[Peetwo]

Contamination of Australia's Defence Force facilities and other Commonwealth, state and territory sites in Australia

On 30 November 2015, the Senate referred the following matter to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report:

Contamination of Australian Defence Force facilities (Part A) reporting by 4 February 2016, and contamination of other sites using firefighting foams (Part B) reporting by 30 April 2016.

In terms of setting expectations, the committee emphasises that it is not in a position to resolve individual disputes or settle complaints regarding possible PFOS or PFOA contamination. Please note that all documents sent to the inquiry become committee documents on receipt, and are only made public following a decision of the committee. Material which is not relevant to the inquiry’s terms of reference or which reflects adversely on others may not be accepted or published by the committee. If you have any questions about your submission please contact the committee secretariat.
The closing date for submissions is 14 December 2015 for Part A and 5 February 2016 for Part B.

Update 06/12/15: Hansard transcript from last Thursday's hearing -
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee - 03/12/2015 - Contamination caused by firefighting foams at RAAF Base Williamtown and other sites
Perhaps a prelude to things to come, with 'Under BRAVO' section of the inquiry, from Senator Fawcett:

Senator FAWCETT: I would like to talk to about a whole-of-government picture on this. Clearly Defence have airfields, but there are also capital city and secondary airports around the country that use the same firefighting materials. Going back and having a look, for example, at the Hobart Airport master plan 2010-15—that was obviously issued at the start of that period—right back then, under their environmental strategy for the airport, they highlight that 'elevated levels of PFOS and PFOA concentrates were detected indicating groundwater at the site has been affected by the flushing of equipment'.

Likewise there are comments around Sydney and Kingsford Smith. Going back to around 2010, the New South Wales EPA had agreed—it says here, 'The state and the ACT have supported the proposed project of Airservices Australia and agreed a two-stage approval would be appropriate.' So clearly people were aware of this and looking at it. I am interested to understand what the relationship between Defence and Airservices Australia has been over the last five to 10 years as this problem has emerged. We will start there and then I will ask a few more questions.


Mr Grzeskowiak : We have been fairly closely engaged with Airservices Australia over a number of years, certainly in more recent times around the issues that we are discovering at Air Force bases. We know that Airservices Australia are also looking at issues at a range of civilian airports around the country. We were engaged with Airservices Australia some years ago, probably from the mid-2000s, around options for alternative firefighting foams, so we have had fairly long-term and cooperative engagement.

As you rightly point out, these firefighting foams—never mind the other products and materials that have used this chemical—would have been widely used by both military and civil airfield firefighters, plus the rural fire services, plus metropolitan fire services, plus probably at any industrial site that was processing hydrocarbons at a scale—refineries, large fuel storage depots, those sorts of things. So we know that the chemical has been used extensively worldwide for quite a long time, since certainly the early seventies, for firefighting and a range of other applications.

CHAIR: On that point though, you are the estate owner. Airservices may contract to provide appropriate firefighting services, but ultimately, if they move on, they leave the estate owner with the contaminant, and it is how that contaminant gets off your estate that is the real issue here.

Mr Grzeskowiak : For the Defence estate, that is correct, but there are a whole number of civil airfields that I have no relationship with in terms of ownership.

Senator FAWCETT: That is essentially my point. At the moment, because of the publicity and the impact around users at Williamtown and the decisions to shut down fishing industries, there is a lot of pressure and focus on Defence right now. What I am trying to flesh out is to make sure that we are not driving Defence to trigger a whole range of activities that might be duplicating what has already been underway by Airservices and ending up having a stovepipe departmental response as opposed to a whole-of-government response, because clearly this impacts all airfields around Australia, not just Defence airfields. So can you talk to me about what joint activities you have had in terms of understanding the scope of the problem, understanding the impact on people and on agriculture, aquaculture et cetera, and containment strategies?

Mr Grzeskowiak : There is in fact an interdepartmental committee that has been established for 10 or 11 months—that sort of order—that is looking at the broader problem of this. That committee is chaired by the Department of the Environment. Defence is a member of that committee, as is the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development—I think they are represented by Airservices, but I stand to be corrected on that—as well as the Department of Health and a few other departments. The committee is looking at the broader problem.

One of the issues that we faced during our understanding and learning about this problem is that there are no national standards in Australia for tolerance in the environment of levels of these chemicals. There are no health standards in Australia for tolerance of this chemical in drinking water at whatever level and there are no state or territory equivalent standards either. There are not many places in the world where those sorts of standards are in place. There are a few standards emerging in the US and the UK that we are aware of, and we are using them. It is clear that globally this is still an emerging contaminant that is not fully understood. In our work with Airservices, we would certainly be seeking not to duplicate research, and the sharing of information through the interdepartmental committee is ongoing...

Update: 23/12/2015

Yesterday the FAD&T references Committee convened a public hearing in Newcastle, the Hansard, submissions etc can be viewed here:

22 Dec 2015 NSW - Hansard transcript (HTML & PDF) / Program / Submissions 

As part of that hearing Professor Mark Taylor, on behalf of the NSW EPA, released a scathing report on the findings of a EPA inquiry into the Williamtown RAAF base fire fighting foam contamination disaster.
Courtesy the Newcastle Herald:

Department of Defence knew contaminants were leaving Williamtown base from 1999

By JOANNE MCCARTHY
Dec. 23, 2015, 5 p.m.

NSW Government agencies found wanting in report on Williamtown RAAF base contamination scandal.
Critical: NSW Environment Protection Authority head Barry Buffier at a Senate inquiry in Newcastle. The EPA "could have been more proactive" in response to Williamtown contamination scandal, a report has found.

THE Department of Defence knew as early as 1999 that contaminants in groundwater were leaving Williamtown RAAF Base and entering surrounding areas, a report has found.
Elevated levels of methylene blue-active substances (MBAS) – a “surrogate test” for the presence of fire fighting foams containing perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) – were found in groundwater samples beyond the base as early as 1999, Professor Mark Taylor has found in a report released by the NSW Environment Protection Authority on Wednesday.

It was clear that Defence was using MBAS “as an indicator to identify potential fire fighting foams”, he found.

Professor Taylor’s report puts Defence knowledge of contamination outside the base at least a decade earlier than previous Defence advice to the public.

Professor Taylor has recommended the NSW Government hold talks with the Federal Government “as a matter of priority” over the state’s powers to act against Defence after the NSW environment watchdog was “stymied” from acting “decisively and in a timely fashion” over the Williamtown contamination.

He has recommended immediate engagement with the Federal Government by the state over enforcement powers on Defence land in a report prompted by community outrage over state and federal handling of water contamination from Williamtown RAAF Base.

The NSW Environment Protection Authority “should seek legal advice at the highest level” to resolve the “seeming ambiguity” of its powers to regulate and manage contaminated Commonwealth land and deal with contamination caused by Defence on surrounding areas, Professor Taylor said.

“It needs to be clear and transparent to whom the Department of Defence is accountable for contamination caused by it on non-Commonwealth land,” he said in an interim report released only hours after the NSW Government announced a package of support for affected residents, including town water for nearly 200 properties surrounding the Williamtown base.

“The seeming lack of clarity about whether the EPA has the authority to regulate Defence under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 or the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 in relation to Commonwealth-owned land, or where Defence is the polluter on non-Commonwealth owned land, stymied the ability of EPA officers to act decisively and in a timely fashion,” Professor Taylor found.

“There was significant indecision in the EPA about the application of the Contaminated Land Management Act to Defence and whether notices under the Act, or the Protection of the Environment Operatsions Act could or should be issued (even in the absence of having any possible legal effect).”

Professor Taylor found Defence “has not been clear” about when it ceased using fire fighting foams containing PFOS and PFOA at Williamtown base, with three different dates – 2006, 2008 and 2010 – given.

The EPA had very little contact with Defence about Williamtown base before 2012 when Defence first advised the EPA that elevated levels of PFOS and PFOA had been identified on a number of sites, including a fire fighting pit and Lake Cochran.

The EPA needed to set interim guidelines for contaminants perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in soil, sediment and groundwater as a matter of priority, and engage with Federal agencies over establishment of national guidelines, Professor Taylor said.

His report was released within hours of Premier Mike Baird, Water Minister Niall Blair and Environment Minister Mark Speakman announcing a support package for affected Port Stephens residents that includes funding town water for nearly 200 properties in the Salt Ash area.

“If there is room for improvement by NSW then it is the role of a responsible government to learn from the past and we intend to do just that,” Mr Speakman said.

The NSW Government would consider Professor Taylor’s findings and recommendations and respond as appropriate, Mr Speakman said

Hmm..I can feel a perfect storm brewing for Murky Mrdak & his fellow Defence Mandarins..

Incidentally there has already been 105 submissions accepted by the committee in this inquiry and it was only called on the 30th of November. I wonder how many there will be by the time we get to the closing date (5 February 2016) for Part B of the inquiry??

MTF...P2