Report on PFAS Contamination at U.S. Military Superfund Sites and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

Recent data from the Department of Defense (DOD) reveals significant Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) contamination in drinking water near 15 military Superfund sites. These findings contradict the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) classification of these sites as having “human exposure under control.” This discrepancy highlights a critical failure in environmental governance and poses a direct threat to several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Institutional Discrepancies and Governance Failures

Contradictory Agency Assessments

A significant conflict exists between federal agencies responsible for public and environmental health. While the EPA maintains that toxic chemical exposure is controlled at 15 designated military Superfund sites, new DOD testing indicates the presence of PFAS “forever chemicals” in nearby tap water at levels that present potential health risks. This lack of institutional coherence undermines public trust and impedes progress toward SDG 16, which calls for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.

• The EPA’s “under control” designation for a Superfund site signals that toxic exposure has been mitigated, often reducing the urgency for cleanup actions.
• Despite DOD test results showing PFAS levels exceeding federal standards, the EPA has not updated its public records for 14 of the 15 sites to reflect the ongoing human exposure risk.
• An exception was made for Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, where the EPA recently updated its status to acknowledge that human exposure is no longer “under control” due to PFAS, suggesting a precedent for re-evaluation.

Impact on Public Health and Access to Clean Water

Violation of SDG 3 and SDG 6

The continued presence of PFAS in drinking water sources is a direct assault on fundamental human rights and sustainable development principles. The situation represents a failure to achieve key targets within SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation).

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: PFAS are linked to severe health conditions, including cancer, liver and kidney damage, immune system impairment, and developmental issues. Exposing communities to these chemicals knowingly contradicts the goal of ensuring healthy lives.
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: The contamination of off-base drinking water wells prevents communities from accessing safe and clean water, a primary target of SDG 6. While the military has provided bottled water or filters in some instances, this is not a comprehensive or sustainable solution for all affected households.

Regulatory Uncertainty and Threats to Environmental Protection

The framework for regulating PFAS is currently under threat, which could further jeopardize public health and undermine SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) by weakening accountability for polluters.

1. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs): The EPA’s landmark standards for six PFAS in drinking water, finalized in 2023, are being challenged by industry groups. The agency has announced its intent to reconsider limits for four of these, which would be a significant setback for public health protection.
2. Superfund Designation: In 2024, the EPA designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law. This critical step, which mandates cleanup, is also facing legal challenges from industry.
3. DOD Compliance: The Pentagon has stated it will comply with current EPA standards. However, if these standards are rolled back, the DOD could argue it is no longer obligated to conduct cleanups to the same degree, potentially halting or scaling back remediation efforts.

Community Impact and Delayed Remediation

Challenges to Sustainable Communities (SDG 11)

The failure to address PFAS contamination and transparently communicate risks leaves communities in a state of uncertainty and peril, directly conflicting with the aims of SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) to create safe and resilient human settlements.

• Groundwater beneath homes near the 15 bases remains contaminated, presenting a continued exposure risk and financial burden for residents with private wells.
• The DOD’s slow progress in remediation is a long-standing issue. Despite decades of awareness of PFAS dangers, no military site has reached the formal cleanup stage of the Superfund process.
• Without updated EPA reports reflecting the true scope of exposure, communities remain uninformed and unable to advocate for their own protection, leaving them vulnerable to ongoing toxic threats.

PFAS Contamination Data at 15 Military Superfund Sites

Reported PFAS Levels Exceeding Federal Standards

The following data, from DOD tests, shows PFAS concentrations (in parts per trillion) in tap water near military bases the EPA classifies as having “human exposure under control.”

• Luke Air Force Base, Ariz.
  • PFOS: 28.3 ppt
  • PFOA: 6 ppt
• March Air Force Base, Calif.
  • PFOS: 390 ppt
  • PFOA: 110 ppt
  • PFHxS: 310 ppt
• George Air Force Base, Calif.
  • PFOS: 23.2 ppt
  • PFOA: 143 ppt
  • PFHxS: 846 ppt
  • PFNA: 18 ppt
• Homestead Air Force Base, Fla.
  • PFOS: 153 ppt
  • PFOA: 54 ppt
  • PFHxS: 130 ppt
  • PFNA: 36 ppt
• Whiting Naval Air Station, Fla.
  • PFOS: 130 ppt
  • PFOA: 206 ppt
  • PFHxS: 129 ppt
• Brunswick Naval Air Station, Maine
  • PFOS: 10.6 ppt
• Loring Air Force Base, Maine
  • PFOS: 168 ppt
  • PFOA: 13.5 ppt
  • PFHxS: 72.5 ppt
• Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Edwards, Mass.
  • PFOS: 18 ppt
  • PFOA: 11 ppt
• Pease Air Force Base, N.H.
  • PFOS: 860 ppt
  • PFOA: 140 ppt
  • PFHxS: 430 ppt
• Naval Air Engineering Center, N.J.
  • PFOS: 1,900 ppt
  • PFOA: 57 ppt
  • PFHxS: 670 ppt
• Fort Dix, N.J.
  • PFOS: 1,900 ppt
  • PFOA: 57 ppt
  • PFHxS: 670 ppt
• Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station, N.C.
  • PFOS: 50.2 ppt
  • PFOA: 12.6 ppt
• Tinker Air Force Base, Okla.
  • PFOS: 141 ppt
  • PFOA: 61 ppt
  • PFHxS: 560 ppt
• Bremerton Naval Base, Wash.
  • PFOS: 25.9 ppt
  • PFOA: 390 ppt
  • PFHxS: 18.9 ppt
• Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island, Wash.
  • PFOS: 4,720 ppt
  • PFOA: 523 ppt
  • PFHxS: 1,150 ppt

SDGs Addressed in the Article

The article on PFAS contamination near military bases touches upon several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) due to its focus on environmental pollution, human health, water quality, and institutional accountability.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article directly connects to SDG 3 by highlighting the severe health risks associated with exposure to PFAS “forever chemicals.” It explicitly states that “PFAS are linked to a number of serious health harms, including impaired immune system response, liver and kidney damage, hormone disruption, developmental and reproductive issues, and several types of cancer.” The core conflict discussed—whether human exposure is “under control”—is fundamentally about protecting public health from hazardous substances.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  This is the most central SDG to the article. The entire issue revolves around the contamination of drinking water sources. The article reports that “tap water testing near 15 military sites finds the toxic ‘forever chemicals’ known as PFAS at levels that raise concern” and that “civilian wells continue to receive PFAS-contaminated water.” This directly addresses the goal of ensuring access to safe and clean water for all.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The article discusses the impact of pollution on communities located near military installations. These areas, designated as “Superfund sites,” are highly polluted and pose risks to the residents, making the communities unsafe and unsustainable. The text notes that the contamination leaves “many residents living near the sites still exposed to forever chemicals in their tap water,” which directly undermines the goal of creating safe and resilient human settlements.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  The problem of PFAS contamination stems from the production and use of these chemicals, particularly in firefighting foams used by the military. The article’s focus on cleaning up “hazardous chemical contamination” and designating PFAS as “hazardous substances under the Superfund law” relates to the environmentally sound management of chemicals and wastes to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article highlights a failure of governance and a lack of coordination between key institutions. It describes an “apparent disagreement between agencies” (EPA and DOD) and questions the EPA’s risk assessment process. The text points out that the EPA’s designation of sites as “under control” can “prolong cleanup projects” and that the agency “has not yet updated its records for the 15 military Superfund sites.” This points to a lack of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions responsible for protecting citizens and the environment.

Specific Targets Identified

Based on the article’s content, several specific SDG targets can be identified.

1. Target 3.9: Substantially reduce deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and pollution

   The article is entirely focused on the health impacts of “hazardous chemicals” (PFAS) in drinking water. The list of illnesses, such as “liver and kidney damage” and “cancer,” directly relates to this target’s goal of reducing illness from water and soil contamination.

2. Target 6.1: Achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water

   The article demonstrates a failure to meet this target for communities near the 15 military bases. It states that “civilian wells continue to receive PFAS-contaminated water,” and the military has only provided “bottled water or tap water filters to households… at a select number of the locations, not all 15.” This shows a lack of universal access to safe drinking water.

3. Target 6.3: Improve water quality by reducing pollution and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals

   The presence of PFAS in drinking water above federal standards is a direct example of water quality degradation due to pollution from hazardous chemicals. The article discusses the need for “cleanup at these sites” and notes that “the groundwater beneath homes close to these 15 military bases is still contaminated with PFAS,” which aligns with the objective of this target.

4. Target 12.4: Achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes

   The core issue is the historical mismanagement of PFAS chemicals, leading to widespread contamination at “Superfund sites.” The article’s discussion of the EPA designating “PFOS and PFOA as hazardous substances under the Superfund law” is directly related to achieving better management of hazardous chemicals to prevent harm.

5. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions

   The article provides a clear case study of institutional challenges. The “contradiction between the two agencies (EPA and DOD)” and the fact that the EPA’s official reports claim human exposure is “under control” despite DOD tests showing otherwise, points to a lack of effectiveness and transparency. The slow cleanup progress, where “no site has yet to reach the formal cleanup stage,” further underscores this institutional failure.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

The article mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets.

• Indicator for Target 3.9: Illnesses from water pollution

  While not a formal UN indicator, the article’s repeated mention of specific “serious health harms” (cancer, immune system damage, etc.) linked to PFAS serves as a qualitative indicator of the health burden from this form of water pollution.

• Indicator for Target 6.1: Proportion of population using safely managed drinking water

  The article implies this indicator is low in the affected areas. The key metric provided is the concentration of PFAS chemicals in drinking water relative to legal limits. The data table, with its “Water test result (in parts per trillion)” for various PFAS, is a direct measure of whether the water is safely managed. Any result exceeding the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) indicates unsafe water.

• Indicator for Target 6.3: Proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality

  The data table in the article serves as a direct indicator of poor water quality in the groundwater and wells near the military bases. For example, the test result of “4,720” parts per trillion for PFOS at Whidbey Island Naval Air Station is a quantifiable measure of severe contamination, far exceeding the EPA’s standard of 4 parts per trillion.

• Indicator for Target 12.4: Release of hazardous chemicals to water and soil

  The specific measurements of PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA in parts per trillion are direct indicators of the release of hazardous chemicals into the environment. The number of contaminated sites (“15 military Superfund sites” and “more than 600 bases have reported on-site PFAS contamination”) also serves as an indicator of the scale of the chemical management problem.

• Indicator for Target 16.6: Institutional effectiveness and transparency

  A qualitative indicator is the discrepancy between agency reports. The fact that the EPA’s public records state exposure is “under control” while DOD tests show high levels of PFAS is evidence of institutional inconsistency. Another implied indicator is the time taken to update public records and initiate cleanup; the article notes that “the EPA has not yet updated its records” and highlights the “delay” and “stalled cleanup efforts.”

Summary of Findings

Source: ewg.org