Brian Burston (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) supports the efforts of the Department of Defence and other Commonwealth and state government agencies responding to environmental and health issues arising out of firefighting foam contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown in New South Wales and Army Aviation Centre Oakey in Queensland, including engaging the University of Newcastle Family Action Centre (UNFAC) to develop and deliver mental health awareness and stress management activities in the Williamtown area;

(b) notes that:

  (i) some landholders in the immediate vicinity of Williamtown Air Base and Oakey Army Aviation Centre are reporting difficulties accessing equity, property value impacts and difficulty selling their land,

  (ii) the Department of Defence has met with a number of lending institutions and the Australian Property Institute to discuss property lending policies and practices and how valuations are conducted in the Williamtown area, and

  (iii) the Department of Defence has committed to review the issue of property acquisition once detailed environmental investigations at RAAF Base Williamtown and Army Aviation Centre Oakey have been concluded; and

(c) calls on the Government to expedite environmental investigations of the impact of firefighting foam contamination at Williamtown and Oakey to enable landholders to address the dilemma of land remediation or relocation, and move on with their lives and deal with issues of mental health and stress management.

During the 2016 election campaign, I was approached by the Salt Ash Community First group, through my twin brother, Graham, who was a One Nation candidate for the seat of Paterson. I attended a meeting at a private residence in Salt Ash to be briefed on contamination of residents in an investigation zone that the local residents call 'the red zone', allegedly from the RAAF base at Williamtown. The contamination is caused by leaching of contaminated carcinogenic firefighting chemicals from the base to surrounding areas. These chemicals are in the form of firefighting foam known as aqueous film-forming foam, AFFF, and are used primarily to control fires involving flammable liquids such as fuel and oil. The foam suppresses fire by producing a film over the fuel and oil that effectively starves the fire of oxygen. Defence used this foam across many of its facilities in fire control systems, in the testing and maintenance of those systems and in firefighting training.

The acronyms for the contaminants contained within AFFF are PFOS and PFOA. These contaminants were a common ingredient in household products not so long ago. You might remember Scotchgard. They can still be found in non-stick frypans. The contamination is not confined to the RAAF base at Williamtown but can be found locally at another 16 Defence bases around Australia. Possible federal government liability extends to a further 20 privately owned airfields, being a total of 36 bases Australia wide.

The major concern of the contamination is that it cannot be neutralised and has a cumulative effect over time in the human body. The chemicals are known to be associated with testicular cancer, kidney cancer, liver disease, thyroid disease, immune suppression, reduced fertility and hypertension. More than 650 homes as well as a primary school are caught up in the red zone. This may well involve 2,500 to 3,000 men, women and children at Salt Ash alone. Advice to residents throughout the red zone includes warnings not to drink water from dams, ponds or bores or to drink milk from cows or goats or to eat eggs or fish produced in the red zone. Commercial and recreational fishing in the Tilligerry Creek and Fullerton Cove has been suspended, with compensation being provided by the government. The fishing ban has since been partially lifted, about two weeks ago, although the ban on the consumption of flathead fish is still in place.

The Department of Defence has identified contamination in Moors Drain, which carries stormwater from the base and discharges into Tilligerry Creek. During heavy rain, flash flooding occurs on properties adjacent to Moors Drain. The defence department refers to the drain as an off-site mitigation pathway for the chemicals. The Salt Ash area has a very high water table and, during heavy rain, contaminated surface water rises and lies in many drains and gutters, where foaming is clearly visible. You can just imagine the effect this has on the residents. I have also witnessed this foaming, particularly along the main road through Salt Ash. The chemicals can also be transmitted through the atmosphere and humidity.

Health risks are not the only impact on residents. Residential and business properties are deemed worthless, with banks not willing to provide loans against equity that would allow affected residents to relocate or carry out their own mitigation works. Valuers are not willing to put a valuation on any property in the red zone because of the contamination, and therefore the property owners have lost all their equity. As a result, the residents feel trapped in their own homes, unable to carry out any remediation work or to relocate to a safer environment.

During a briefing about three weeks ago from the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Minister for Defence, I put a suggestion that the government consider meeting with major banks and the Real Estate Institute to implement a scheme to allow affected properties to retain their values, and as such restore the equity that existed prior to the contamination being publicly known. Defence Minister Payne agreed with that request and has kindly responded as in the motion. Towards the end of the briefing, and following concerns I raised in relation to mental health issues that I consider will soon arise, the health minister indicated to me that the University of Newcastle family action strategy was about to be announced by the government. The plan is to alert local practitioners of the human health programs in place to deal with any medical conditions that may be linked to the PFOS and PFOA contamination.

A Senate inquiry in May was very critical of Defence's response to the contamination as 'slow and reactive' and 'seemingly focused on limiting its liability rather than addressing the needs of residents'. This is borne out in a confidential report commissioned by Defence in 2003—yes, 2003, 13 years ago—when this contamination was first investigated. At the end of the executive summary of that report, it states:

In addition to environmental harm, such obvious pollution incidents have the potential to seriously damage Defence's reputation as an environmental manager and good corporate citizen.

It is apparent that Defence has covered up the contamination issue since 2003 and has not acted on any of the report's recommendations.

I will highlight the key findings and recommendations to make the point. Some key findings of the report were:

Defence currently uses—

aqueous film forming foam—

AFFF product that contains non-biodegradable … (PFOS/PFOA) that are environmentally persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic to animals and humans.

PFOS is acutely toxic to frogs and honey bees. Both PFOS and PFOA have been implicated with a variety of cancers and toxic health effects in humans that have had long term exposure to products containing PFOS/PFOA.

In 2002 the US EPA forced products containing PFOS/PFOA off the market.

The repeated uncontrolled or poorly managed use of AFFF products that contain PFOS/PFOA is cause for major environmental and health concern. There is the risk that poor AFFF management practices across some of Defence’s facilities may have resulted in PFOS/PFOA contaminating of soil, surface water and groundwater, both on and off base. Furthermore, the biodegradable part of AFFF consumes a lot of oxygen as it breaks down. The consumption of oxygen may influence the biological/chemical/geological conditions of groundwater and surface waters by driving anaerobic systems and causing the asphyxiation of aquatic fauna.

…   …   …   

The main issues associated with fire fighting foam waste-water management are based around how it is collected, contained and disposed of…. there are no regulatory actions that specifically encompass the use and disposal of products containing PFOS/PFOA.

…   …   …   

Most reports distinctly state that fire fighting foam waste-water should not be disposed of into watercourses, soils, or foul stormwater drains …

…   …   …   

Best management practice for AFFF waste-water, as indicated by reports and literature, include the appropriate collection and containment of AFFF waste-water, and disposal via a sewage treatment plant or by incineration.

There has been some issues with AFFF waste-water affecting the oil separation process, with many separators requiring constant repairs or replacement.

…   …   …   

In many cases across Defence the AFFF waste-water is being released into the environment … with the potential of AFFF pollutants … contaminating soil and groundwater on Defence bases as well as contaminating surrounding farm land and surface waters.

The recommendations of the report were:

Defence should consider undertaking site testing … to determine if its facilities are contaminated by PFOS/PFOA and the extent of the contamination, and also consider establishing monitoring wells in areas where AFFF is repeatedly used and released …

Defence should consider restricting the use of AFFF across its facilities in accordance to NICNAS recommendations.

Defence should consider facilitating industry partnerships into researching the behaviour of AFFF mixtures and waste-water as they may occur in the Australian environment.

AFFF waste-water management system should be designed to contain the most probable worst case AFFF discharge, to minimise the risk of any AFFF waste-water reaching watercourses, soil, or stormwater drains.

The management of AFFF across Defence should meet the best practice methods used by others, as indicated in reports (manufacturer recommendations, US Defense, UK Defence, consultants’ reports) and in scientific literature.

If open ponds are used to store AFFF waste-water they should be managed to restrict access by fauna (e.g. using netting or synthetic liners).

It is imperative to contact the local waste authority to determine suitable waste disposal methods and if any pre-treatment or dilution is required.

At a recent briefing I had with a defence spokesman, he admitted the existence of the report and stated that it was the catalyst for the actions that are taking place now—some 13 years later. This contradicts the information I received at another briefing in Newcastle, just after the election, by the then acting CEO of Hunter Water, Mr Jeromy Bath. He stated that Hunter Water knew of the foam contamination several years ago and had reported it to all of the appropriate authorities, believing they would immediately act on it. However, it was not acted on until about 18 months ago—well after authorities were alerted by Hunter Water. Mr Bath said that Hunter Water was very remorseful in not making the contamination issue public themselves when they first became aware of it.

Further, Hunter Water has received $3.5 million to provide reticulated water to affected properties within the red zone. This work should be completed by April 2017 and under budget. In the meantime, bottled water is being provided at no cost. An issue that has arisen is that, when the houses of residents are connected to the reticulated water, some houses may not withstand the increased water pressure and the plumbing will need to be renewed to current standards. These supplementary works should also be part of any compensation package.

Prior to the election, the Prime Minister promised $55 million Australia-wide for blood testing, which is voluntary, and an epidemiology study. The Defence Minister confirmed that commitment in an answer to a question I asked in the Senate recently. Unfortunately, the minister also confirmed in that answer that any compensation package or buyback will not be forthcoming until the results of that study are known. This could take several years. I have firmly suggested to the minister that this time frame is far too long and that, if the government does not act sooner, it may have another asbestos-type crisis on its hands in 20 years.

More recently, enHealth has released new safety guidelines for PFOS and PFOA levels. The new tolerable daily intake levels for PFOS are 0.15 micrograms per kilogram per day, and 1.5 micrograms per kilogram per day for PFOA. These are 78 times higher than the levels deemed safe by the US EPA. EnHealth's drinking water guidelines are 0.5 micrograms per litre for PFOS and five micrograms per litre for PFOA—excessively above the 0.07 micrograms per litre adopted by the US EPA. EnHealth's recommendations of these acceptable levels were endorsed by the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, made up of chief health officers and a Department of Defence representative on 15 June this year. This commission is made up of members that held defence contracts worth many millions of dollars, and obviously there is a perceived conflict of interest. I am not suggesting in this chamber that there are any illegalities in the process. This decision reversed Australia's practice of adopting standards in line with those set by the US EPA. The US EPA drastically toughened its PFOS and PFOA guidelines, with stronger health warnings just three weeks before the Australian decision. This has raised suspicions in the community that the weaker safety standards are designed to reduce the number of people who will be eligible to be compensated and the quantum of payout.