[CPEO-MEF] HEALTH: GAO report - "DOD Can Improve Its Response to Environmental Exposures on Military Installations"

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

DOD Can Improve Its Response to Environmental Exposures on Military  
Installations

Government Accountability Office (GAO-12-412)
May 1, 2012


What GAO Found

DOD relies on four types of policies to identify and respond to many  
but not all aspects of environmental exposures: (1) environmental  
restoration policies address hazardous releases at military  
Installations; (2) occupational and environmental health policies  
address workplace exposures; (3) deployment health policies address  
the collection of occupational and environmental health data for  
deployed individuals; and (4) public health emergency management  
policies. Nonetheless, there are some limitations in the policies'  
coverage. For example, DOD's environmental restoration policies do  
not specify when to conduct public health assessments at its sites  
beyond the initial assessment of certain priority sites required by  
the Superfund law. In addition, DOD has not fully documented its  
responses to recommendations that result from the assessments. DOD  
officials responsible for oversight reported that they did not know  
what actions, if any, installations had taken on about 80 percent of  
the recommendations. Without a comprehensive tracking system, DOD has  
no assurance that it is addressing recommendations appropriately and  
could be missing opportunities to identify and resolve concerns about  
some health threats. Further, DOD has no policy guiding services and  
their installations on appropriate actions to address health risks  
from past exposures, which DOD attributes to the Superfund law not  
specifically requiring responsible parties to address such risks.

Although several programs potentially provide either health care or  
compensation to various types of individuals suffering from  
environmental exposures, the ability of some individuals to actually  
obtain benefits - particularly compensation - is often complicated by  
documentary, scientific, and legal factors. First, it is often  
difficult to document an environmental exposure because they are  
often not always identified at the time they occurred. Second, it is  
often difficult to establish causation between an environmental  
exposure and a health condition, because scientific research has not  
always established a clear link. Third, although under certain  
circumstances some individuals have legal standing under the Federal  
Tort Claims Act to file a lawsuit against the U.S. government for  
damages due to an environmental exposure, damages under the Federal  
Tort Claims Act are not available to other types of individuals, and  
for certain types of claims due to legal precedent or statutes.

In several cases, Congress has established alternative programs to  
provide compensation to specific populations exposed to specific  
environmental hazards, such as for individuals involved in the  
production of nuclear weapons and those who worked in coal mines.  
Agency officials in charge of managing these alternative programs  
told us that certain features of these programs have proven to be  
beneficial to both claimants and administrators and should be  
considered for inclusion if any future programs are established to  
compensate individuals for environmental exposures on military  
installations. For example, Department of Labor and Department of  
Justice officials told GAO a compensation program that resolves  
claims in a nonadversarial manner and provides outreach to potential  
claimants is more beneficial to both claimants and administrators. In  
contrast, a more adversarial with limited claimant assistance usually  
leads to delays and increased cost for both claimants and the agency  
adjudicating claims.

Why GAO Did This Study

There have been various reported incidents of individuals being  
potentially exposed to environmental hazards while on military  
installations. Indeed, some incidents, such as contaminated air due  
to burn pits in Afghanistan and Iraq and contaminated water at Camp  
Lejeune, North Carolina, have received considerable attention, and in  
the case of Camp Lejeune have resulted in claims seeking billions of  
dollars from the government.

Public Law 111-383, §314(2011) directed GAO to assess Department of  
Defense (DOD) policies regarding environmental exposures. GAO's  
objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which DOD has policies  
that identify and respond to environmental exposures, (2) what  
programs exist to provide health care or compensation to individuals  
for environmental exposures, and (3) which features of other federal  
programs may provide options in designing future compensation  
programs. GAO briefed the Armed Services Committees in December 2011,  
to satisfy the mandate. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed  
relevant documentation, visited installations, and interviewed  
relevant officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making recommendations to DOD to identify and respond to  
limitations in its policies for responding to environmental  
exposures. DOD generally disagreed with GAO's recommendations,  
commenting that current policies are adequate. GAO believes the  
recommendations remain valid, as discussed in the report.

Recommendations for Executive Action

Recommendation: To ensure that DOD meets its goal of providing  
effective, safe, and environmentally sound living and working places,  
and to assess potential gaps in policy coverage for individuals  
living or working on its installations who are exposed to  
environmental hazards, the Secretary of Defense should direct the  
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics  
to establish procedures to comprehensively track and document the  
status and nature of DOD responses to Agency for Toxic Substances and  
Disease Registry recommendations and findings of significant risk to  
ensure that DOD and its components monitor the status of these  
recommendations and findings of significant risk and respond in a  
timely manner. These procedures should be reflected in an updated  
memorandum of understanding prepared in collaboration with the Agency  
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and could include  
revisions to the agencies' joint guidelines or other mechanisms.

For the original highlights page, go to http://www.gao.gov/products/ 
GAO-12-412
For the entire report, go to http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590573.pdf


--

Lenny Siegel
Executive Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
a project of the Pacific Studies Center
278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
<lsiegel@cpeo.org>
http://www.cpeo.org

_______________________________________________
Military mailing list
Military@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/military-cpeo.org