SENATE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

86 <strong>SENATE</strong> Thursday, 13 October 2016 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: CHAMBER
Thursday, 13 October 2016 <strong>SENATE</strong> 87 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 wastewater 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. Senator BACK (Western Australia) (16:43): I rise in response to the general business notice of motion moved by Senator Burston. Can I congratulate Senator Burston on raising this matter and also for the terms of reference as he has presented them before the chamber. I come to this discussion on two bases. I come to it as a member of the committee which has been investigating this issue and, of course, as a participant in the three inquiries we have had—one in Canberra; one at Williamtown or in Newcastle, New South Wales; and in Oakey, Queensland. I also come to it from a background of having been, as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, chief executive officer of the Bushfires Board of Western Australia—an agency that used firefighting foams. It might be of some interest to anybody listening to this discussion to know what the purpose of adding firefighting foam to water is for extinguishing fires. It is simply to create, at the microscopic level, a film around the material or the fuel that is to be burnt, and, in so doing, starve that fuel of oxygen. CHAMBER
Page 1 and 2:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA SENATE Ha
Page 3 and 4:
FORTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSIO
Page 5 and 6:
Senator State or Territory Term exp
Page 7 and 8:
Title Minister Minister for Health
Page 9 and 10:
Title Shadow Minister Deputy Manage
Page 11 and 12:
CONTENTS—continued International
Page 13 and 14:
Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 1
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 35
Page 97: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 85
Page 125: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 11
show all

SENATE

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?