Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
Hundreds of military bases across America sit on poisoned ground. After decades of training exercises, weapons testing, and industrial operations, these installations harbor a toxic cocktail of “forever chemicals,” cancer-causing solvents, and unexploded bombs that threaten millions of people.
The contamination spans all 50 states and U.S. territories. Service members, their families, and surrounding communities face health risks from chemicals that persist for generations. The cleanup bill already exceeds $31 billion and keeps climbing.
The Toxic Legacy
Military contamination comes from decades of activities designed to keep America safe. Firefighting training, aircraft maintenance, weapons testing, and industrial operations have left behind dangerous chemicals that don’t break down naturally.
Three types of contamination pose the greatest threats: PFAS “forever chemicals” from firefighting foam, industrial solvents used for cleaning, and unexploded ordnance from training exercises.
Each represents a different kind of danger, but all share one troubling characteristic: they persist in the environment for decades, creating long-term health risks for anyone exposed.
PFAS: The Forever Chemicals
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, represent the most widespread contamination problem facing the Defense Department. These synthetic chemicals have been used in thousands of products since the 1940s, from non-stick cookware to water-repellent clothing.
Their molecular structure includes an incredibly strong carbon-fluorine bond—one of the strongest in organic chemistry. This makes them resistant to heat, water, oil, and natural breakdown processes. They earned the nickname “forever chemicals” because they persist in the environment and human body for decades.
Military’s Primary Source: Firefighting Foam
Military bases have far higher PFAS contamination than typical civilian areas. The reason is Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF), used extensively since the 1960s to extinguish petroleum-based fires involving jet fuel.
For nearly 50 years, AFFF containing high concentrations of two PFAS compounds—perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)—was standard equipment across the military.
The foam was used in three main scenarios:
Routine Training Drills: Many bases conducted weekly or monthly exercises where large fires were intentionally set and extinguished with AFFF. Massive volumes of foam poured directly onto the ground.
Emergency Response: AFFF fought real fires involving aircraft, vehicles, or fuel storage facilities.
Hangar Fire-Suppression Systems: Aircraft hangars had overhead suppression systems filled with AFFF, subject to testing and accidental discharges.
In each case, PFAS-laden foam seeped into soil and eventually contaminated groundwater aquifers supplying drinking water on and off base.
Beyond AFFF, other military activities contributed to PFAS contamination. Base landfills received PFAS-containing waste from various sources. Wastewater treatment plants, not designed to filter these resilient chemicals, became conduits for spreading contamination. Industrial processes like chrome plating and engine washing also released PFAS.
Health Risks
Scientific evidence increasingly links PFAS exposure to serious health problems. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and a landmark 2022 report from the National Academies of Sciences identify several conditions associated with PFAS exposure.
Sufficient evidence exists for associations with:
- Kidney cancer in adults
- Testicular cancer in adults
- High cholesterol
- Decreased antibody response to vaccines in adults and children
Limited or suggestive evidence shows links to:
- Breast cancer
- Liver damage
- Thyroid disease
- Pregnancy-induced hypertension
- Low infant birth weight
- Ulcerative colitis
Military personnel face unique risks from dual exposure. A firefighter handling concentrated AFFF receives high-dose occupational exposure, then returns to on-base housing where contaminated groundwater supplies drinking and bathing water. This combination of acute workplace exposure and chronic residential exposure creates intensified risk.
Industrial Solvents: The Cleanup Legacy
Before PFAS became widely known, another class of chemicals caused widespread base contamination: chlorinated industrial solvents. For decades, these chemicals were essential for maintaining modern military equipment.
Trichloroethylene (TCE) served as the military’s primary degreaser for cleaning metal parts on machinery, weapons, and aircraft. Tetrachloroethylene (PCE), also called perchloroethylene, was used for metal degreasing and as the main chemical in on-base dry cleaning facilities.
Both are volatile organic compounds that evaporate easily into air. Before modern environmental regulations in the 1970s and 1980s, disposal was often primitive and uncontained.
Common practices included:
- Dumping used solvents directly into unlined ground pits
- Storing chemicals in metal drums that eventually corroded and leaked
- Disposing dry cleaning waste into drains or septic systems
Because TCE and PCE are denser than water and move easily through soil, they became persistent groundwater contaminants. Their volatile nature creates inhalation risks as chemicals evaporate from contaminated groundwater and seep into building air through a process called vapor intrusion.
This creates multiple exposure pathways: drinking contaminated water, breathing contaminated air, and direct skin contact.
The Camp Lejeune Tragedy
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina stands as the most devastating example of solvent contamination’s impact. For over 30 years, from August 1953 to December 1987, drinking water supplied to service members, families, and civilian workers was poisoned with toxic chemicals.
The contamination affected two primary water treatment plants:
Tarawa Terrace was contaminated with PCE from an off-base dry cleaner, ABC One-Hour Cleaners, which improperly dumped solvent-laden wastewater into drains for years.
Hadnot Point was contaminated with TCE, benzene, vinyl chloride, and other compounds from on-base sources, including leaking underground fuel tanks, industrial spills, and waste disposal sites.
Chemical levels were dangerously high. TCE in the Hadnot Point system peaked at 1,400 parts per billion—280 times the current EPA safe drinking water limit. PCE levels reached 215 parts per billion, 43 times the EPA limit.
An estimated one million people were exposed during this period. Veterans and families suffered unusually high rates of cancers and other diseases without knowing the cause for decades.
The Department of Veterans Affairs now recognizes “presumptive conditions” for veterans who served at Camp Lejeune during contamination. These include kidney, liver, and bladder cancers, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, adult leukemia, multiple myeloma, and Parkinson’s disease.
The Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022, passed as part of the PACT Act, created legal pathways for veterans, family members, and civilian workers to file claims and sue for damages.
Camp Lejeune was designated an EPA Superfund site in 1989. Cleanup continues today through a massive joint effort by the Navy, EPA, and North Carolina environmental officials.
Unexploded Ordnance: The Hidden Danger
A different but equally dangerous legacy involves unexploded ordnance (UXO)—military munitions that were fired, dropped, or launched but failed to detonate. The Defense Department estimates millions of acres across the U.S., particularly on former training grounds, are potentially littered with UXO.
UXO presents dual threats. The obvious danger is explosive hazard. Even decades after training exercises, these munitions can remain highly unstable and detonate if disturbed. Construction workers, farmers, and hikers have been injured or killed by accidentally encountering old ordnance.
The second threat is chemical contamination. As metal casings corrode over time, they slowly release toxic contents called “munitions constituents” into the environment.
These chemicals include:
- Explosive compounds like TNT and RDX, which are known or suspected carcinogens
- Heavy metals like lead, mercury, and antimony from munition components
- Chemical warfare agents at some legacy sites
These constituents contaminate soil and leach into groundwater, creating long-term environmental health problems that persist even after explosive risks are managed.
The dual nature creates a fundamental conflict. The primary method for rendering UXO safe is controlled detonation by Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams. While this eliminates immediate explosion danger, it can worsen long-term chemical contamination by shattering casings and scattering toxic contents over wider areas.
This paradox highlights a significant cleanup challenge: ensuring immediate public safety can complicate and increase costs of long-term environmental restoration.
Other Hazardous Materials
Military bases harbor other dangerous substances from specific historical activities:
Radioactive materials contaminate some older bases. Former Naval Air Station Alameda has low-level contamination from radium-based luminous paint used on aircraft dials. Uranium waste affects sites involved in nuclear weapons programs.
Herbicides contaminate bases that stored or handled chemicals during the Vietnam War era, potentially including Agent Orange and its toxic byproduct dioxin.
Petroleum products leak from underground storage tanks, releasing fuels and components like benzene and toluene into soil and groundwater.
The Scale of the Problem
Military contamination isn’t a localized issue affecting a few sites. It’s a vast, nationwide problem spanning every state, with some locations polluted to levels that defy comprehension.
Mapping the Contamination
The numbers illustrate the challenge’s breadth:
PFAS Contamination: The Defense Department has identified 723 active installations, Base Realignment and Closure locations, National Guard facilities, and Formerly Used Defense Sites requiring PFAS assessment. As of December 2024, assessments were completed at 708 sites, with 581 requiring further investigation. Some estimates suggest 80% of all U.S. military bases have elevated PFAS levels.
Solvent Contamination: The Environmental Working Group found that more than 1,400 active and former military bases have documented contamination with the cancer-causing solvent TCE.
Superfund Sites: Over 140 Defense Department facilities are so contaminated they’ve been placed on the EPA’s National Priorities List, making them official Superfund sites requiring long-term, intensive cleanup. Military installations comprise over 10% of the most polluted sites in the entire country.
Interactive tools help citizens understand local impacts. EWG maintains an interactive map tracking known and suspected PFAS contamination sites nationwide, including detailed information for hundreds of military bases.
ProPublica’s Bombs in Our Backyard series features a searchable database of over 40,000 known or suspected contaminated sites on current and former Pentagon properties.
Extreme Contamination Levels
Contamination levels at some bases are astronomical. While the EPA has set enforceable limits for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water at 4 parts per trillion, testing at military bases has revealed concentrations millions of times higher.
| Base Name | State | Status | Highest PFAS Level (ppt) | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| England Air Force Base | Louisiana | Closed 1992 | 20,700,000 | 2016 |
| Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake | California | Active | 8,000,000 | 2017 |
| Myrtle Beach Air Force Base | South Carolina | Closed 1993 | 2,640,000 | N/A |
| Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam | Hawaii | Active | 2,620,000 | N/A |
| Langley Air Force Base | Virginia | Active | 2,225,000 | N/A |
| Fort Stewart-Hunter Army Airfield | Georgia | Active | 2,100,000 | N/A |
| Naval Air Station Jacksonville | Florida | Active | 1,397,120 | N/A |
| Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station | New York | Active | 1,310,000 | N/A |
| Grand Prairie Armed Forces Reserve | Texas | Closed 1998 | 1,247,000 | N/A |
| Altus Air Force Base | Oklahoma | Active | 1,150,000 | N/A |
These numbers demonstrate pollution levels posing significant and immediate threats to groundwater resources, requiring urgent and comprehensive remediation.
Case Study: Wurtsmith Air Force Base
The former Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Oscoda, Michigan, exemplifies the long, frustrating road of PFAS cleanup and breakdown of trust between the military and communities it once anchored.
Closed in 1993, the base was declared a Superfund site in 1994 due to contamination from solvents and other hazardous materials, even before PFAS became a primary concern.
PFAS contamination stems from decades of AFFF use in firefighting training beginning in the 1970s. State officials first detected PFAS at the site in 2010. Subsequent testing revealed alarming levels—groundwater samples in 2021 showed PFAS levels as high as 213,000 parts per trillion, stark contrast to EPA’s 2024 enforceable limit of 4 parts per trillion.
The contamination has spread into nearby water bodies, including Clark’s Marsh and Van Etten Lake, which flows into Lake Huron. This led to state “Do Not Eat” advisories for fish and deer from the area, disrupting local hunting and fishing traditions and raising fears about Great Lakes ecosystem health.
The base’s closure was an economic blow, eliminating thousands of jobs. The community has worked to redevelop the property, attracting new businesses and converting former base housing to private residences. This creates difficult tension where economic revitalization happens on land sitting atop serious environmental hazards.
Cleanup has been characterized by slow pace and persistent disputes between the Air Force and state and local officials over the extent of military responsibility and response adequacy. Community activists have criticized the Air Force for delays and resisting more aggressive cleanup measures.
Currently, cleanup is in the Remedial Investigation phase, with a final report expected in 2024. Several interim actions are in place, including pump-and-treat systems using granular activated carbon to filter PFAS from groundwater before it reaches Van Etten Lake. However, these are considered stopgap measures, not final remedies.
Long delays and disagreements have severely eroded community trust in the Air Force. While recent changes in Air Force management have brought some hope for improved transparency, residents remain frustrated that comprehensive, permanent solutions are still years away, with some remediation systems not scheduled to be operational until 2029.
Case Study: Naval Air Station Alameda
Former Naval Air Station Alameda, closed in 1997, presents a case study in military contamination’s sheer complexity. Located on an island in San Francisco Bay, the site faces not single chemical contamination but a diverse, hazardous mix from over 50 years of industrial-scale naval operations.
Before 1974, industrial wastewater was discharged untreated into surrounding waters. Investigations identified approximately 60 separate contaminated areas from activities including aircraft maintenance, paint removal, and metal plating operations.
Industrial Solvents and PCBs contaminate areas from aircraft maintenance and metal plating.
Radiological Waste includes low-level contamination with radium-226 in landfills and former industrial buildings. This radioactive material was used in glow-in-the-dark paint for aircraft dials. Improper paint waste disposal has led to costly, difficult cleanup.
PFAS from decades of AFFF use in firefighting training and hangar suppression systems has created significant contamination. Groundwater testing revealed combined PFOS/PFOA levels as high as 336,000 parts per trillion—thousands of times greater than EPA health advisories. One PFOA reading alone reached 1,100,000 parts per trillion.
As a Base Realignment and Closure site, Alameda cleanup is directly linked to property transfer to the City of Alameda for economic redevelopment. This creates dual imperatives: making land safe for public use while turning former military assets into productive community resources.
The Navy has transferred approximately 89% of the former base to the city and other entities. However, the remaining 266 acres, including some of the most contaminated areas, await completion of environmental remediation before full transfer.
Cleanup at Alameda is a long-term, ongoing process managed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act framework. Work is site-specific and phased.
Radiological remediation of radium-226 has involved removing contaminated drain lines and, at a 60-acre site, planning to scan and remove surface soil contamination followed by installing three-foot-thick protective soil covers.
Solvent remediation at sites with volatile organic compound contamination uses in-situ treatments like bioremediation, where substances are injected into ground to stimulate chemical breakdown. This process is expected to take 25 to 40 years to reach cleanup goals.
PFAS remediation recently focused on tackling the plume threatening Oakland Inner Harbor. In 2023, the Navy implemented an innovative pilot test of an in-situ permeable reactive barrier involving injecting PlumeStop®, a colloidal activated carbon technology, to create a 720-foot-long underground barrier that absorbs and immobilizes PFAS, preventing migration into the harbor.
Early results showed greater than 99% PFAS reduction within the treatment zone, offering a promising, low-maintenance alternative to traditional pump-and-treat systems.
Alameda demonstrates immense technical challenges and long timelines required to address complex legacy contaminant mixtures while navigating urban redevelopment pressures.
Government Response Framework
Addressing vast and complex military contamination requires robust legal and regulatory frameworks. The U.S. government’s response builds upon federal environmental laws executed through programs managed by both the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Defense.
Legal Foundation: CERCLA and Superfund
The cornerstone of hazardous waste cleanup in the United States is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, passed by Congress in 1980. Known as Superfund, this landmark law responded to public outrage over toxic waste dumps like Love Canal and gave the federal government powerful new tools to address environmental contamination.
CERCLA’s official text includes key provisions:
Creation of the “Superfund”: CERCLA established a trust fund, originally financed by taxes on chemical and petroleum industries, to pay for cleanup of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites when responsible parties cannot be identified or are unwilling or unable to pay.
EPA Authority: The law grants EPA broad authority to respond to releases of hazardous substances. EPA can either perform cleanup itself using Superfund money and later sue responsible parties to recover costs, or compel responsible parties to conduct cleanup under EPA oversight.
Liability: CERCLA establishes strict liability, meaning parties can be held responsible for cleanup costs regardless of fault. The law identifies four classes of Potentially Responsible Parties: current owners and operators, past owners and operators at the time of disposal, parties who arranged for disposal or transport of hazardous substances, and transporters who selected disposal sites.
The EPA’s Superfund program implements CERCLA. Its mission is protecting human health and environment by cleaning up the nation’s most contaminated lands, holding polluters accountable, involving communities in cleanup, and returning sites to productive use.
The National Priorities List
A central Superfund component is the National Priorities List—EPA’s roster of the most serious hazardous waste sites in the country, making them eligible for long-term, federally funded remedial action.
Sites are placed on the NPL through formal processes involving the Hazard Ranking System, which evaluates relative risks sites pose to public health and environment by assessing potential exposure pathways through groundwater, surface water, soil, and air. Sites scoring above 28.5 are generally eligible for the NPL.
As of March 2025, the NPL included 1,340 sites, of which 157 were federal facilities, the vast majority belonging to the Defense Department.
Department of Defense’s Role: The DERP Framework
While EPA has ultimate oversight authority under CERCLA, the Defense Department is responsible for conducting and funding cleanup at its own facilities. To manage this enormous task, the Defense Department established the Defense Environmental Restoration Program in 1986.
DERP is the comprehensive framework for identifying, investigating, and cleaning up contamination from past activities at active bases, closing bases under the Base Realignment and Closure process, and Formerly Used Defense Sites. The program’s official website provides detailed information.
DERP operates through several key sub-programs:
Installation Restoration Program: The core program for addressing contamination from hazardous substances at active military installations. Established in 1975, the IRP is responsible for investigation and cleanup of sites contaminated by past operations.
Military Munitions Response Program: Established in 2001, the MMRP specifically targets risks posed by unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and their chemical byproducts on areas that are not active operational ranges.
Each military branch—Army, Navy, Air Force—and the Defense Logistics Agency manages its own cleanup programs at installations under its jurisdiction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for cleanup at Formerly Used Defense Sites.
The Official Cleanup Process
Cleanup of military bases, particularly those complex enough for the NPL, follows formal, multi-phase processes laid out by CERCLA. This systematic and thorough process is often lengthy and can take decades to complete. Each phase includes opportunities for public input.
Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection
This first phase involves reviewing historical records, interviewing personnel, and examining site operations to determine if hazardous substances were used and if releases may have occurred. If preliminary assessment suggests potential problems, Site Inspection is conducted involving collecting limited soil, water, and air samples to confirm contaminant presence and assess whether sites pose threats warranting further investigation.
The Defense Department is currently performing these assessments for PFAS at hundreds of installations.
During this phase, lead agencies may conduct interviews with local officials and residents to gather information about site history and potential impacts. Informal community meetings may be held to keep the public informed.
NPL Listing
If Site Inspection confirms significant contamination that could pose threats to human health or environment, sites are scored using the Hazard Ranking System. If scores exceed EPA’s threshold (typically 28.5), EPA formally proposes adding sites to the National Priorities List.
Proposals to list sites on the NPL are published in the Federal Register, opening formal 60-day public comment periods. EPA must review and respond to all substantive comments before making final decisions.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Once sites are on the NPL, they enter much more detailed and intensive study phases known as Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study.
Remedial Investigation is comprehensive field study to determine precise nature and extent of contamination. It involves extensive sampling of soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment to map contamination plumes and identify all chemicals of concern. Critical parts include baseline risk assessments evaluating potential risks contamination poses to human health and environment.
Feasibility Study runs concurrently with Remedial Investigation. Its purpose is developing and evaluating ranges of potential cleanup options, or “remedial alternatives.” These alternatives are screened based on effectiveness, implementability, and cost. Feasibility Studies analyze pros and cons of each viable option, from no action to full excavation and treatment.
Record of Decision
After Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study completion, lead agencies issue Proposed Plans identifying preferred cleanup alternatives and explaining rationale behind choices. These plans are presented to the public for review and comment.
After considering public feedback, agencies make final selections and formalize them in legal documents called Records of Decision. RODs are official blueprints for cleanup, specifying chosen remedies, cleanup objectives, and applicable standards.
Public comment periods on Proposed Plans are among the most important opportunities for communities to influence final cleanup decisions. Agencies must prepare “responsiveness summaries” in RODs addressing all significant public comments received.
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
This is the “doing” phase of cleanup.
Remedial Design involves creating detailed engineering plans and specifications for remedies selected in Records of Decision.
Remedial Action is actual construction and implementation of remedies. This could involve installing groundwater treatment systems, excavating and removing contaminated soil, constructing containment caps over landfills, or applying in-situ treatment technologies.
Post-Construction and Long-Term Management
Cleanup often doesn’t end when construction finishes. Many sites require long-term activities to ensure remedies remain effective and protective of human health and environment.
Operation and Maintenance: Ongoing operation of treatment systems, such as pump-and-treat facilities.
Long-Term Monitoring: Regular sampling of groundwater or other media to ensure contaminant levels are decreasing and remedies are performing as designed.
Institutional Controls: Non-engineered measures, such as land-use restrictions (prohibiting residential development or groundwater use for drinking), to limit potential exposure to any remaining contamination.
Five-Year Reviews: For any site where hazardous substances remain above levels allowing unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, CERCLA requires cleanup reviews every five years to ensure continued protection.
Challenges and Controversies
Despite well-defined legal and regulatory frameworks, cleanup of contaminated military bases faces significant challenges leading to decades of delays, soaring costs, and growing frustration in affected communities. These obstacles are systemic, involving funding, institutional priorities, and public trust.
The Funding Crisis
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to timely cleanup is immense and ever-increasing cost, which consistently outpaces funding allocated by the Defense Department and Congress.
The Defense Department faces enormous environmental liability. In 2021, the department’s own estimate for total cleanup costs was $31 billion. However, this figure is widely considered an underestimate, as it doesn’t fully account for escalating costs of addressing emerging contaminants like PFAS.
A February 2025 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office revealed that estimated future costs for PFAS investigation and cleanup alone have more than tripled since 2022, now totaling over $9.3 billion for fiscal year 2025 and beyond. As the Defense Department continues investigating the full extent of PFAS contamination at over 700 sites, this number is expected to climb higher.
The Environmental Working Group estimates the final PFAS cleanup bill could run into tens of billions of dollars.
This ballooning cost has created what EWG calls a “ticking cleanup time bomb.” There’s a massive and growing gap between projected cleanup costs and actual funding the Defense Department requests and receives.
For example, while estimated cleanup liability increased by $3.7 billion between 2016 and 2021, the Defense Department’s cleanup budget increased by only $400 million in that same period.
For fiscal year 2024, the Pentagon requested $1.5 billion for environmental restoration programs—$700 million less than the $2.2 billion Congress had appropriated for the previous year, demonstrating a consistent pattern of under-requesting funds for the task.
The Slow Pace of Remediation
The direct consequence of chronic underfunding is painfully slow cleanup. With too many contaminated sites and insufficient money, the Defense Department is forced to prioritize, often leaving communities waiting decades for permanent solutions.
Reports from GAO and EWG conclude that at current spending pace, many contaminated military installations may not be fully cleaned up for 50 years or more.
This isn’t a new problem. A GAO report from 1995 noted slow cleanup pace at closing bases, warning that major sites could be ten years or more away from remediation. Today, the situation is particularly acute for PFAS sites. Fourteen years after PFAS was first discovered at Wurtsmith Air Force Base, not a single highly contaminated military site has moved beyond the “investigation” phase to a final, comprehensive cleanup plan.
This slow pace creates a vicious cycle of escalating costs and expanding risk. Contaminants like PFAS don’t stay in one place; they’re mobile in groundwater and can spread over time. When cleanup is delayed due to lack of funding, contamination plumes continue migrating, polluting larger volumes of soil and water. This dramatically increases scope and complexity of final cleanup, driving ultimate costs even higher.
The Defense Department’s “worst first” prioritization strategy, while logical, risks allowing moderately contaminated sites to become severe ones while waiting for attention. This demonstrates that underfunding cleanup programs isn’t merely deferring costs; it’s actively multiplying them for future generations.
Technical and Logistical Hurdles
Beyond financial constraints, the physical and chemical nature of contamination presents immense technical challenges.
The “Forever Chemical” Challenge
The very properties that made PFAS useful—extreme chemical stability—also make them incredibly difficult to remove from the environment. Traditional remediation technologies that work on other organic pollutants, like bioremediation or chemical oxidation, are largely ineffective against powerful carbon-fluorine bonds of PFAS.
Current industry-standard methods for treating PFAS-contaminated water are primarily sorption technologies, such as granular activated carbon filters and ion exchange resins. These methods don’t destroy PFAS; they simply capture and concentrate it, like sponges soaking up water.
This creates new problems: highly concentrated, PFAS-laden waste streams (used carbon or resin) that must then be disposed of. This secondary waste is typically either incinerated at extremely high temperatures—a costly process carrying risks of incomplete combustion and air pollution—or placed in hazardous waste landfills.
Development of cost-effective, scalable technologies that can completely destroy PFAS molecules remains a major focus of environmental research.
The UXO Detection Challenge
Locating buried unexploded ordnance across vast former training ranges is another significant logistical hurdle. The primary tool for detection is the magnetometer, which essentially functions as a sophisticated metal detector.
The problem is that these instruments detect all buried metal, not just UXO. This includes harmless scrap metal, shrapnel, geological formations, and other debris.
This leads to extraordinarily high “false alarm” rates. A 2003 Defense Science Board report noted that it’s not uncommon for cleanup crews to dig 100 holes to find a single UXO. This enormous amount of unnecessary digging is a primary driver of high costs and slow pace of UXO cleanup.
Improving discrimination technology—the ability to distinguish dangerous munitions from harmless scrap metal before digging—is critical to making UXO remediation more efficient and affordable.
The BRAC Dilemma
At bases closed under the Base Realignment and Closure process, cleanup efforts face additional complexity. There’s inherent conflict between slow, methodical pace required for thorough environmental cleanup and urgent community need for economic redevelopment to replace lost jobs and tax revenue.
This can create pressure to accelerate property transfers, sometimes before cleanup is fully complete, requiring complex legal arrangements and long-term stewardship plans to ensure public safety on redeveloped land.
Inter-Agency Conflicts and Public Trust
The final set of challenges is institutional and relational. History of bureaucratic disputes, perceived lack of transparency, and decades of delayed action have frayed relationships between the military, its regulators, and communities it’s sworn to protect.
Defense Department vs. EPA
While CERCLA gives EPA ultimate oversight authority, the Defense Department is a powerful federal agency in its own right, leading to history of jurisdictional friction. GAO reports and news articles have documented disputes between agencies over cleanup standards, timelines, and enforceability of interagency agreements.
For example, a 2007 GAO report noted that the Defense Department had failed to sign required cleanup agreements for 11 NPL sites for over a decade and that EPA had been slow to pursue enforcement action. The report concluded that EPA needed stronger enforcement authority over fellow federal agencies, a recommendation the Defense Department opposed.
A Legacy of Downplaying Risk
Significant sources of public mistrust stem from documented patterns of the Defense Department downplaying contamination risks. ProPublica’s investigative series Bombs in Our Backyard detailed how the Pentagon has historically resisted scientific evidence on health dangers of chemicals like RDX, fought against stricter state and federal cleanup standards, and used testing methods that underreported full extent of PFAS contamination.
In one high-profile instance, the Defense Department, along with the White House and EPA, was reported to have pressured the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to withhold a health study that found PFAS to be more dangerous than previously understood, calling it a “public relations nightmare.”
Erosion of Community Trust
The cumulative effect of these issues—slow cleanup pace, funding shortfalls, technical challenges, and perceived lack of transparency—has been profound erosion of trust in many military communities. At sites like Wurtsmith Air Force Base, residents who once had strong, positive relationships with the military now feel betrayed and abandoned.
They’re left to worry about their health, property values, and children’s future, often with no clear timeline for when their water will be clean or their land will be safe. This breakdown in trust represents one of the most significant and difficult-to-repair damages from the legacy of military contamination.
Resources for Citizens and Veterans
Navigating the complex world of military base contamination can be daunting for citizens, veterans, and their families. However, extensive information and several avenues for participation are available to those seeking to understand issues in their community and advocate for action.
Finding Information About Your Local Base
Several government and independent sources provide data and reports on contamination at specific military installations.
EPA Resources
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is the primary regulator and key source of official information.
Search for Superfund Sites: EPA provides a searchable database of all sites on the National Priorities List and those being addressed under the Superfund Alternative Approach. You can search by state to find detailed information on sites in your area.
Federal Facility Cleanup Sites: EPA maintains a specific list and map of federal facility cleanup sites through its FEDFacts portal. This tool provides information on sites on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket.
Defense Department Resources
The Defense Department provides public access to its own cleanup data.
Defense Department Cleanup Program: The Defense Environmental Network & Information eXchange hosts the Defense Department’s main cleanup program portal. It allows users to search for installation-level data, generate reports, and view maps and funding information.
PFAS-Specific Information: The Defense Department maintains a dedicated webpage with status of PFAS investigations and cleanup actions at its 723 identified sites. This includes progress reports and maps of interim actions.
Investigative Journalism and Advocacy Resources
For more critical perspectives and often more accessible data visualization, resources from non-governmental organizations are invaluable.
Environmental Working Group: EWG has compiled extensive data on military contamination, particularly from PFAS. Their interactive map is an excellent tool for visualizing contaminated sites across the country.
ProPublica’s “Bombs in Our Backyard”: This award-winning investigative series includes a powerful interactive database that maps over 40,000 contaminated sites on current and former military properties, allowing users to search by location and risk level.
Getting Involved: Community Participation
One of the most direct ways for community members to participate in cleanup processes is through Restoration Advisory Boards.
Restoration Advisory Boards
A Restoration Advisory Board is a stakeholder group established to provide forums for discussion and information exchange between local communities, military installations, and regulatory agencies like EPA and state environmental departments.
RABs allow community members to review progress, provide input on cleanup documents and decisions, and ensure local concerns are heard by decision-makers. While RABs are advisory and don’t have decision-making authority, they’re crucial mechanisms for public involvement and transparency.
RABs can be established if there’s sufficient and sustained community interest and one of the following criteria is met:
- The installation is closing and transferring property to the community
- At least 50 local citizens petition for a RAB
- Federal, state, tribal, or local government representatives request a RAB
- The installation commander determines a RAB is needed
RAB meetings are open to the public, and their minutes and related documents are typically posted online.
Finding and Joining a RAB
Finding information about RABs for specific bases can require research, as points of contact vary by military branch and installation.
| Military Branch | Primary Contact |
|---|---|
| U.S. Air Force | Air Force Civil Engineer Center<br>Email: [email protected]<br>Phone: 1-866-725-7617<br>Website |
| U.S. Army | U.S. Army Environmental Command |
| U.S. Navy/Marine Corps | Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command<br>Check environmental or community outreach sections of specific installation websites |
If you cannot find information online, contact the Public Affairs Office of the military installation you’re interested in.
Health and Benefits for Veterans and Families
Veterans and family members who believe their health has been affected by toxic exposures during military service have several dedicated resources.
The PACT Act
The Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022 significantly expanded VA health care and benefits for veterans exposed to burn pits, Agent Orange, and other toxic substances.
A key provision establishes a framework for the VA to create new “presumptive conditions.” This means that for certain diseases, the VA automatically presumes a connection to military service if veterans served in specific locations during specific times, removing the burden of proof from veterans.
Filing a VA Claim
Veterans concerned about health problems related to exposure to contaminants like industrial solvents or PFAS are encouraged to talk to their health care providers and file claims for disability compensation with the VA. The VA decides these claims case-by-case, unless conditions are already established as presumptive for specific exposures.
VA Public Health Resources:
- Industrial Solvents (TCE, PCE, Benzene, etc.)
- PFAS
- Camp Lejeune
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry is the lead public health agency responsible for assessing health effects of exposure to hazardous substances. They conduct major health studies at contaminated sites and provide guidance for medical professionals.
Multi-Site Health Study: ATSDR leads a major study on health effects of PFAS exposure in drinking water at several communities, including those near former military bases like Pease Air Force Base.
Clinical Guidance: ATSDR has published comprehensive guidance for clinicians on how to evaluate and manage patients with history of PFAS exposure. Patients can bring this information to doctors to facilitate more informed conversations about testing and health screening.
ToxFAQs Fact Sheets: ATSDR provides easy-to-understand fact sheets on hundreds of toxic substances, including TCE and PCE, detailing health effects and exposure routes.
The contamination of America’s military bases represents one of the largest environmental challenges facing the nation. From PFAS “forever chemicals” to cancer-causing solvents to unexploded ordnance, these toxic legacies affect millions of Americans and will require decades and billions of dollars to address.
While the government has established comprehensive frameworks for cleanup, chronic underfunding, technical challenges, and institutional conflicts continue to delay progress. Communities that once proudly hosted military installations now struggle with contaminated water, health concerns, and eroded trust in government promises.
The path forward requires sustained commitment to funding, technological innovation, and transparent communication between the military and the communities it serves. Most importantly, it demands recognition that cleaning up these sites isn’t just an environmental obligation—it’s a fundamental promise to the service members, families, and communities who have sacrificed for national security.
America’s toxic military legacy won’t be resolved quickly or easily. But with proper resources, accountability, and political will, the nation can honor its obligation to clean up the contamination left behind by decades of defending freedom.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
