Environmental Contamination: Department of Defense Activities Related to Trichloroethylene, Perchlorate, and Other Emerging Contaminants
Published: 2007-07-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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 defense-activities 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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, 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. 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  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  perchlorate and our May 2007 report and June 2007 testimony on drinking  water contamination problems at the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune  (Camp Lejeune). We also used information from related GAO work on  DOD cleanup issues 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  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, low- level 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— 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.
subsections: section_title: The State of Knowledge About TCE and Perchlorate
paragraphs: 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 government- sponsored studies have raised concerns that even low-levels of exposure  to perchlorate may pose serious risks to infants and fetuses of pregnant  women.
subsections: section_title: EPA Has Established a Standard for TCE and Knowledge is Evolving
paragraphs: 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  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 non- Hodgkin’s lymphoma—based on limited evidence of carcinogenicity in  humans and additional evidence from studies in experimental animals.
Effective in 1989, EPA adopted an MCL of 5 ppb of TCE in drinking water  supplies pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act. 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  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.
section_title: EPA Has Not Established a Standard for Perchlorate
paragraphs: 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  that information was insufficient to determine whether perchlorate should  be regulated under the SDWA. 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.
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  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. Other pending legislation would require EPA to establish a  national primary drinking water standard for perchlorate.
section_title: DOD’s Responsibilities to Address Perchlorate and Other Emerging Contaminants Where Federal Regulatory Standards Do Not Exist
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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.
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.
section_title: DOD Is Taking Several Actions to Address TCE, Perchlorate, and Other Emerging Contaminants
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: DOD Recently Has Established a Mechanism for Addressing Emerging Contaminants
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: DOD is Taking Actions to Address TCE
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: DOD is Sampling For Perchlorate and Taking Cleanup Actions Under Certain Conditions
paragraphs: 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  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. 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.
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 recently- issued 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.
section_title: Contacts and Acknowledgements
paragraphs: 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.
Marc Castellano, Richard Johnson, and Alison O’Neill also made key  contributions.
section_title: Appendix I: Selected GAO Reports on Defense-related Hazardous Waste Issues
paragraphs: 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).
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.