Environmental Contamination
Department of Defense Activities Related to Trichloroethylene, Perchlorate, and Other Emerging Contaminants Gao ID: GAO-07-1042T July 12, 2007DOD 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.
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.
GAO-07-1042T, Environmental Contamination: Department of Defense Activities Related to Trichloroethylene, Perchlorate, and Other Emerging Contaminants
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:
