USA: Slow response to PFAS contamination at Air Force One military base
Posted: 8th October 2025
“To date, there is no mention of the word PFAS on the French Ministry of the Armed Forces’ website. And while military sites are clearly identified as potential sources in the April 2024 Interministerial Plan on PFAS, no measures are proposed to remedy the situation.”
Under the hangar of Air Force One, the US presidential aircraft, groundwater contains PFAS concentrations tens of thousands of times higher than the current standards set by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for drinking water. This massive pollution, which is almost impossible to decontaminate, reveals the extent of the damage caused by military bases, which until now were only suspected of being hot spots in France.
Known as the base for Air Force One aircraft that transport the US president, Andrews military base near Washington is less well known for being a site severely polluted with PFAS. This is a widespread problem. “It is estimated that 80% of US military bases have high levels of PFAS contamination, both in the soil and in the water supply,” notes the Schmidt National Law Group. This contamination is “caused [mainly] by the foams (Aqueous Fire Fighting Foam, AFFF) used in firefighting training,” the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) explains in an email to ActuEL-HSE. Massive pollution.
Covering nearly 18 km², Andrews Air Force Base includes runways and air operations areas, an industrial zone, residential facilities, and recreational facilities. As part of the Superfund cleanup program, managed here by the US Air Force in conjunction with the EPA, samples were taken in 2016 from the soil, surface water— in particular Piscataway Creek, which originates on the base—river sediments, and aquifers. Published in 2018 (report attached), the results are alarming: in groundwater, concentrations exceed 30,000 ng/L of PFOA and PFOS combined in several areas.
For the record, today’s EPA standards for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water are set at 4 ng/L each.
“The limitation of this study is that human exposure to PFAS occurs mainly through respiration and ingestion,” Pat Elder, an activist with the Military Poisons association, which has studied PFAS concentrations in fish in Piscataway Creek, explained to ActuEL-HSE.
The base’s Superfund page mentions certain emergency cleanup measures that have already been taken “to address immediate threats to human health and the environment.” On a larger scale, the 2018 report recommends a complementary study to better characterize the pollution and analyze the feasibility of remediation solutions. “The Air Force is conducting this study, with completion scheduled for 2027. At the same time, [it] is exploring treatment technologies to reduce the amount of PFAS released into the environment,” the EPA wrote to ActuEL-HSE.
Initial ideas “to combat exposure to PFAS from Andrews Air Force Base flowing into the headwaters of the Piscataway River” were presented in April 2025 at a public meeting. Military engineers proposed a “temporary solution” using a system of granular activated carbon filters, or resin, to filter the main source of the river. “A smokescreen,” says Pat Elder. “I haven’t seen anything done so far, and this solution is not at all commensurate with the scale of the problem,” he says, adding: “In fact, in practical terms, they just don’t know how to do it.”
In February 2023, Le Monde’s “Forever Project,” which aggregated all PFAS samples taken over the past 20 years, mentioned military bases as potentially contaminated sites despite the fact that “no environmental samples have been taken to confirm this.” To date, there is no mention of the word PFAS on the French Ministry of the Armed Forces’ website. And while military sites are clearly identified as potential sources in the April 2024 Interministerial Plan on PFAS, no measures are proposed to remedy the situation.
When asked, the Ministry of Ecology referred to the Ministry of the Armed Forces, which stated by email that it was “a stakeholder in the plan.” To reduce its emissions, Balard explains that “instructions prohibiting the use of fluorinated foam concentrates in training exercises” have been issued, while “actively seeking satisfactory non-fluorinated substitutes.” As for the identification of polluted sites, “the Ministry of the Armed Forces has launched a project in conjunction with the Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières (BRGM), which is carrying out similar work for the Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC)”. The results of this work will undoubtedly be interesting. - Éva Thiébaud
Pat Elder
www.militarypoisons.org