SENATE

Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 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