PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ are in munitions, and other military applications too

PFAS and their military uses

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of more than 10,000 chemicals used across a wide range of products and applications. This includes their use in military applications, in: aircraft, munitions, missile systems, protective clothing, energy and battery storage, electronics, refrigerants, fire suppression and firefighting foams, sealants, cleaning fluids, and waterproofing.

PFAS are also known as ‘forever chemicals’ as they do not readily break down, can accumulate in organisms, and can persist in the environment. Many are linked to serious health risks, including certain cancers, fertility issues, thyroid disease, developmental defects in unborn children, reduced responses to vaccines, and high levels of cholesterol. PFAS contamination of soil and water is a significant problem, and has been widely reported. Primary sources of contamination include the use of firefighting foams at airports and military sites, leaching from landfills, and discharges from industrial sites where PFAS have been manufactured or used. The Forever Pollution Project has mapped around 23,000 European sites that are confirmed as PFAS-contaminated, which includes military airfields and facilities.

PFAS in munitions

Military PFAS use is not restricted to fire suppression and firefighting foams. PFAS are also used in munitions to improve their performance and durability, reduce the likelihood of unplanned explosions due to shock, and to improve their shelf-life. This includes PFAS use as a binder material in conventional and strategic weapons platforms: Viton® as a binder in explosive and booster charge formulations, and Teflon® in a variety of missile systems.

Militaries view PFAS as important. For example, the US Department of Defense (DoD) views PFAS use in munitions as critical, stating in 2023 that non-PFAS alternatives do not exist. It also failed to identify viable substitutes for the majority of military PFAS applications, and reported that moving to any alternatives could take many years.

Research on the use of munitions from Russia’s war in Ukraine has highlighted the risk of PFAS exposure, the potential impacts on human health, and the need to quantify the PFAS content of soil and water in conflict-affected areas. This could equally apply to military firing ranges, and munition disposal sites. The PFAS content of munitions varies, yet an estimated 20% of common US munitions contain ‘appreciable PFAS content’, ranging from 1-3% of a munition’s net explosive weight. Campaigners in the US have already raised concerns over the environmental risks from burning military waste containing PFAS – including at the Badger Army Ammunition Plant – and have highlighted even higher PFAS content in certain explosives (see table below).

Since most PFAS are thermally stable below 1,000^oC, on detonation a proportion of the PFAS present in a munition will disperse rather than be destroyed. This means that ‘aerosolised’ PFAS can persist and potentially impact large areas, affecting soil and water quality.

Examples of PFAS-content in plastic-bonded explosives (adapted from table given in CSWAB Fact Sheet).

Stricter regulation and ban proposals

PFAS regulation varies globally, however existing limits and expert bodies both emphasise the risks from PFAS toxicity at even very low concentrations. For example, water companies in England and Wales are now required by guidance to limit the sum of 48 PFAS in drinking water to below 100 nanograms per litre (ng/l) – or 100 parts per trillion – which is more stringent than current comparable limits in the EU.

The UK’s Royal Society of Chemistry is campaigning for stronger PFAS regulation, and there is large public support for PFAS use to be banned. A UK survey found that 90% of respondents agreed it ‘very important’ that measures are put in place to control PFAS in food, drinking water and the environment. However, corporate lobbying risks stalling plans to impose restrictions. This includes current EU proposals to introduce a broad ban on the manufacture, sale and use of PFAS, unless proven essential for society. This implies that derogations will likely be applied for military uses.

Clean-up costs for PFAS-contaminated soils and water in the UK and Europe are estimated at around £1.6 trillion, over a 20 year period. Restricting PFAS use is therefore critical, allowing short-term use in only essential applications and replacement with viable and safe alternatives. In common with other environmental legislation,¹ it is important that blanket military exemptions are not applied. This may be especially relevant for PFAS use in items such as munitions, which also contain other toxic components, and have a potential to cause significant contamination on firing ranges and in conflict-settings.

Communities affected by military PFAS contamination are already seeking to hold governments to account. In Australia, local communities have received compensation awards exceeding AUS$ 200 million due to contamination from the use of PFAS firefighting foams by the Department of Defence, and in Germany compensation has been awarded due to PFAS in groundwater around a US run NATO airbase.

Alternatives to PFAS

Alternatives to PFAS are already available for some applications. An online database has been launched that documents PFAS uses and gives 530 different potential alternatives, yet few military applications are currently listed and no PFAS alternatives nominated. Although the database is not exhaustive, it provides an overview of options available and the extent of further investigations needed. These investigations and research must incorporate PFAS alternatives for military applications, and fully assess the environmental impact of their use compared to the existing PFAS used.

NATO has convened a Research Task Group (RTG) on PFAS contamination in soil and water, which is due to complete its work in 2027. Whilst the background for the scope of the RTG notes the use of firefighting foams at military sites as a source of contamination, there is no specific reference to other sources, including the firing and disposal of munitions; this is an omission that should be addressed.

Without strong ‘duty of care’ obligations and attention on finding appropriate PFAS alternatives, the military could circumvent measures to phase-out their use. Whilst some action is being taken to address the military use of firefighting foams, there is the risk of ‘inaction’ elsewhere. Some changes are already apparent. In the US a new specification for the military states that firefighting foam concentrate can no longer contain intentionally added PFAS.² In contrast, in July 2024 the UK Ministry of Defence issued a notice to secure stocks of protective equipment coated with PFHxA in advance of new legislation coming into force – PFHxA is a sub-group of PFAS now subject to EU restrictions.

Failure to require the military to fully evaluate and adopt appropriate PFAS alternatives risks undermining the aims of progressive environmental legislation, and environmental protection measures more broadly. This process must look beyond the assessment of PFAS-related contamination from firefighting foams, particularly given the uncertainty around exposure routes from other PFAS sources such as the firing and disposal of munitions. These exposure pathways have the potential to impact military personnel, explosive ordnance technicians, civilians in conflict areas and communities around military training areas.

Linsey Cottrell is CEOBS’ Environmental Policy Officer.