[Peetwo]

Senate Inquiry - The provision of rescue, firefighting and emergency response at Australian airports


Have just been yet again notified of more submissions to the above RRAT inquiry and on on preusal it would seem that submitters are taking advantage of the loosely worded ToR in order to have a crack at Harfwit and his trough feeding executive mob from all kinds of different perspectives...  

For example the 1st cab off the rank was from Willson Consulting, to which Ironsider refers in today's aviation section of the Oz:

Airport fire foams in spotlight

ROBYN IRONSIDE
Concerns have been raised about environmentally friendly firefighting foams to tackle life-threatening blazes at airports.

---

Submissions to the Senate Committee examining the provision of rescue, firefighting and emergency response at airports set out the shortcomings of ­fluorine-free foams and argued for a more environmentally benign form of PFAS to be retained for use in major fires.

Environmental and Fire Protection Consultancy group director Mike Wilson said it was a miracle there had been no major incident to expose the weaknesses of the F3 agents in use at Australian airports since 2010.

“This is likely to be placing the general public at unnecessarily increased risk of harm, which should not be permitted to perpetuate,” Mr Wilson wrote.

His views were shared by the Fire Protection Association of Australia, which said fluorine-based chemicals should be retained for emergencies but not used in training.

“The importance of being able to reliably extinguish a fire during an incident, especially when innocent aircraft passengers of indeterminate age need to be evacuated in the vicinity of a fire, cannot be overstated,” said the FPA submission by senior technical officer Brendan Scully. “FPA Australia contends that in high-risk applications, the use of C6 fluorotelomer foams may still be required to provide effective fire protection, while minimising environmental impacts.”

Mr Scully said it was their belief that widespread historical contamination from PFAS was “the result of poor past practice in training and testing of systems in which these foams were used frequently with no present fire hazard”.

The Senate Committee is due to deliver its report by August 13.

Then there is this disturbing submission from a retired Airservices Firefighter...

Senate committee of inquiry dealing with, “the provision of rescue, firefighting and emergency
response at Australian Airports”.

This submission comes under terms of reference parts a, d and f. It deals with the way Airservices
Australia deals with its employees, both present and past, over the Per and Poly-Fluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) in firefighting foam issue.

My name is Geoff Fuller, I am 67 years old, retired and worked for Airservices Australia and its
predecessors from 1968 to 2011. I was an Aviation Firefighter from 1975 until 2011 and served at
several locations around Australia.

After being made aware of PFAS chemicals in firefighting foam at Edinburgh Defence Base, in an
article in the Adelaide Advertiser in June 2016, I made enquiries about this situation. What I found
was that this was the same foam that had been used by my employer (Airservices Australia) from
1980 until 2010 and that I had not been informed of any concerns by my employer during my
employment as an Aviation Firefighter from 1975 to 2011. The more I researched the subject of
PFAS chemicals in firefighting foam, the more I became worried about how this may affect me and
perhaps my family.

The following is what I have experienced:

June 2016

 Found out about PFAS chemicals in firefighting foam in the newspaper article
 Made enquiries with my GP about PFAS. He hadn’t heard of it
 At a cost of $500 I got my blood tested and obtained results
July 2016
 Found out that Airservices Australia offered a voluntary health check (no mention of PFAS
situation) to its firefighting staff in 2013
 150 of 750 firefighting staff took part and found via the blood sample taken about the PFAS
levels in their blood (note: blood test done May 2013- results to staff June 2014)
 When those staff who hadn’t been tested asked to be tested (due to concerns raised)
Airservices Australia refused as no more money available for further health checks.

August 2016

 I sent letter to Airservices Australia asking to be reimbursed the $500 I paid for my blood
test since I was a past employee and hadn’t been given the opportunity to take part in the
2013 health study offered to current firefighting staff.
 I was advised via a phone call from the Fire Station Manager at Adelaide ARFF that
Airservices Australia would not be reimbursing me the $500.

September 2016

 I made several phone calls to Airservices Australia in Canberra requesting a written reply to
my letter of August 7th 2016.
October 2016
 In second week of October 2016 I received an envelope containing an Airservices Australia
policy document (consisting of 1 page) and a copy of the Federal Government enHealth
Policy on PFAS, along with a small cover note.
 Conclusion stated in the documents from Airservices Australia and the Federal Government
is that “in humans, there is no conclusive evidence that PFC’s cause any specific illnesses,
including cancer. And the health experts have advised that anyone who thinks they have
been exposed to PFOS or PFOA and may have any health concerns, should consult their
General Practitioner”
 The contents of the documents did nothing to convince me that my past employer
(Airservices Australia) was interested in my wellbeing, even though they had known about
the problems with the foam for at least 2 decades. Airservices Australia did not inform me
whilst I was working for them or since my retirement of anything regarding PFAS. They
didn’t even offer me the voluntary health study in June 2013.

During 2017/2018 I have researched and found out a lot of information regarding PFAS chemicals
and their effects on the environment and humans.

2017-2018

 It is interesting that documents produced by Airservices Australia about the PFAS issue
refer frequently to what they are doing to protect the environment, but no mention of what
they are doing for their affected staff or maybe affected people in the community
surrounding the airports where Airservices Australia operate.
 From my experience Airservices Australia aren’t worried about their employees past or
present, health. Other than the 2013 once off voluntary health study, no ongoing information
sessions with affected employees or any further health studies for past and present affected
employees has occurred.

2017

 After raising my concerns with members of Federal Parliament, I have received letters from
Government Ministers, who thank me for my contact and concerns about the PFAS
situation, but always end up by telling me there is no evidence of adverse health effects from
exposure to PFAS, read the Government enHealth information on-line regarding PFAS and
if any more concerns consult my GP.
 Then finally as the Federal Health Minister said in his letter “however, as a precaution, it is
recommended that people minimise their exposure to PFAS”.
 The Australian Department of Health has commissioned the National Centre for
Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University to undertake an
epidemiology study in PFAS contamination on the health of residents surrounding the
Williamtown, Oakey and Katherine investigation areas. Since the Federal Government,
Department of Defence and Airservices Australia have known about problems with PFAS
for at least 2 decades why haven’t they been setting up health studies, with their own
affected staff from all affected locations (not just Williamtown, Oakey and Katherine), from
at least 20years ago.

2018

 26th March 2018. In answer to a question in writing (No.894) in the Australian Parliament.
In reply Michael McCormack. MP. States “to date, Airservices has already commissioned 5
independent health related studies”. This is a surprise to me and the still existing firefighters
at Adelaide Airport who are only aware of the voluntary health study offered in 2013.
 The New South Wales fire brigade management offered information sessions to all its
employees both past and present when the PFAS issue became apparent. Airservices
Australia certainly didn’t do this when they were made aware of PFAS issues at least 2
decades ago.
 December 2018. In South Australia, the South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service
(SAMFS) became aware of PFAS contamination at one of its fire stations. The SAMFS
acted straight away, the station building and surrounds were tested, meetings were held
between SAMFS management and staff affected. Result was affected staff and families were
offered blood tests (with results back after one week not one year). Due to findings of
contamination the station was closed. Clean up of contamination around the station
commenced. Further meetings held with consultants (re; PFAS), management and affected
staff. Support services offered to affected staff and families.
 The support and services offered to New South Wales Fire Brigade staff and SAMFS staff
are vastly different to what has been offered by Airservices Australia to its staff to date.

2019

 January 2019. I have recently been made aware that between approximately 2013and 2013
there was a process put in place by Airservices Australia to remove any container or
paraphernalia associated with Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF), from all Airservices
Australia property and fire stations. My understanding is all this material was sent to a place
to be incinerated/ destroyed, for which the cost of transport and disposal would have been
substantial. All this without staff being made aware of what this process was for and about
the PFAS issue.

Summary

Whenever I talk to members of Parliament or Defence personnel presenting forums at Darwin or
Adelaide, I ask them why hasn’t my past employer (Airservices Australia), Department of Defence
or the Federal Government, who have known about the PFAS problems for at least 2 decades, done
any health studies on people like me (ex: Aviation Firefighters) to find out the most they can about
how PFAS effects humans. Also how much have they consulted with other countries around the
world experiencing the same problems with PFAS.

We will not progress our knowledge of this problem if organisations like my past employer
(Airservices Australia) sit on their hands and tell their effected employees (past and present)
nothing.

How can I trust an employer whose policies and actions don’t have its employees’ health and
wellbeing at heart?

I hope that this submission lets you the committee know that not only is Airservices Australia doing
everything it can to cut back on its resources to its Aviation Rescue Fire Fighting Service, provided
at Australian Airports, to do their job in the best possible way, Airservices Australia is also ignoring
the health and safety of its staff both past and present. All the while the management at the top are
telling us what a great job they are doing, how much they value their staff, and are also paying
themselves sizeable pay bonuses.

I also hope you the committee will find time to accept my submission and allow me to appear in
front of the committee to expand on how Airservices Australia’s policies and actions do not take of
its employees like they claim to do.

G. Fuller

3rd March 2019

Then there is this typical self-serving, self-preserving - "not me who farted Your Honour" - weasel worded confection from St Carmody and his Iron Ring cronies at Fort Fumble: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...bId=667051

Anyway for those interested fill your boots, it seems it's a free for all Harfwit bashing...  

Speaking of which I note that the ANAO wet lettuce brigade recently announced yet another audit of ASA. However this time it is from a slightly different perspective...  

[img=780x0]https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/anao_report/image/ANAO-implementation-of-parliamentary-recs.jpg[/img]
Portfolio: 
Across Entities
Entity: 
Across Entities (listed below)
Contact: 
Please direct enquiries through our contact page.
The objective of this audit is to undertake a two-stage process to examine whether selected entities have appropriate arrangements in place for implementing agreed ANAO performance audit, Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and other parliamentary committee recommendations. The first stage would be a limited (negative) assurance engagement, and the second stage a reasonable (positive) assurance approach.
Audit criteria
The ANAO proposes to examine:

• Does the entity have appropriate governance in place to agree to, monitor and close out recommendations?
  
• Were agreed recommendations implemented effectively in a timely manner?
  

[size=undefined]
Entities
The entities selected for audit are:[/size]

• Department of Agriculture and Water Resources
  
• Airservices Australia
  
• Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities
  
• Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
  

Seems ignoring recommendations is a regular pastime of some of our Can'tberra Mandarins and their Minions...  


MTF...P2