Community members have until Nov. 20 to weigh in on a proposed multimillion-dollar cleanup of groundwater contaminated with PFAS, commonly known as “forever chemicals,” at Air Force Plant 44 near Tucson International Airport.
“They have an opportunity to express their concerns, their opinions. Hold the government’s feet to the fire,” said Yolanda Herrera, a longtime clean water activist.
Herrera has spent decades advocating for clean water on Tucson’s south side. She is now co-chair of the Unified Community Advisory Board, a group formed in 1995 to give community members a voice in cleanup efforts following the discovery of widespread groundwater contamination.
Get involved
Residents can review the Air Force’s proposed cleanup and submit written comments by Nov. 20, 2026.
- Email comments to roger.mccready.1@us.af.mil
- Mail comments to:
Roger McCready
AFCEC/CZRC, 2145 Monahan Way, Building 28 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433
Review project documents at Valencia Public Library, 202 W. Valencia Road, Tucson.
The U.S. Air Force is considering two ways to remove PFAS from groundwater at an area known as the Fire Engine Wash Outfall within the larger Tucson International Airport Area Superfund site.
During the comment period, residents can weigh in before the Air Force chooses a specific cleanup method, said Roger McCready, a project representative with the Air Force Civil Engineer Center.
The proposal
Air Force Plant 44 was built in 1951 to manufacture missiles and is currently operated by Raytheon for the Air Force.
From 2007-2015, firefighting foam containing PFAS was carried on the facility’s fire trucks, according to the Air Force’s engineering evaluation. Following training exercises, the trucks were washed near a storm drain that carried runoff toward the Fire Engine Wash Outfall.
The report says the firefighting foam was a likely source of PFAS contamination detected in nearby soil and groundwater during a 2020 site inspection. The Air Force is investigating further to determine the extent.
The proposed cleanup would add PFAS treatment to an existing groundwater treatment system that already removes other industrial contaminants, including volatile organic compounds and 1,4-dioxane.
The Air Force recommends two possible ways to treat groundwater before returning it underground. One would use granular activated carbon, the type of filter in a Brita-style pitcher that traps contaminants in carbon-based materials. The other would depend on ion exchange, which uses specialized materials to capture PFAS.
Tests are underway to determine which option or whether a combination of both would be most effective for removing PFAS.The carbon treatment option would cost an estimated $19.5 million over 30 years compared with $22.8 million for ion exchange.
Following the public comment period, the Air Force will review feedback and select a cleanup alternative to be documented in an Action Memorandum summarizing public comments and the Air Force’s responses, McCready said.
The final memorandum will be available through the Air Force Civil Engineer Center’s online Administrative Record, where the public can also find the February engineering evaluation under Record No. 13164.
A history of pollution
For Herrera, the proposal is the latest chapter in a decadeslong struggle over groundwater contamination in the neighborhoods where she grew up.
A fifth-generation Tucsonan, Herrera has lived her entire life on the city’s south side, where a contaminated well once stood at the end of her family’s street in Mission Manor.
Her father began investigating illnesses among neighbors in 1981, when concerns about contaminated groundwater began receiving wider attention.
Herrera began attending community advisory meetings in 1995, continuing her father’s advocacy following family losses she associates with the area’s history of contamination.
“I want to make sure that my grandchildren who are seventh generation are not going to be impacted,” Herrera said.
She worries that aging treatment equipment and delays in addressing contamination could allow pollutants to spread into areas that were previously cleaned up.
“We are not drinking contaminated water,” she said. “We are just trying to keep it from penetrating into our aquifer by being proactive, not reactive.”
She credits Tucson Water with protecting the local drinking water supply but believes the Department of Defense must take greater responsibility for addressing contamination from its facilities.
The right to public comment
Paloma Beamer, a professor of environmental health sciences and associate dean for community engagement at the University of Arizona’s College of Public Health, said public comment periods are an important opportunity for residents to take part in environmental decisions.
“Everyone should have the right to participate in the decision-making of those balances of risks and benefits,” Beamer said.
But the technical nature of cleanup proposals can make participation difficult for people without engineering or environmental science backgrounds.
“There’s a lot of jargon up here for sure,” she said of the current cleanup proposals. “It would take me an hour or two to sit down and work through this.”
Beamer also said the cleanup proposals should better explain the public health implications of contamination.
“Who would be exposed if we don’t do this?” she asked. “I think that’s where the public health lens for me is always kind of missing a bit.”
Herrera said the Air Force also could have done more to inform residents about the opportunity to participate.
The proposal was presented during an Oct. 21 Unified Community Advisory Board meeting, but Herrera said she would have preferred a separate public meeting dedicated to the cleanup.
“What about the other thousands of people that don’t come to UCAB?” she asked.
Beamer said short comment periods and complicated documents can make it difficult for community organizations to arrange informational meetings where residents can ask experts questions.
For Herrera, public participation is essential to ensuring that cleanup addresses the concerns of people who have lived with groundwater contamination for generations.
“Let’s participate in this public comment,” Herrera said. “Let’s hear from everybody.”
Republish our articles for free, online or in print.
