What specific contaminants or exposures prompted bases to be added in 2024-2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
In 2024–2025, decisions to add military bases and related sites to federal cleanup lists centered overwhelmingly on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) and long‑standing industrial solvents such as trichloroethylene (TCE); the EPA in April 2024 set drinking‑water limits for PFOA and PFOS at 4 ppt, prompting expanded DoD testing and additional Superfund action [1] [2]. Independent reviews also highlighted documented TCE contamination at more than 1,400 active and former bases, prompting regulatory moves and listings that year [3]. Available sources do not mention other specific contaminants that prompted listings in 2024–2025 beyond PFAS and TCE, though Superfund records list a broader set of contaminants at many sites [4].
1. Why PFAS drove most 2024–2025 additions — the firefighting‑foam legacy
Federal and advocacy reporting shows PFAS dominated new investigations and listings because decades of AFFF (aqueous film‑forming foam) use at bases released “forever chemicals” into soil and groundwater; the EPA’s April 2024 drinking‑water standard for PFOA and PFOS at 4 ppt forced the Department of Defense to expand assessments and cleanup investigations across hundreds of installations [1] [5]. The DoD identified hundreds of sites needing assessment — one count put 723 installations requiring PFAS assessment with PA/SIs completed at 708 sites by December 2024 and hundreds proceeding to further work [5].
2. TCE re‑emerges as a parallel crisis at bases
Environmental groups and reviewers flagged trichloroethylene (TCE) — a solvent long used in degreasing and maintenance — as widespread on the military footprint: an Environmental Working Group analysis documented TCE contamination at more than 1,400 active and former bases, and the EPA’s regulatory action on TCE in late 2024–2025 reinforced listings and cleanup urgency [3]. That pattern means many bases added or advanced in federal lists were linked to solvent plumes and vapor‑intrusion risks as well as PFAS [3].
3. How regulatory moves translated to site additions
The EPA’s Superfund process and new contaminant standards upended prior assessments: designating PFOS and PFOA as hazardous substances under CERCLA in 2024 accelerated Superfund listing considerations for sites where those compounds were measured in groundwater or private wells [2] [6]. The EPA’s NPL notices in late 2024 and subsequent rulemaking in 2025 incorporated sites proposed because of those contaminant findings, and the agency’s Superfund data products catalog contaminants of concern used in listing decisions [6] [4].
4. The DoD response and funding tensions
The Pentagon responded by expanding testing and noting additional cleanup needs, but independent reporting highlighted under‑requesting of funds and a backlog: the Defense Department requested less for environmental restoration in FY2024 than Congress appropriated the prior year, and advocacy groups said DoD’s cleanup funding did not match the scope of PFAS contamination [5] [7]. DoD officials said they were reviewing samples against the new EPA standards and would widen community investigations where needed [1].
5. Local incidents that triggered targeted additions
Specific spills and system failures at individual installations accelerated action: reported events in 2024 — from discharges of PFAS‑contaminated rinsate or firefighting foam to retention‑pond leaks — moved particular bases into higher priority status for investigation and possible listing (for example, incidents cited at Cannon Air Force Base and Brunswick Naval Air Station) [8]. These operational releases reinforced the pattern that AFFF‑related events were a primary proximate cause of 2024 site additions [8].
6. What the records show — and what they don’t
EPA Superfund datasets list contaminants of concern for NPL sites and reflect many chemical classes, but the contemporary reporting and agency actions emphasized PFAS (PFOA/PFOS and related compounds) and TCE as the triggers behind the bulk of 2024–2025 additions and escalations; broader contaminant information for each listed site appears in Superfund decision documents [4] [2]. Available sources do not mention other specific single contaminants as primary drivers of 2024–2025 additions beyond PFAS and TCE; individual sites, however, often involve mixtures [4].
7. Competing narratives and the politics of priority
Environmental advocates argue the EPA’s stricter PFAS standards and CERCLA designations were overdue and necessary to force cleanup and accountability [1] [2]. The Pentagon and some industry voices emphasize the complexity of cleanup, regulation timelines and resource constraints, noting DoD has been expanding investigations and that CERCLA procedures shape timelines [1] [5]. These competing perspectives underscore that listing decisions reflect both new scientific limits and practical considerations about funding and process [5] [1].
Limitations: this analysis relies on the supplied reporting and EPA/DoD summaries; it does not attempt a site‑by‑site inventory beyond what those sources report, and available sources do not list every contaminant that may have contributed to individual site additions [4].