". It is worth noting
that this is precisely what the Agreement says. It is pointed out
again that it is the responsibility of the Governments, not the IJC
or the Water Quality Board, to develop this plan.
[GAO Comment: The report clearly recognizes these
matters.3
Page 43, para 3, line_l; It is stated that the current (1978)
Agreement expires in 1983. This is incorrect. According to Article
14 of the Agreement, it remains in force for a period of five years
and thereafter, until terminated by one of the Parties,. Therefore,
if neither Party objected to the Agreement, it presumably would
remain in effect indefinitely. It is also pointed out that Article
10 of the Agreement requires the Parties to conduct a comprehensive
review of the operation and effectiveness of the Agreement following
the third biennial report of the Commission. The third biennial
report of the Commission will be presented to Governments in 1986.
Therefore, the Governments may not be assessing the Agreement until
then.
[GAO Comment: The discussion of the agreement in
chapter 1 (see p. 4) has been expanded to clarify
this matter, and the report has been revised
appropriately.]
Page 43, para 3, lines 5-11; ,It is recommended that Congress, in
conjunction with the Secretary of State and the EPA Administrator
review the Agreement when it "expires". Other organizations should
also be included in this review. One of the biggest problems with
achieving the requirements of the Agreement is a lack of
coordination between the various involved agencies. It seems
sensible, therefore, to include other groups in the review. Logical
groups to be consulted include the Soil Conservation Service, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Corps of Engineers and NOAA. They
all carry out some functions related to the Agreement.
[GAO Comment: The reference to the agreement's
expiring has been revised as discussed above. We
have specifically identified the need for EPA and
the Department of State to be involved in such a
131
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
review because of their key roles in Great Lakes
activities. Other agencies would not be precluded
from being involved in the suggested review.]
Page 53, para 4, line 1; It is stated that "virtually every major
program office" in EPA is responsible for activities covered under
the Agreement. It is unclear what is meant here by a "major program
office", as only Regions II, III and V are subsequently discussed.
[GAO Comment: EPA's various programs are defined
in chapter 1. (See p. 4.)]
Page 54, para I, line 2: it is stated that the GLNPO has not met a
critical need for overseeing and coordinating Great Lakes
activities. However, this is not entirely the fault of the GLNPO.
It has been operating in recent years without much visible
cooperation from EPA national headquarters or the Great Lakes'
states. There appears to be a lack of commitment by EPA, especially
on the national headquarters level, to fulfill its role as the lead
implementing agency for the Agreement in the U.S.
[GAO Comment: The discussion in the chapter clearly
points out the problems GLNPO has experienced.]
Page 54, para 2, lines 2 and 4; it is stated that the EPA has placed Great
Lakes program responsibilities at a relatively low level. It should
be pointed out that this action (or inaction) appears to rest
primarily in the Washington headquarters office and not necessarily
in the Regional Offices. Great Lakes program responsibilities under
the Agreement appear to have a relatively high profile within Region
V •
[GAO Comment: Chapter 3 of the report specifically
discusses this matter.]
Page 54, para 3, line 7; Item 2 in this paragraph states that not
enough research staff were assigned to the Great Lakes initiative
program. It should be pointed out that neither Region V or the
GLNPO consider.research to be a primary activity within their sphere
of^activities. Other EPA facilities within the Basin are more
logical research components than Region V.
[GAO Comment: The discussion (p. 54) refers to
matters which predate the establishment of GLNPO
and the management of the Great Lakes program out
of region V. Therefore the comment is not germaine.]
132
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
Page 55, para 4, line 8; It is stated that the Great Lakes Program
11 is generally not separately funded under federal law". This is a
major continuing problem in regard to the U.S. meeting its
responsibilities under the Agreement. The Agreement identifies the
Great Lakes as a special resource of both countries, deserving of
special attention and funding. Therefore, Agreement
responsibilities should not be viewed as activities to be done, if
possible, after normal domestic concerns are addressed. Unless
Great Lakes funding regarding Agreement responsibilities is
identified separately by the U.S. Government, it is unlikely the
difficulties experienced thus far in meeting Agreement requirements
will improve.
[GAO Comment: This matter is fully discussed in
the report. In addition, our recommendation to the
Congre'ss emphasizes that it must decide if sufficient
funds can be provided for Great Lakes activities
given current budgetary and economic conditions.]
Page 56, para 5, line 3; Reference is made to a 1980 request by
GLNPO concerning development of nonpoint source regional
strategies. It is noted that the nonpoint recommendations contained
in this paragraph are basically the same as those PLUARG made
several years earlier.
[GAO Comment: We agree, but see no need to expand
the discussion further. ~]
Page 57, para 2, lines 7 and 8; Lake Erie is described as "the most
polluted of the Great Lakes", while Lake Ontario is described as the
second most polluted. This is actually an oversimplification of the
condition of these two lakes. Lake Erie is the most polluted of the
Great Lakes with regard to nutrients. In regard to toxic
substances, however, Lake Erie is in better condition than Lake
Ontario..
[GAO Comment: The discussion (p. 57) has been
revised to state that both lakes are the two most
polluted of all the Great Lakes.
Page 57. para 4, line 3: It is stated that New York officials have
not directed attention toward Great Lakes issues because of a lack
of EPA guidance. As pointed out earlier, however, it must also be
recognized that there is no mandate requiring Great Lakes Basin
states to participate in Great Lakes cleanup efforts. The mandate
exists on the federal level.
[GAO Comment: This matter is fully set forth in
the report. (See p. 4.)]
133
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
Page 57, para 5, line 5; It is stated that GLNPO has experienced
difficulties in dealing with the Departments of Agriculture and
Commerce. This is surprising if this remark applies to the Soil
Conservation Service. The Soil Conservation Service, via its
Conservation Districts, has a long history of working with local and
state governments and with EPA. It is surprising, therefore, if
GLNPO has experienced difficulties in dealing with them.
[GAO Comment: At the local level coordination
may be good, but high-level coordination has been
missing in the development of a comprehensive non-
point strategy. Also, the Department of Agriculture
agreed (see app. XI) that there are no formal arrange-
ments for EPA or GLNPO to communicate with the
Department.]
Page 58, para 3, line 4; it is stated that EPA travel cutbacks have
occasionally limited employee attendance at IJC functions. This is
correct and, unfortunately, there is every indication that the
problem is getting worse. Several states are also restricting their
employee attendance at IJC functions. It is also noted in this
paragraph that the FY 82 budget cutbacks could result in closing
EPA's Large Lakes Research Station. This did not occur only because
of specific congressional intervention. This station, however, has
been "zeroed out" in the FY 83 budget. As a result, a major Great
Lakes research activity related to the Agreement will be lost,
making the work of the Commission related to the Agreement more
difficult to accomplish.
[GAO Comment: Travel problems are discussed in
the report. The suggested discussion of the con-
gressional action needed to keep the research station
operating also has been included in the report. (See
p. 58.)]
Page 59, para 1, lines 3 and 4; It is stated that the EPA "has assigned
Great Lakes Program responsibilities at a low level". This should
be emphasized as a very significant problem. This "relatively low
priority" has caused many of the problems related to fulfilling the
requirements of the Agreement. The situation may not get any better
unless EPA assigns a higher priority to its Agreement
responsibilities. Obviously, there is no incentive for the involved
Regional Offices or associated laboratories to attach any particular
significance to Agreement activities if a similar commitment is not
evident at the EPA headquarters level.
[GAO Comment: This matter is emphasized. The IJC
position on this matter has been added to the discus-
sion (p. 55).]
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
Pages 61-65; Appendix 1 lists the environmental legislation and
agencies affecting the Great Lakes. It should also be stated,
however, that the U.S. has commitments under the Agreement which are
extraordinary in nature, relative to U.S. domestic laws. That is,
the U.S. has commitments under the Agreement which it has pledged it
will attempt to accomplish. To do so may require that the U.S.
initiate some activities which are basically outside the structure
or requirements of U.S. domestic laws regarding the environment.
Therefore, simply assessing the existing U.S. legislative base may
not give an accurate picture of what the U.S. actually can or cannot
do in regard to its Agreement commitments.
[GAO Comment: We are not aware of any instances
where the United States has carried out activities
outside of domestic law. Furthermore, we believe
that the report clearly states that the United States
has made commitments under the agreement which
are not being met and the Congress will need to
decide the extent to which these agreement commit-
ments can be funded.]
Page 76, para 1; This paragraph has a list containing three
"important uncertainties" remaining to be resolved concerning
phosphorus control." The implication is that unless these
uncertainties can be resolved, it will not be possible to implement
appropriate phosphorus control measures. The uncertainties,
however, may not be as formidable as one might otherwise believe.
For example, in regard to the second uncertainty concerning
tributary loads, a tributary is a transport mechanism for water and
the chemicals carried in it. Tributaries, per se, do not contribute
to the phosphorus load to a waterbody. It is principally the
activities of man within the watershed which result in excessive
phosphorus inputs to waterbodies. In regard to shoreline erosion
contributions of phosphorus, it is unclear whether or not this even
warrants a label as a major uncertainty. It is true that there are
large inputs of phosphorus from shoreline erosion at certain times
of the year. Most current scientific evidence, however, suggests
this phosphorus is largely unavailable for algae growth. Therefore,
it is of little consequence in regard to eutrophication control
measures . One item that should be added to this listing, however,
is the atmospheric inputs of phosphorus to the lakes. More accurate
information on the quantities and types of phosphorus entering the
Great Lakes via atmospheric deposition is needed.
[GAO Comment: A discussion on atmospheric imputs of
phosphorus has been added to the report. (See pp. 78
and 79.) With respect to the other uncertainties,
we merely state what IJC's own task force identified
as uncertainties which need to be resolved.]
135
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
Page 16, para 2, lines 2 and 3; it is stated that bioavailability is one
of "the mo,st critical considerations" in assesssing the desirability
and effectiveness of phosphorus control programs. In fact, the
quantities of biologically available phosphorus can be used now to
set control priorities. Control efforts should concentrate on those
sources contributing the greatest quantities of biologically
available phosphorus. Also, it is more correct to indicate that
bioavailability refers to phosphorus that is immediately available
for algae growth or that can become available for algae growth over
a short time period.
[GAO Comment: The definition of bioavailability
has been clarified {see p. 76). While we agree
that controls can be established where information
is definitive, we believe that further research
is needed to resolve the uncertainties which do
exist so that optimal control efforts can be
devised.]
Page 77, para 2, lines 11-19; It is stated that phosphorus could
settle in river bottoms and may never be released back to the water
column. On the other hand, it is also subsequently stated that
tributary contributions of phosphorus may be underestimated because
storm events are not considered. These are contradictory statements
whose implications require further discussion.
[GAO Comment: We do not agree that the statements are
contradictory. Phosphorus can settle and never be
released or it can be released during storm events.
The point is that no one knows, and this needs to be
determined.]
Page 78, para 2, line 8; It is stated that anywhere from one to 40
percent of shoreline phosphorus is in a biologically available
form. The upper end of this range, however, is not normally
encountered in the environment. A more realistic range is on the
order of one to ten percent, with even the ten percent value being
relatively high. Therefore, to conclude that exclusion of shoreline
erosion phosphorus raises serious questions about the integrity of
the target loads is misleading. Because of its low bioavailability,
shoreline erosion phosphorus likely has little impact on the
eutrophication status of a lake.
[GAO Comment: We believe that the discussion
clearly points out that this is a range. Also,
IJC's own task force has stated that this is
a question which needs to be resolved.]
136
-------
APPENDIX XII APPENDIX XII
Pages i-v, DIGEST; Where appropriate, the Digest should be changed
to reflect the concerns raised above. For example, page ii states
that the IJC believes that GLISP is "biased, incomplete, and lacks
scientific validity"; page 126 of this critique ("Page 32, para 3,
lines and 10") contains a comment addressing this statement.
[GAO Comment: The digest has been revised where
appropriate.]
U.S. GOVERHENT PRINTING OFFICE 1982-0- 3&l-843/'H3
(089153)
137
------- |