The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is facing renewed scrutiny after a Guardian investigation uncovered that three military bases – RAF Marham in Norfolk, RM Chivenor in Devon, and AAC Middle Wallop in Hampshire – are suspected of leaching toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) into nearby water sources and ecosystems. These sites, identified via a new Environment Agency (EA) risk-screening tool, lie near protected shellfish waters, drinking water safeguard zones, and vital salmon rivers .
PFAS, often used in firefighting foams, are dubbed ‘forever chemicals’ due to their persistence in soil and water. Long-term exposure has been linked to cancers, immune disorders, and reproductive harm. While some PFAS compounds, such as PFOS and PFOA, have been banned, their residues continue to pose serious risks, with warnings that the pollutants may persist for centuries without urgent clean-up.
Former military firefighters have recounted regular, unprotected exposure to PFAS-laden foams during drills and equipment tests. In many cases, such foams were sprayed directly onto grass or tarmac, with no containment measures in place. One British firefighter recalled that equipment tests required foam to be discharged straight onto open fields—allowing chemicals to seep directly into the ground .
Across Europe and North America, military bases have now been shown to harbour high PFAS levels in both groundwater and structural materials such as concrete. According to Professor Hans Peter Arp, a specialist in environmental chemistry at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, most military airfields that used AFFF are now sites of “substantial” PFAS contamination. Without swift intervention, he warns, the toxic legacy could endure “for decades to centuries” .
Britain’s regulatory response to PFAS is currently trailing behind international efforts. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Defense have allocated billions of dollars towards identifying and remediating PFAS pollution. Joint efforts have included sampling drinking water wells near army installations and publicly disclosing contamination findings. By contrast, UK authorities have only recently begun to investigate the scale of the problem, and the Ministry of Defence’s programme remains voluntary .
A parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee has now launched an inquiry into the regulation and monitoring of PFAS pollution across the UK. Scientists and campaigners have repeatedly called for a nationwide ban on the chemical class and a legally binding national clean-up strategy—one that does not burden taxpayers or local councils with the cost. The water industry has echoed these calls, noting that many treatment plants are not equipped to filter PFAS, and retrofitting them would come at considerable expense .
Meanwhile, environmental scientists continue to sound the alarm. Professor Alex Ford, a biologist at the University of Portsmouth, described the situation as “very worrying,” warning that PFAS have already been detected in soils, rivers, groundwater, wildlife—and humans. The cost of cleaning this contamination, he noted, could run into billions, and those responsible for manufacturing and promoting these chemicals should bear the burden of remediation .
Yet the scale of the contamination may still be underestimated. Current UK monitoring efforts only test for a small number of PFAS compounds, despite the existence of thousands of related chemicals. Professor Patrick Byrne, a water scientist at Liverpool John Moores University, argues that current sampling methods are merely scratching the surface. “We’re at the tip of the iceberg,” he said. “We’re finding huge discrepancies between tests for individual compounds and total PFAS load in water, suggesting a much broader contamination footprint” .
Compounding the problem is a lack of laboratory capacity to analyse samples. The Environment Agency’s own lab is reported to be overwhelmed, while private testing facilities are also struggling to meet demand. As analytical technologies improve, the gap between regulatory oversight and real-world pollution appears to be widening—fast.
The Ministry of Defence has committed to working with the Environment Agency to assess its sites, but has offered little in the way of transparency. Campaigners argue that secrecy only deepens public distrust, and that proactive disclosure, rigorous testing, and accountability must be central to any remediation plan. Professor Crispin Halsall, an environmental chemist at Lancaster University, called on the MoD to “come clean and set up monitoring” rather than “try to hide things” .
With growing public concern, the burden now lies with the government to act decisively. PFAS pollution is not merely a matter of historical contamination—it is a live threat to ecosystems, public health, and the integrity of Britain’s water supplies. Unless decisive action is taken, the chemical legacy of the UK’s military past may poison its future.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate