United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Readiness, 

Committee on Armed Services, House of 

Representatives

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONTAMINATION 

Department of Defense 

Activities Related to 

Trichloroethylene, 

Perchlorate, and Other 

Emerging Contaminants 

Statement of John B. Stephenson, Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT

Thursday, July 12, 2007

 

GAO-07-1042T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

July 12, 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION

Department of Defense Activities Related 

to Trichloroethylene, Perchlorate, and 

Other Emerging Contaminants 

Highlights of GAO-07-1042T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Readiness, 

Committee on Armed Services, House of 

Representatives 

DOD defines emerging

contaminants as chemicals or 

materials with (1) perceived or real 

threat to health or the environment 

and (2) lack of published standards 

or a standard that is evolving or

being reevaluated. Two emerging

contaminants—trichloroethylene 

(TCE) and perchlorate—are of

particular concern to DOD because 

they have significant potential to 

impact people or DOD’s mission. 

TCE, a degreasing agent in metal

cleaning which has been used

widely in DOD industrial and 

maintenance processes, has been

documented at low exposure levels 

to cause headaches and difficulty 

concentrating. High-level exposure 

may cause dizziness, headaches, 

nausea, unconsciousness, cancer, 

and possibly death. Similarly, 

perchlorate has been used by DOD, 

NASA, and others in making, 

testing, and firing missiles and 

rockets. It has been widely found in 

groundwater, surface water, and 

soil across the United States, 

Perchlorate health studies have

documented particular risks to 

fetuses of pregnant women. 

GAO was asked for testimony to

summarize its past work on

perchlorate-, TCE-, and defenseactivities related to (1) the state of

knowledge about the emerging 

contaminants TCE and perchlorate,

(2) DOD responsibilities for 

managing TCE and perchlorate 

contamination at its facilities, and 

(3) DOD activities to address TCE 

and perchlorate contamination. 

While TCE and perchlorate are both classified by DOD as emerging 

contaminants, there are important distinctions in how they are regulated and 

in what is known about their health and environmental effects. Since 1989, 

EPA has regulated TCE in drinking water. However, health concerns over 

TCE have been further amplified in recent years after scientific studies have 

suggested additional risks posed by human exposure to TCE. Unlike TCE, no 

drinking water standard exists for perchlorate—a fact that has caused much 

discussion in Congress and elsewhere. Recent Food and Drug 

Administration data documenting the extent of perchlorate contamination in 

the nation’s food supply has further fueled this debate. 

While DOD has clear responsibilities to address TCE because it is subject to 

EPA’s regulatory standard, DOD’s responsibilities are less definite for 

perchlorate due to the lack of such a standard. Nonetheless, perchlorate’s 

designation by DOD as an emerging contaminant has led to some significant 

control actions. These actions have included responding to requests by EPA 

and state environmental authorities, which have used a patchwork of 

statutes, regulations, and general oversight authorities to address 

perchlorate contamination. Pursuant to its Clean Water Act authorities, for 

example, Texas required the Navy to reduce perchlorate levels in

wastewater discharges at the McGregor Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve 

Plant to 4 parts per billion (ppb), the lowest level at which perchlorate could

be detected at the time. In addition, in the absence of a federal perchlorate 

standard, at least nine states have established nonregulatory action levels or 

advisories for perchlorate ranging from 1 ppb to 51 ppb. Nevada, for 

example, required the Kerr-McGee Chemical site in Henderson to treat 

groundwater and reduce perchlorate releases to 18 ppb, which is Nevada's 

action level for perchlorate. 

While nonenforceable guidance had existed previously, it was not until EPA 

adopted its 1989 TCE standard that many DOD facilities began to take 

concrete action to control the contaminant. According to EPA, for example,

46 sites at Camp Lejeune have since been identified for TCE cleanup. The 

Navy and EPA have selected remedies for 30 of those sites, and the 

remaining 16 are under active investigation. Regarding perchlorate, in the 

absence of a federal standard DOD has implemented its own policies on 

sampling and cleanup, most recently with its 2006 Policy on DOD Required 

Actions Related to Perchlorate. The policy applies broadly to DOD’s active 

and closed installations and formerly used defense sites within the United 

States and its territories. It requires testing for perchlorate and certain 

cleanup actions and directs the department to comply with applicable 

federal or state promulgated standards, whichever is more stringent. The 

policy notes, that DOD has established 24 ppb as the current level of concern 

for managing perchlorate until the promulgation of a formal standard by the 

states and/or EPA. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1042T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact John

Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or

stephensonj@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We are pleased to be here to discuss our work on the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) activities associated with emerging contaminants and the 

cleanup of its hazardous waste sites. DOD defines emerging contaminants 

as chemicals or materials characterized by (1) a perceived or real threat to

human health or environment and (2) a lack of published health standards 

or a standard that is evolving or being reevaluated. DOD may also classify 

a contaminant as “emerging” because of the discovery of a new source of 

contamination, pathway to human exposure, or more-sensitive detection

method. Two emerging contaminants—trichloroethylene (TCE) and 

perchlorate—are of particular concern to DOD because they have 

significant potential to impact people or DOD’s mission. 

As we have previously reported,1

 DOD faces the daunting task of cleaning

up thousands of military bases and other installations across the country. 

Many of these sites are contaminated with toxic and radioactive wastes in 

soil, water, or containers such as underground storage tanks, ordnance 

and explosives, and unsafe buildings. Identifying and investigating these 

hazards will take decades, and cleanup will cost many billions of dollars. 

In addition to the federal fiscal implications of the large cleanup costs, 

defense-related contamination problems have economic consequences for 

individual communities. Many of these formerly used defense sites are 

now owned by states, local governments, and individuals and used for 

parks, schools, farms, and homes. Of particular concern are military 

facilities closed under DOD’s Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

program that are intended to be redeveloped for productive new uses and 

must generally be cleaned up before conversion. Environmental cleanup is

necessary for the transfer of unneeded contaminated property, which 

becomes available as a result of base closures and realignment.2

 Concerns 

have risen in recent years within affected communities about the extent to

which contamination on these properties could delay or affect the 

potential for economic redevelopment to replace jobs that were lost as a 

 1

Appendix I provides a selected bibliography of recent GAO studies on Defense-related 

hazardous waste issues.

2

When an installation becomes a BRAC action, the unneeded property is reported as 

excess. Federal property disposal laws require DOD to first screen excess property for 

possible reuse by defense and other federal agencies. If no federal agency needs the

property, it is declared surplus and is made available to nonfederal parties, including state 

and local agencies, local redevelopment authorities, and the public. 

Page 1 GAO-07-1042T 
result of the base closures. While most of the land on bases closed 

between 1988 and 1995 has been cleaned up and transferred for 

redevelopment, some has been awaiting cleanup and conversion for many 

years. Additional bases approved for closure in the 2005 BRAC round will 

increase the inventory of military properties slated for civilian reuse. 

As you requested, my remarks today will focus on (1) the state of 

knowledge about certain emerging contaminants of concern to the 

Subcommittee—specifically TCE and perchlorate, (2) DOD’s 

responsibilities for managing emerging contaminants for which federal

regulatory standards do not exist, as is the case with perchlorate, and (3) 

DOD’s activities to address the emerging contaminants TCE and 

perchlorate contamination at its facilities. To address these issues, we 

relied primarily on our May 2005 report and April 2007 testimony on 

perchlorate3

 and our May 2007 report and June 2007 testimony on drinking 

water contamination problems at the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune 

(Camp Lejeune).4

 We also used information from related GAO work on 

DOD cleanup issues5

 and examined recent data and other information 

from DOD, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and

Drug Administration (FDA), and the states. 

In summary, we found the following:

• While TCE and perchlorate are both DOD-classified emerging 

contaminants, there are important distinctions in the extent to which they

are regulated and in what is known about their effects on human health 

and the environment. TCE, a degreaser for metal parts that DOD has used 

widely for industrial and maintenance processes, has been found in 

underground water sources and many surface waters as a result of the 

manufacture, use, and disposal of the chemical. TCE has been shown to 

 3

GAO, Perchlorate: A System to Track Sampling and Cleanup Results is Needed, 

GAO-05-462 (Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2005) and GAO, Perchlorate: EPA Does Not 

Systematically Track Incidents of Contamination, GAO-07-797T (Washington, D.C.: April 

25, 2007). 

4

GAO, Defense Health Care: Activities Related to Past Drinking Water Contamination at 

Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, GAO-07-276 (Washington, D.C.: May 11, 2007) and 

GAO, Issues Related to Past Drinking Water Contamination at Marine Corps Base Camp

Lejeune, GAO-07-933T (Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2007). 

5

GAO, Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve Environmental Cleanup

Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of Unneeded Property, GAO-07-166 (Washington,

D.C.: January 30, 2007). 

Page 2 GAO-07-1042T 
cause headaches and difficulty concentrating at low levels of exposure, 

whereas high-level exposure may cause dizziness, headaches, nausea, 

unconsciousness, cancer, and possibly death. As a consequence of these 

health risks from TCE ingestion, EPA adopted a TCE drinking water 

standard that became effective in 1989. However, health concerns over 

TCE have been further amplified in recent years as scientific studies have

suggested additional risks posed by human exposure to TCE. In addition, 

ongoing study of the health affects associated with past exposures on 

Camp Lejeune may affect DOD’s decision whether to settle or deny the 

pending health claims of former residents. Perchlorate, a primary 

ingredient in propellant used in the manufacture and firing of rockets and 

missiles, has been found in drinking water, groundwater, surface water, 

and soil across the United States. Health studies have shown that it can 

affect the thyroid gland, which helps to regulate the body’s metabolism, 

and may cause developmental impairments in the fetuses of pregnant 

women. Unlike TCE, EPA has not set a regulatory standard limiting 

perchlorate in drinking water—a fact that has caused much discussion in 

Congress and elsewhere. Recent FDA data documenting extensive, lowlevel perchlorate contamination in the nation’s food supply have further

fueled the debate about the extent of perchlorate contamination and its 

health effects. 

• While DOD has certain regulatory compliance responsibilities with regard 

to emerging contaminants such as TCE that are regulated by EPA or state 

governments, responsibilities are less definite for other emerging 

contaminants, such as perchlorate, that lack federal regulatory standards. 

In the absence of a federal regulatory standard, DOD’s designation of 

perchlorate as an emerging contaminant indicates its concern about the 

significant potential impact the chemical has on people or the 

department’s mission. That designation also has resulted in DOD deciding 

to take certain actions and cleanup efforts even without a federal 

requirement. While there is no nationwide perchlorate standard, DOD has 

taken steps to address perchlorate in individual cases in response to EPA 

regional or state agency actions under various environmental laws such as 

the Clean Water Act. For example, pursuant to its authority under the 

Clean Water Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) program, Texas required the Navy to reduce perchlorate levels in 

wastewater discharges at the McGregor Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve 

Plant to 4 parts per billion (ppb), the lowest level at which perchlorate 

could be detected. Also, in the absence of a federal perchlorate standard, 

at least eight states have established nonregulatory action levels or 

advisories for perchlorate ranging from 1 ppb to 51 ppb. Nevada, for 

example, required the Kerr-McGee Chemical site in Henderson to treat 

groundwater and reduce perchlorate concentration releases to 18 ppb—

Page 3 GAO-07-1042T 
Nevada’s action level. 

• DOD is taking a number of actions to address emerging contaminants, 

including TCE and perchlorate. In 1979, EPA issued nonenforceable 

guidance establishing “suggested no adverse response levels” for TCE in 

drinking water. However, the guidance did not suggest actions that public

water systems should take if TCE concentrations exceeded those values. 

Ten years later, EPA’s drinking water standard for TCE of 5 ppb became 

effective. The new standard served as a regulatory basis for many DOD 

facilities to take concrete actions to control TCE. According to EPA’s 

Region 4 Superfund Director, for example, 46 sites at Camp Lejeune have 

since been identified for TCE cleanup. The Navy and EPA have selected 

remedies for 30 of those sites, and the remaining 16 are under active 

investigation. Regarding perchlorate, in the absence of a federal 

perchlorate standard, DOD adopted its own policies on sampling and 

cleanup—specifically a 2003 interim policy followed by a more 

comprehensive 2006 policy that required more aggressive sampling and, in

some cases, cleanup. The 2006 policy applies broadly to DOD’s active and 

closed installations and formerly used defense sites within the United 

States, its territories and possessions. It directs testing for perchlorate and

certain other cleanup actions and directs DOD to comply with applicable 

federal or state promulgated standards, whichever is more stringent. 

While TCE and perchlorate are both DOD-classified emerging 

contaminants, there are key distinctions between the contaminants that 

affect the extent to which they are regulated, and the information that may 

be needed before further steps are taken to protect human health and the 

environment. Since 1989, a maximum contaminant level (MCL) under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act has been in place for TCE. In contrast, EPA has 

not adopted an MCL for perchlorate, although recent governmentsponsored studies have raised concerns that even low-levels of exposure 

to perchlorate may pose serious risks to infants and fetuses of pregnant 

women. 

We provided details about EPA’s evolving standards for TCE and the 

evolving knowledge of its health effects in our May 2007 report and June 

2007 testimony on issues related to drinking water contamination on 

Camp Lejeune. TCE is a colorless liquid with a sweet, chloroform-like odor 

that is used mainly as a degreaser for metal parts. The compound is also a 

component in adhesives, lubricants, paints, varnishes, paint strippers, and 

pesticides. At one time, TCE was used as an extraction solvent for 

The State of 

Knowledge About 

TCE and Perchlorate 

EPA Has Established a 

Standard for TCE and 

Knowledge is Evolving 

Page 4 GAO-07-1042T 
cosmetics and drug products and as a dry-cleaning agent; however, its use 

for these purposes has been discontinued. DOD has used the chemical in a 

wide variety of industrial and maintenance processes. More recently, the 

department has used TCE to clean sensitive computer circuit boards in 

military equipment such as tanks and fixed wing aircraft. 

Because TCE is pervasive in the environment, most people are likely to be

exposed to TCE by simply eating, drinking, and breathing, according to the 

Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Industrial wastewater is the primary 

source of release of TCE into water systems, but inhalation is the main 

route of potential environmental exposure to TCE. ATSDR has also 

reported that TCE has been found in a variety of foods, with the highest 

levels in meats, at 12 to 16 ppb, and U.S. margarine, at 440 to 3,600 ppb. In

fact, HHS’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)

suggested that approximately 10 percent of the population had detectable 

levels of TCE in their blood. 

Inhaling small amounts of TCE may cause headaches, lung irritation, poor 

coordination, and difficulty concentrating, according ATSDR’s 

Toxicological Profile. Inhaling or drinking liquids containing high levels of

TCE may cause nervous system effects, liver and lung damage, abnormal 

heartbeat, coma, or possibly death. ATSDR also notes that some animal 

studies suggest that high levels of TCE may cause liver, kidney, or lung 

cancer, and some studies of people exposed over long periods to high 

levels of TCE in drinking water or workplace air have shown an increased

risk of cancer. ATSDR’s Toxicological Profile notes that the National 

Toxicology Program has determined that TCE is “reasonably anticipated 

to be a human carcinogen” and the International Agency for Research on

Cancer has determined that TCE is probably carcinogenic to humans—

specifically, kidney, liver and cervical cancers, Hodgkin’s disease, and nonHodgkin’s lymphoma—based on limited evidence of carcinogenicity in

humans and additional evidence from studies in experimental animals. 

Page 5 GAO-07-1042T 
Effective in 1989, EPA adopted an MCL of 5 ppb of TCE in drinking water 

supplies pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act.6

 Despite EPA’s 

regulation of TCE as a drinking water contaminant, concerns over serious 

long-term effects associated with TCE exposures have prompted 

additional scrutiny by both governmental and nongovernmental scientific 

organizations. For example, ATSDR initiated a public health assessment in 

1991 to evaluate the possible health risks from exposure to contaminated

drinking water on Camp Lejeune. The health concerns over TCE have 

been further amplified in recent years after scientific studies have 

suggested additional risks posed by human exposure to TCE. ATSDR is 

continuing to develop information about the possible long-term health 

consequences of these potential exposures in a subregistry to the National 

Exposure Registry specifically for hazardous waste sites. 

As we previously reported with respect to Camp Lejeune, those who lived

on base likely had a higher risk of inhalation exposure to volatile organic

compounds such as TCE, which may be more potent than ingestion 

exposure. Thus, pregnant women who lived in areas of base housing with 

contaminated water and conducted activities during which they could

inhale water vapor—such as bathing, showering, or washing dishes or 

clothing—likely faced greater exposure than those who did not live on 

base but worked on base in areas served by the contaminated drinking 

water. 

Concerns about possible adverse health effects and government actions 

related to the past drinking water contamination on Camp Lejeune have 

led to additional activities, including new health studies, claims against the 

federal government, and federal inquiries. As a consequence of these 

growing concerns—and of anxiety among affected communities about 

these health effects and related litigation—ATSDR has undertaken a study 

to examine whether individuals who were exposed in utero to the 

contaminated drinking water are more likely to have developed certain

childhood cancers or birth defects. This research, once completed later in 

 6

For contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and that 

the EPA Administrator determines may have an adverse impact on health, the act requires 

EPA to set a nonenforceable maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) at which no known 

or anticipated adverse health effects occur and that allows an adequate margin of safety. 

Once the MCLG is established, EPA may set an enforceable standard for water as it leaves

the treatment plant, the maximum contaminant level (MCL). The MCL generally must be 

set as close to the MCLG as is feasible using the best technology or other means available, 

taking costs into consideration. 

Page 6 GAO-07-1042T 
2007, is expected to help regulators understand the effects of low levels of

TCE in our environment. 

In addition, some former residents of Camp Lejeune have filed tort claims 

and lawsuits against the federal government related to the past drinking 

water contamination. As of June 2007, about 850 former residents and 

former employees had filed tort claims with the Department of the Navy 

related to the past drinking water contamination. According to an official 

with the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General—which is handling the claims 

on behalf of the Department of the Navy—the agency is currently 

maintaining a database of all claims filed. The official said that the Judge 

Advocate General is awaiting completion of the latest ATSDR health study 

before deciding whether to settle or deny the pending claims in order to 

base its response on as much objective scientific and medical information 

as possible. According to DOD, any future reassessment of TCE toxicity 

may result in additional reviews of DOD sites that utilized the former TCE

toxicity values, as the action levels for TCE cleanup in the environment 

may change.

As we discussed in our May 2005 report and April 2007 testimony, EPA has 

not established a standard for limiting perchlorate concentrations in 

drinking water under the SDWA. Perchlorate has emerged as a matter of 

concern because recent studies have shown that it can affect the thyroid 

gland, which helps to regulate the body’s metabolism and may cause 

developmental impairments in the fetuses of pregnant women. Perchlorate 

is a primary ingredient in propellant and has been used for decades by the 

Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, and the defense industry in manufacturing, testing, and 

firing missiles and rockets. Other uses include fireworks, fertilizers, and 

explosives. It is readily dissolved and transported in water and has been 

found in groundwater, surface water, drinking water, and soil across the 

country. The sources of perchlorate vary, but the defense and aerospace 

industries are the greatest known source of contamination. 

Scientific information on perchlorate was limited until 1997, when a better 

detection method became available for perchlorate, and detections (and

concern about perchlorate contamination) increased. In 1998, EPA first 

placed perchlorate on its Contaminant Candidate List, the list of 

contaminants that are candidates for regulation, but the agency concluded 

EPA Has Not Established a 

Standard for Perchlorate 

Page 7 GAO-07-1042T 
that information was insufficient to determine whether perchlorate should 

be regulated under the SDWA.7

 EPA listed perchlorate as a priority for 

further research on health effects and treatment technologies and for 

collecting occurrence data. In 1999, EPA required water systems to 

monitor for perchlorate under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Rule to determine the frequency and levels at which it is present in public 

water supplies nationwide.8

Interagency disagreements over the risks of perchlorate exposure led 

several federal agencies to ask the National Research Council (NRC) of 

the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate perchlorate’s health effects. 

In 2005, NRC issued a comprehensive review of the health effects of 

perchlorate ingestion, and it reported that certain levels of exposure may 

not adversely affect healthy adults. However, the NRC-recommended more 

studies on the effects of perchlorate exposure in children and pregnant 

women and recommended a reference dose of 0.0007 milligrams per 

kilogram per day. In 2005, the EPA adopted the NRC recommended 

reference dose, which translates to a drinking water equivalent level 

(DWEL) of 24.5 ppb. If the EPA were to develop a drinking water standard 

for perchlorate, it would adjust the DWEL to account for other sources of 

exposure, such as food. 

Although EPA has taken some steps to consider a standard, in April 2007 

EPA again decided not to regulate perchlorate—citing the need for 

additional research—and kept perchlorate on its Contaminant Candidate 

List. Several human studies have shown that thyroid changes occur in 

human adults at significantly higher concentrations than the amounts 

typically observed in water supplies. However, more recent studies have

since provided new knowledge and raised concerns about potential health

risks of low-level exposures, particularly for infants and fetuses. 

Specifically, in October 2006, researchers from the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) published the results of the first large study 

 7

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA’s determination to regulate a contaminant must 

be based on findings that: (a) the contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of 

persons; (b) the contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that the 

contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public 

health concern; and (c) in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such

contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons

served by public water systems.

8

EPA recently determined that it had collected sufficient data and that further monitoring

was not needed, 72 Fed. Reg. 374, January 4, 2007. 

Page 8 GAO-07-1042T 
to examine the relationship between low-level perchlorate exposure and 

thyroid function in women with lower iodine levels. About 36 percent of 

U.S. women have these lower iodine levels. The study found decreases in a 

thyroid hormone that helps regulate the body’s metabolism and is needed 

for proper fetal neural development. 

Moreover, in May 2007, FDA released a preliminary exposure assessment 

because of significant public interest in the issue of perchlorate exposure 

from food. FDA sampled and tested foods such as tomatoes, carrots, 

spinach, and cantaloupe; and other high water content foods such as apple 

and orange juices; vegetables such as cucumbers, green beans, and greens; 

and seafood such as fish and shrimp for perchlorate and found widespread 

low-level perchlorate levels in these items. FDA is also planning to publish,

in late 2007, an assessment of exposure to perchlorate from foods, based 

on results from its fiscal year 2005-2006 Total Diet Study—a market basket 

study that is representative of the U.S. diet. 

Some federal funding has been directed to perchlorate studies and cleanup 

activities. For example, committee reports related to the DOD and EPA 

appropriations acts of fiscal year 2006 directed some funding for 

perchlorate cleanup. In the Senate committee report for the Department of 

Health and Human Services fiscal year 2006 appropriations act, the 

committee encouraged support for studies on the long-term effects of 

perchlorate exposure. The Senate committee report for FDA’s fiscal year 

2006 appropriations act directed FDA to continue conducting surveys of 

perchlorate in food and bottled water and to report the findings to 

Congress. In the current Congress, legislation has been introduced that 

would require EPA to establish a health advisory for perchlorate, as well 

as requiring public water systems serving more than 10,000 people to test 

for perchlorate and disclose its presence in annual consumer confidence 

reports.9

 Other pending legislation would require EPA to establish a 

national primary drinking water standard for perchlorate.10

 9

S. 24. 

10S. 150 and H.R. 1747. A national primary drinking water standard is a legally enforceable

standard that applies to public water systems. It sets an MCL or specifies a certain 

treatment technique for public water systems for a specific contaminant or group of 

contaminants. 

Page 9 GAO-07-1042T 
DOD has certain responsibilities with regard to emerging contaminants 

such as TCE that are regulated by EPA or state governments, but its 

responsibilities and cleanup goals are less definite for emerging 

contaminants such as perchlorate that lack federal regulatory standards. 

As we have previously reported, DOD must comply with any cleanup

standards and processes under all applicable environmental laws, 

regulations, and executive orders, including the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

(CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the 

Clean Water Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES), and the SDWA. DOD’s designation of perchlorate as an 

emerging contaminant reflects the department’s recognition that the 

chemical has a significant potential impact on people or the Department’s 

mission. DOD’s recognition of a substance as an emerging contaminant 

can lead DOD to decide to take to certain cleanup efforts even in the 

absence of a federal regulatory standard. In addition, federal laws enacted

in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 required DOD to conduct health studies and 

evaluate perchlorate found at military sites. For example, the Ronald W. 

Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005 stated that

the Secretary of Defense should develop a plan for cleaning up perchlorate 

resulting from DOD activities when the perchlorate poses a health hazard

and continue evaluating identified sites.11

As we reported in our 2005 perchlorate report, DOD has sometimes 

responded at the request of EPA and state environmental authorities—

which have used a patchwork of statutes, regulations, and general 

oversight authorities—to act (or require others, including DOD, to act) 

when perchlorate was deemed to pose a threat to human health and the 

environment. For example, pursuant to its authority under the Clean 

Water Act’s NPDES program, Texas required the Navy to reduce 

perchlorate levels in wastewater discharges at the McGregor Naval 

Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant to 4 parts per billion, the lowest level at 

which perchlorate could be detected. Similarly, after sampling required as 

part of a RCRA permit detected perchlorate, Utah officials required ATK 

Thiokol, an explosives and rocket fuel manufacturer, to install a 

monitoring well to determine the extent of perchlorate contamination at 

their facility and take steps to prevent additional releases of perchlorate. 

DOD’s 

Responsibilities to 

Address Perchlorate 

and Other Emerging 

Contaminants Where 

Federal Regulatory 

Standards Do Not 

Exist 

 11Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 318, 118 Stat. 1811, 1845 (2004). 

Page 10 GAO-07-1042T 
In addition, EPA and state officials also told us during our 2005 review that 

they have sometimes used their general oversight responsibilities to 

protect water quality and human health to investigate and sample 

groundwater and surface water areas for perchlorate. For example, EPA 

asked Patrick Air Force Base and the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station,

Florida, to sample groundwater for perchlorate near rocket launch sites. 

Previously, both installations had inventoried areas where perchlorate was 

suspected and conducted limited sampling. DOD officials did not find 

perchlorate at Patrick Air Force Base and, according to an EPA official, 

the Department of the Air Force said it would not conduct additional 

sampling at either installation until there was a federal standard for 

perchlorate.

Finally, according to EPA, in the absence of a federal perchlorate 

standard, at least eight states have established nonregulatory action levels

or advisories for perchlorate ranging from 1 part per billion to 51 parts per 

billion. (See table 1.) Massachusetts is the only state to have established a 

drinking water standard—set at 2 ppb. The California Department of 

Health Services reports that California will complete the rulemaking for its 

proposed standard of 6 ppb later this year.12

Table 1: States That Have Established Nonregulatory Perchlorate Levels 

State Level (ppb) Type of Level 

Arizona 14 guidance

California 6 notification level

Maryland 1 advisory level

Nevada 18 public notice standard 

New Mexico 1 drinking water screening level

Oregon 18 action level

New York 5 drinking water planning level 

18 public notification level 

Texas 17 residential protective cleanup level (PCL) 

51 industrial/commercial PCL

Source: EPA and state documents. 

 12In September 2006, the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) proposed a 

primary drinking water standard (in this case a maximum contaminant level, MCL) of 6 ppb 

for perchlorate. CDHS reports that the completed rulemaking will be submitted to the 

Office of Administrative Law by August 31, 2007. 

Page 11 GAO-07-1042T 
States have used these thresholds to identify the level at which some 

specified action must be taken by DOD and other facilities in their state, in 

the absence of a federal standard. For example, Oregon initiated in-depth

site studies to determine the cause and extent of perchlorate 

contamination when concentrations of 18 ppb or greater are found. 

Nevada required the Kerr-McGee Chemical site in Henderson to treat 

groundwater and reduce perchlorate concentration releases to 18 ppb,

which is Nevada’s action level for perchlorate. Utah officials told us that 

while the state did not have a written action level for perchlorate, it may 

require the responsible party to undertake cleanup activities if perchlorate 

concentrations exceed 18 ppb.13

DOD is undertaking a number of activities to address emerging 

contaminants in general, including the creation of the Materials of 

Evolving Regulatory Interest Team (MERIT) to systematically address the 

health, environmental, and safety concerns associated with emerging 

contaminants. As noted above, DOD is required to follow EPA regulations 

for monitoring and cleanup of TCE. In addition, DOD is working with 

ATSDR, which has projected a December 2007 completion date for its 

current study of TCE’s health effects on pregnant women and their 

children. In the absence of a federal standard, DOD has adopted its own 

perchlorate policies for sampling and cleanup activities or is working 

under applicable state guidelines. 

DOD created MERIT to help address the health, environmental, and safety

concerns associated with emerging contaminants. According to DOD, 

MERIT has focused on materials that have been or are used by DOD, or 

are under development for use, such as perchlorate, TCE, RDX, DNT and 

new explosives, naphthalene, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), hexavalent 

chromium (i.e., chromium VI), beryllium, and nanomaterials. MERIT’s 

initiatives include pollution prevention, detection/analytical methods, 

human health studies, treatment technologies, lifecycle cost analysis, risk 

assessment and risk management, and public outreach. Another of 

MERIT’s activities was to create an Emerging Contaminant Action List of 

materials that DOD has assessed and judged to have a significant potential 

DOD Is Taking 

Several Actions to 

Address TCE, 

Perchlorate, and 

Other Emerging 

Contaminants 

DOD Recently Has 

Established a Mechanism 

for Addressing Emerging 

Contaminants 

 13According to state and EPA officials, in instances where perchlorate was found, state 

agencies have sometimes taken steps to minimize human exposure or perform cleanup, or 

required responsible private parties to do so.

Page 12 GAO-07-1042T 
impact on people or DOD’s mission. The current list includes five 

contaminants—perchlorate, TCE, RDX, naphthalene, and hexavalent 

chromium. To be placed on the action list, the contaminant will generally

have been assessed by MERIT for its impacts on (1) environment, safety,

and health (including occupational and public health), (2) cleanup efforts, 

(3) readiness and training, (4) acquisition, and (5) operation and 

maintenance activities. 

In 1979, EPA issued nonenforceable guidance establishing “suggested no

adverse response levels” for TCE in drinking water. These levels provided 

EPA’s estimate of the short- and long-term exposure to TCE in drinking 

water for which no adverse response would be observed and described the 

known information about possible health risks for these chemicals. 

However, the guidance for TCE did not suggest actions that public water 

systems should take if TCE concentrations exceeded those values. 

Subsequently, in 1989, EPA set an enforceable MCL for TCE of 5 

micrograms per liter, equivalent to 5 ppb in drinking water. 

The new standard served as a regulatory basis for many facilities to take 

concrete action to measure and control TCE. According to EPA’s Region 4 

Superfund Director, for example, 46 sites on Camp Lejeune have since 

been identified for TCE cleanup. The Navy and EPA have selected 

remedies for 30 of those sites, and the remaining 16 are under active 

investigation. The first Record of Decision was signed in September 1992 

and addressed contamination of groundwater in the Hadnot Point Area, 

one of Camp Lejeune’s water systems. Remedies to address groundwater 

contamination include groundwater “pump and treat” systems, in-situ 

chemical oxidation, and monitored natural attenuation.14

DOD contends that it is aggressively treating TCE as part of its current 

cleanup program. It notes that the department uses much less TCE than in 

the past and requires strict handling procedures and pollution prevention

measures to prevent exposure to TCE and the release of TCE into the 

environment. Specifically, DOD has replaced products containing TCE 

with other types of cleaning agents such as citrus-based agents, mineral 

oils and other non-toxic solutions. 

DOD is Taking Actions to 

Address TCE 

 14Statement of Franklin Hill, Director of Region 4 Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee 

on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives (June 12, 2007). 

Page 13 GAO-07-1042T 
In the absence of a federal perchlorate standard, DOD has adopted its own 

policies with regard to sampling and cleanup. The 2003 Interim Policy on 

Perchlorate Sampling required the military services—Army, Navy, Air 

Force, and Marines—to sample on active installations (1) where a 

reasonable basis existed to suspect that a perchlorate release occurred as

a result of DOD activities, and (2) a complete human exposure pathway 

likely existed or (3) where a particular installation must do so under state 

laws or applicable federal regulations such as the NPDES permit program. 

However, DOD’s interim policy on perchlorate did not address cleanup 

responsibilities nor did it address contamination at closed installations. 

As we detailed in our previous work, DOD only sampled for perchlorate on 

closed installations when requested by EPA or a state agency, and only 

cleaned up active and closed installations when required by a specific 

environmental law, regulation, or program such as the environmental 

restoration program at formerly used defense sites. For example, at EPA’s 

request, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) installed monitoring 

wells and sampled for perchlorate at Camp Bonneville, a closed 

installation near Vancouver, Washington. Utah state officials also reported 

to us that DOD removed soil containing perchlorate at the former 

Wendover Air Force Base in Utah, where the Corps found perchlorate in 

2004. However, as we previously reported, DOD cited reluctance to sample 

on or near active installations because of the lack of a federal regulatory 

standard for perchlorate.

In the absence of a federal standard, DOD has also worked with individual 

states on perchlorate sampling and cleanup. For example, in October 2004, 

DOD and California agreed to prioritize perchlorate sampling at DOD 

facilities in California, including identifying and prioritizing the 

investigation of areas on active installations and military sites (1) where 

the presence of perchlorate is likely based on previous and current 

defense-related activities and (2) near drinking water sources where 

perchlorate was found. 

In January 2006, DOD updated its policy with the issuance of its Policy on 

DOD Required Actions Related to Perchlorate. The new policy applies 

broadly to DOD’s active and closed installations and formerly used 

defense sites within the United States, its territories and possessions. It 

directs DOD to test for perchlorate and take certain cleanup actions. The 

policy also acknowledges the importance of EPA direction in driving 

DOD’s response to emerging contaminants. It stated, for example, that its 

adoption of 24 ppb as the current level of concern for managing 

perchlorate was in response to EPA’s adoption of an oral reference dose 

DOD is Sampling For 

Perchlorate and Taking 

Cleanup Actions Under 

Certain Conditions 

Page 14 GAO-07-1042T 
that translates to a Drinking Water Equivalent Level of 24.5 ppb. The 

policy also states that when EPA or the states adopt standards for 

perchlorate, “DOD will comply with applicable state or federal 

promulgated standards whichever is more stringent.” 

The 2006 policy directs DOD to test for perchlorate when it is reasonably 

expected that a release has occurred. If perchlorate levels exceed 24 ppb, 

a site-specific risk assessment must be conducted. When an assessment 

indicates that the perchlorate contamination could result in adverse health 

effects, the site must be prioritized for risk management.15 DOD uses a 

relative-risk site evaluation framework across DOD to evaluate the risks 

posed by one site relative to other sites and to help prioritize 

environmental restoration work and to allocate resources among sites. 

The policy also directs DOD’s service components to program resources to 

address perchlorate contamination under four DOD programs—

environmental restoration, operational ranges, DOD-owned drinking water 

systems, and DOD wastewater effluent discharges. 

Under the 2006 perchlorate policy, DOD has sampled drinking water, 

groundwater, and soil where the release of perchlorate may result in 

human exposure and responded where it has deemed appropriate to 

protect public health. As we have reported, DOD is responsible for a large 

number of identified sites with perchlorate contamination, and the 

department has allotted significant resources to address the problem. 

According to DOD, sampling for perchlorate has occurred at 258 active 

DOD installations or facilities. Through fiscal year 2006, DOD reported 

spending approximately $88 million on perchlorate-related research 

activities, including $60 million for perchlorate treatment technologies, 

$9.5 million on health and toxicity studies, and $11.6 million on pollution 

prevention. Additional funds have been spent on testing technology and 

cleanup. DOD also claims credit for other efforts, including strict handling 

procedures to prevent the release of perchlorate into the environment and 

providing information about perchlorate at DOD facilities and DOD’s 

responses. For example, DOD posts the results of its perchlorate sampling, 

by state, on MERIT’s Web site.16

 15DOD’s perchlorate website has additional information regarding policy and guidance, 

http://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/MERIT/Perchlorate/efforts/policy/index.html. 

16See https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/MERIT/Perchlorate/index.html. 

Page 15 GAO-07-1042T 
As we have previously reported, DOD must comply with cleanup 

standards and processes under applicable laws, regulations and executive 

orders, including EPA drinking water standards and state-level standards. 

In the absence of a federal perchlorate standard, DOD has also initiated 

perchlorate response actions to clean up perchlorate contamination at 

several active and formerly used defense sites under its current 

perchlorate policy. For example, at Edwards Air Force Base in California,

DOD has treated 32 million gallons of ground water under a pilot project 

for contaminants that include perchlorate. In addition, DOD has removed 

soil and treated groundwater at the Massachusetts Military Reservation 

and Camp Bonneville in Washington State. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, DOD faces significant challenges, and 

potentially large costs, in addressing emerging contaminants, particularly

in light of the scientific developments and regulatory uncertainties 

surrounding these chemicals and materials. To help address them, DOD 

recently identified five emerging contaminants for which it is developing

risk management options. As in the case of TCE, DOD took action to 

address contamination after EPA established an MCL in 1989. DOD has 

stated that further efforts to address perchlorate would require a 

regulatory standard from EPA and/or the states. The fact that some states 

have moved to create such standards complicates the issue for DOD by 

presenting it with varying cleanup standards across the country. 

As the debate over a federal perchlorate standard continues, the recentlyissued health studies from CDC and FDA may provide additional weight to 

the view that the time for such a standard may be approaching. Until one 

is adopted, DOD will continue to face the challenges of differing 

regulatory requirements in different states and continuing questions about 

whether its efforts to control perchlorate contamination are necessary or

sufficient to protect human health. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to

respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may 

have at this time. 

For further information about this testimony, please contact John 

Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on

the last page of this statement. Contributors to this testimony include 

Steven Elstein, Assistant Director and Terrance Horner, Senior Analyst. 

Contacts and 

Acknowledgements 

Page 16 GAO-07-1042T 
Marc Castellano, Richard Johnson, and Alison O’Neill also made key 

contributions. 

Page 17 GAO-07-1042T 
Page 18 GAO-07-1042T 

Appendix I: Selected GAO Reports on 

Defense-related Hazardous Waste Issues 

Defense Health Care: Issues Related To Past Drinking Water

Contamination at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, GAO-07-933T (June 

12, 2007). 

Defense Health Care: Activities Related To Past Drinking Water 

Contamination at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, GAO-07-276 (May 

11, 2007). 

Perchlorate: EPA Does Not Systematically Track Incidents of 

Contamination, GAO-07-797T (April 25, 2007). 

Environmental Information: EPA Actions Could Reduce the Availability

Of Environmental Information To The Public, GAO-07-464T (February 6, 

2007). 

Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve Environmental 

Cleanup Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of Unneeded Property, 

GAO-07-166 (January 30, 2007). 

Perchlorate: A System to Track Sampling and Cleanup Results Is Needed, 

GAO-05-462 (May 20, 2005). 

Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Base Realignments and

Closures, GAO-05-138 (January 13, 2005). 

Environmental Contamination: DOD Has Taken Steps To Improve 

Cleanup Coordination At Former Defense Sites But Clearer Guidance Is 

Needed To Ensure Consistency, GAO-03-146 (March 28, 2003).

(360859) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER