This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1042T 
entitled 'Environmental Contamination: Department of Defense Activities 
Related to Trichloroethylene, Perchlorate, and Other Emerging 
Contaminants' which was released on July 12, 2007. 

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

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

Testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on Readiness, Committee on Armed Services, 
House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT: 

Thursday, July 12, 2007: 

Environmental Contamination: 

Department of Defense Activities Related to Trichloroethylene, 
Perchlorate, and Other Emerging Contaminants: 

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

GAO-07-1042T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-1042T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Readiness, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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. 

What GAO Found: 

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. 

[Hyperlink, http://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. 

[End of section] 

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,[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 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[Footnote 3] and our May 2007 report and June 2007 testimony 
on drinking water contamination problems at the Marine Corps Base Camp 
Lejeune (Camp Lejeune).[Footnote 4] We also used information from 
related GAO work on DOD cleanup issues[Footnote 5] 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. 

The State of Knowledge About TCE and Perchlorate: 

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. 

EPA Has Established a Standard for TCE and Knowledge is Evolving: 

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.[Footnote 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 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. 

EPA Has Not Established a Standard for Perchlorate: 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 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.[Footnote 9] Other pending 
legislation would require EPA to establish a national primary drinking 
water standard for perchlorate.[Footnote 10] 

DOD's Responsibilities to Address Perchlorate and Other Emerging 
Contaminants Where Federal Regulatory Standards Do Not Exist: 

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.[Footnote 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. 

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.[Footnote 12] 

Table 1: States That Have Established Nonregulatory Perchlorate Levels: 

State: Arizona; 
Level (ppb): 14; 
Type of Level: guidance. 

State: California; 
Level (ppb): 6; 
Type of Level: notification level. 

State: Maryland; 
Level (ppb): 1; 
Type of Level: advisory level. 

State: Nevada; 
Level (ppb): 18; 
Type of Level: public notice standard. 

State: New Mexico; 
Level (ppb): 1; 
Type of Level: drinking water screening level. 

State: Oregon; 
Level (ppb): 18; 
Type of Level: action level. 

State: New York; 
Level (ppb): 5; 
Type of Level: drinking water planning level. 

Level (ppb): 18; 
Type of Level: public notification level. 

State: Texas; 
Level (ppb): 17; 
Type of Level: residential protective cleanup level (PCL). 

Level (ppb): 51; 
Type of Level: industrial/commercial PCL. 

Source: EPA and state documents. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 13] 

DOD Is Taking Several Actions to Address TCE, Perchlorate, and Other 
Emerging Contaminants: 

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 Recently Has Established a Mechanism for Addressing Emerging 
Contaminants: 

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. 

DOD is Taking Actions to Address TCE: 

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.[Footnote 
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 Sampling For Perchlorate and Taking Cleanup Actions Under 
Certain Conditions: 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 16] 

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. 

Contacts and Acknowledgements: 

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. 

[End of section] 

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). 

FOOTNOTES 

[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. 

[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). 

[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. 

[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. 

[9] S. 24. 

[10] S. 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. 

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

[12] In 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. 

[13] According 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. 

[14] Statement 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). 

[15] DOD's perchlorate website has additional information regarding 
policy and guidance, hyperlink, 
http://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/MERIT/Perchlorate/efforts/
policy/index.html. 

[16] See hyperlink, 
https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/MERIT/Perchlorate/index.h
tml.

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. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

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." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

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

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 
512-6061: 

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

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 

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

Congressional Relations: 

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: 

Public Affairs: 

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: