5 hours ago
RAF bases are hotspots of toxic “forever chemical” pollution in water, analysis of Ministry of Defence documents has revealed.
Moreover, some of the highest concentrations of these chemicals in British drinking water sources are near RAF bases, official sampling results obtained by the Guardian and Watershed Investigations show.
PFAS, known as forever chemicals due to their indestructible nature, include PFOS and PFOA, which are toxic and linked to cancers, thyroid disease, and fertility problems. These two have been banned, but more than 10,000 PFAS are still in use, many of which are thought to have unknown toxic effects.
“The concentrations of PFOS and PFOA in the groundwaters at these sites is extremely concerning” said Cecilia MacLeod, a leading remediation expert.
“If there is no intervention, ie a remediation system installed to treat the groundwater and prevent offsite migration, then the MoD could be considered to be breaking the Environmental Protection Act,” MacLeod said.
Environmental reports commissioned by the MoD between 2017 and 2022 have uncovered high levels of these banned forever chemicals.
Levels of PFOS and PFOA have been recorded as high as 7,700 nanograms a litre (ng/l) in the groundwater at RAF Benson in South Oxfordshire, with similarly high levels found at RAF Coningsby and RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire. For context, the maximum allowable level for drinking water in England is 100ng/l, above which water may pose health risks.
RAF Waddington, which lies in a drinking water supply area, has groundwater contamination at more than five times the maximum allowable drinking water levels.
At RAF Coningsby, PFOS levels were recorded at 3,550ng/l. The report said that other PFAS compounds may bio-transform and oxidise into PFOS and other PFAS, potentially escalating contamination in surface and groundwater to a maximum level of 164,317ng/l. RAF Coningsby is not in a drinking water zone, but the report highlights nearby spray irrigation sites that might use the groundwater for crops. These reports do not include assessment of the risks to human health.
“The levels of PFOA and PFOS alone are cause for concern,” said Dr David Megson, a PFAS expert at Manchester Metropolitan University. “However, the additional test results show that this is only a tiny fraction of the total PFAS present at these sites. Over 100,000ng/l is an alarmingly high total PFAS value.”
Anglian Water sampling shows evidence that RAF Mildenhall could be contaminating the drinking water, with high levels of PFAS found in a water source nearby. The base is in drinking water supply zones, although it may not be the only source of pollution.
Groundwater levels are also elevated close to MoD Woodbridge in Suffolk and also RAF Woodvale, which is on the protected Sefton Coast north of Liverpool, Environment Agency data shows.
In 2022, Watershed Investigations and the Guardian revealed that Duxford airfield, formerly an RAF base, was probably the cause of PFOS-polluted drinking water supplies in South Cambridgeshire. Now owned by the Imperial War Museum, the airfield is being investigated by the Environment Agency.
The MoD said sites at St Mary’s and Duxford are no longer owned or maintained by the ministry, and that it will liaise with the local authorities and Environment Agency should they wish to investigate.
“The critical question now is: what is the risk of harm to nearby communities?” said Prof Patrick Byrne of Liverpool John Moores University. “If there are nearby drinking water resources, as is the case at RAF Waddington, I would suggest urgent investigation of potential transport pathways is needed to establish if there is a risk or not to these communities.”
skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion
RAF personnel and their families may have been affected by high PFAS levels, as some bases provide drinking water from on-base sources. The MoD is a private water supplier and testing for PFAS is not a requirement under private water regulations. The private water company that manages their supplies told the Guardian they are not obliged to provide water quality data.
“Thirty of my friends have died of cancers and heart disease and 32 of us are fighting for our lives,” said Harry Watts, a 74-year-old RAF veteran who has leukaemia.
“Our role was to defend our country, but we never expected to be stabbed in the back by PFAS in our drinking water,” said Watts, who served from 1976-1990 at RAF Brize Norton. Watts said they were told in regiment lectures that they were safer than civilians because they used their own drinking water supply. But he now fears the water was contaminated because the aquifer sits below the fire training ground, where large amounts of firefighting foam was used for decades.
“For [military] personnel it’s down to the levels of exposure. We’re all exposed and we don’t know what that means in the long – term,” said Byrne. “But if your exposure is much higher, whether those on the base drank on-base water or not, it’s important to find out.”
MoD data for drinking water at Brize Norton, Mildenhall and Lakenheath in 2023 showed the level of PFAS in drinking water was within guidance levels. But Watts said the levels being safe now does not mean he was not highly exposed in the past.
A recent report by RAF Mildenhall said they use carbon filtration to reduce PFAS to below 70ng/l and that the MoD started monitoring their water for PFAS in 2020. In 2023, they expanded monitoring from 17 to 29 PFAS compounds. Public water companies test for 48 PFAS.
Megson said: “Regulators and water companies currently go to great lengths to test for PFAS in our water. It is very concerning to think that potable water at these bases may not have undergone the same rigorous tests and so contaminated water may have been consumed by military personnel for years.”
A MoD spokesperson said: “Ensuring the safety of our staff, personnel and the public is our number one priority and that’s why we are complying with the relevant legislation and regulations. As understanding of these chemicals has changed, we have responded accordingly. We have prioritised a programme of investigation of our sites, which has been agreed with the Environment Agency.”
