[Peetwo]

 Executive decision &/or obfuscation required



P666 off the Airports thread:

..ASA know it is an issue and also know that once the chemical is classified internationally as an 'airport environmental problem' the end result is that there will be many payouts, as some airports whose land has been slated for development by grubby investors, sharks, shonks and superannuation funds will be left holding a lemon as it will take a lot of money to clean up the 'dirty land'. ASA have been stashing away a war chest for some time now, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, in preparation for D-day.

Most airports have multiple contamination sites due to the relocation of fire fighting practise areas over the decades. But hey, compared to the shite buried beneath some airports, Bankstown as a prime example, the PFC's are probably relatively harmless in comparison! I would like to see the cancer rates among folks living around Bankstown and the George's River in 20 years time!..

A most profound post from one Gobbledock unit...

Well yesterday in both Houses of Parliament the subject of PFCs & the Williamtown RAAF base case was brought up several times...

First from the member for Paterson: Baldwin, Bob, MP

Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (13:53): I raise the issue of firefighting foam contamination of perfluorooctane sulphonate originating from RAAF Base Williamtown, which has severely impacted on my community. There are PFOS levels reported as 100 times higher the acceptable health risk. Make no mistake: the PFOS contaminant originates from the RAAF base. Therefore, the Department of Defence and the Commonwealth are 100 per cent responsible and bear 100 per cent of the responsibility to put into place immediately an action plan to remedy the situation. The impacts on localised industries are not insignificant. There are now reports that the banks are black-listing for bank loans in the red zone investigation area.

Defence's evidence to the Senate committee hearing in October was that it was monitoring rather than containing contaminated surface water leaving the base. The first thing that has to be done is to contain the discharges from the Williamtown base. If you have a hole in a boat and it is leaking water, you do not just bail the water—you stop the leak. The contaminant levels need to be contained not monitored, because in the next storm event more PFOS will be flushed from the base into my local community. Defence needs to urgently communicate its plan to stop the PFOS continuing to contaminate the surrounding areas, as it has now been 81 days since the story broke let alone the years that Defence has known of the issue. Now, 81 days on, a detailed plan on how to stop the leakage has to be delivered to the community. The time for action is now.

Next was in Senate Question time:

Defence: Water Supplies


Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (14:17): My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. In response to questions regarding the poisonous chemical contamination emanating from RAAF Base Williamtown at Senate estimates on 21 October, Defence Assistant Secretary Alison Clifton said:

… we believe that that contamination is still exiting the base.

Yet on 12 November, the minister told the Senate:

… this is actually not a Defence issue.

Given that Defence has admitted its culpability in the continuing chemical leak at Williamtown, does the minister now accept that Defence is responsible for this contamination?

Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:18): Thank you very much. I do not have with me the benefit of the Hansard that would provide Senator McAllister with the full quote, but my memory is perhaps better than hers, which is to say that I went on to say at the time that the issue of PFOS and PFOA contamination—that it is the fire suppressant used historically in a number of places—is an issue for government as a whole, because of its impact in a number of areas. That includes airports and firefighting agencies such as rural and civil fire services.

What I did not say, and will not be misconstrued as saying, is that the matters concerning Williamtown and its surrounding areas are not matters related to the Defence facility, of course, self-evidently, they are.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (14:19): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. When asked at Senate estimates if Defence was working to remove the chemicals and stop the environmental contamination, Ms Clifton responded:
It would not be possible for us to remove those without fundamentally disrupting the base.

Does the minister agree that it is more important not to disrupt the Defence base than to protect local communities by stopping the contamination leaking into the environment?

Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:19): I think it is important to also understand the nature of the residual contaminant that is left by PFOS and PFOA. What studies do show is that it is a contaminant that does not break down. Extensive studies have been commenced and are continuing over, I think, now decades in the United States on this particular environmental contaminant. What we would have to do in terms of the operation of the RAAF Base Williamtown and its surrounding areas has been considered by the department, and Ms Clifton acknowledged those considerations at the Senate estimates.

That is an ongoing process, because this contaminant continues, obviously, to be present in the environment. We are working with the New South Wales state government, and the New South Wales state government has, as I think I noted on the previous occasion, taken a number of decisions in this regard— (Time expired)

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (14:20): Mr President, I ask a final supplementary question. The Liberal member for Paterson Mr Bob Baldwin is calling for Defence to take action in today's Newcastle Herald saying:

If you've got a hole in a boat and it's leaking water, you don't bail the water. You stop the leak.
Do you agree with Mr Baldwin that Defence should comply with its own policy prohibiting the release of these chemicals into the natural environment under any circumstances and immediately stop the chemical contamination leaking from Williamtown?

Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:21): I wish it were as simple as plugging a hole in a boat, actually. Whilst that might be a convenient metaphor for others to use, it is not one I would use. What we are examining in the Williamtown area and at the base itself are the options that are available to us in terms of management of the contaminant, in terms of the run-off of water from the base itself and of course continuing—

Senator Kim Carr: What about stopping it at source?

Senator PAYNE: Senator Carr, you don't understand actually, and that is a technical problem. I have indicated to the shadow minister, Senator Conroy, as I am sure he will acknowledge, that the government will—and I think probably already has—provide a briefing to those responsible on the other side, which will enable them to have a far more sophisticated understanding of the problem than the simplistic one being presented now. It is not that simple, Mr President, and we are making every endeavour to support the community. (Time expired)

And finally from Senator Rhiannon in the Adjournment: Rhiannon, Sen Lee

All three passages of Hansard mention the last Senate Estimates hearing - Hansard, QON etc can be viewed here:

Supplementary Budget Estimates 2015-2016


AMENDED HEARING PROGRAM - Thursday 22 October 2015 (PDF 12KB)
Hearing Program - Wednesday 21 October 2015 (PDF 31KB)

Hansard Transcripts


21 October 2015 2015 Defence Portfolio (PDF 1072KB)
22 October 2015 Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio (PDF 1010KB)

Tabled Documents

Questions on notice

Indexes and answers to questions on notice will be loaded to the respective department/agency pages via links below.

Defence Portfolio

• Department of Defence
  
• Department of Veterans' Affairs (including the Australian War Memorial)
  
• Defence Housing Australia
  

Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio

• Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) (including EFIC)
  
• Australian Trade Commission (Austrade)
  
• Tourism Australia
  
• Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (Aciar)
  

For further information, contact:

Estimates Officer
Senate Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia
Phone:
+61 2 6277 3535
Fax:
+61 2 6277 5818
Email:
fadt.sen@aph.gov.au

 
 From the QON index I would say that the Genie is well and truly out of the bottle, when it comes to PFC's entering the water table/waterways in and around Defence Airports..

Example page 61 QON93 from Senator Conroy:

With regard to the issue of contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown and other Defence facilities:

(1) What are PFOS and PFOA, and what are they used for?
(2) How was the foam used?
(3) Who, typically, used these foams?
(a) Was it only ADF personnel, or did contractors, working with the ADF, use the foam?
(4) When were these chemicals used?
(5) Which facilities were they used in?
(a) Was it all Defence facilities, ADF air fields or all facilities that have a fire fighting unit?
(6) What is the extent of the contamination within ADF facilities and the areas surrounding them?
(7) What are the health issues associated with PFOS and PFOA?
(8) Who do the health issues affect?
(9) When did Defence first become aware of the health issues associated with the use of PFOS and PFOA?
(10) What actions did Defence undertake to address the situation when it became aware of the contamination?
(a) When did Defence stop using material containing PFOS and PFOA?
(b) Who did Defence inform and when?
(11) Can Defence please outline the process by which the extent of the contamination both within the ADF facilities, and outside of them, became known?
(12) Can Defence please outline the timeline of events that have taken place since the discovery of contamination?
(13) Does Defence still have any firefighting foams that contain PFOS and/or PFOA in stock at any of its facilities?
(a) If so, for what purpose?
(b) If firefighting foam containing PFOS and PFOA is no longer used:
(i) What foams are used for firefighting purposes now?
(ii) Is Defence aware of any concerns about the current firefighting foams being used?  

 
Senator Conroy's written QON continue for another 6 pages, this is page 64:

With respect to testing for contamination in the areas surrounding affected facilities:

(1) Is the Defence helping communities test their properties?
(2) In the case of Oakey, Defence has advised residents in the contaminated area to not drink water – Defence’s website states (http://www.defence.gov.au/id/oakey/): "As a precaution, Defence recommends not drinking water from any underground sources (i.e. bore water) within the investigation area, until further notice. This includes boiled groundwater."
(a) How long does Defence expect this advice to be in place for?
(b) Has Defence provided this advice to the residents near any other ADF facilities?
(3) What current processes does Defence have in place to determine what the health risks are, and how are these being communicated to those who may have been affected?
(a) Is there a systematic procedure involving health experts looking into this, with the aim of providing some greater certainty?
(b) Are there procedures for regular medical checks?
© What medical advice is being given to people who may have been affected by the contamination?
(d) Will any human testing be undertaken – either of ADF personnel or of residents in the surrounds of the Base?
(e) What processes are in place for advising those who have now left the ADF but were exposed to the contaminants – including families of children who previously attended the on-base child care centre?
(4) Reports indicate that some testing has been carried out at areas surrounding ADF facilities to determine the extent of the contamination. With respect to this testing, could Defence please outline:
(a) What methodology is being used to define which properties are being tested within the defined ‘Red Zone’ of the contamination – and has the ‘Red Zone’ been enlarged?
(b) In regard to the situation at Williamtown, reports indicate that concurrent testing is being undertaken by both the NSW EPA and Defence, on different established ‘Red Zones’ – why are Defence and the NSW EPA undertaking different testing in different zones?
© What is being tested – for example, does it include bore water, ground water, soil, surface water and animals (both stock and domestic)?
(d) Will Defence agree to community demands for all bore water, surface water and soil to be tested on the properties in the defined ‘Red Zone’?
(e) Can Defence confirm that it will meet the cost of all testing undertaken by both its contractors as well as any testing assessed as necessary by the New South Wales EPA?

It can only be a matter of time before some curious pollie joins the dots and starts asking questions about Farmer Truss's fiefdom of 450 odd airports...


MTF..P2