3.1
The Committee heard from the Department of Defence three times during the course of its inquiry in the 46th Parliament. Evidence from the Department of Defence’s first appearance is discussed in the Committee’s first and second progress reports published in December 2019 and August 2020 respectively.
3.2
Following these progress reports, the Department of Defence appeared on 3 September 2021 to provide an update to the Committee on PFAS remediation and management matters, and on 26 November 2021 to allow the Committee to follow up on matters raised by community members.
3.3
Some of the key issues discussed with the Department of Defence at these hearings included:
the shift from the investigation to remediation planning phase of the management of PFAS contamination,
monitoring the migration of PFAS from Defence bases,
testing emerging technologies for remediation, and
community engagement by the Department of Defence.
Role of the Department of Defence
3.4
The Department of Defence established its National PFAS Investigation and Management Program to ‘manage the risks associated with per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination in and from a number of its properties’.
3.5
Defence has sought to ‘determine the nature and extent of PFAS contamination, and to work to manage and remediate contamination across the estate and in surrounding communities.’
Shifting from investigation to remediation planning
3.7
In November 2021, the Department of Defence characterised its last year as ‘a period of moving from the investigation [of PFAS contamination] to remediation and action planning.’ During the investigation period, Defence described that it was ‘trying to understand the nature and scope of the contamination, where those plumes went … and the underlying science.’ These investigations have led to the production of a PFAS Management Area Plan (PMAP), which are published on the Department of Defence PFAS website.
3.8
The Department of Defence stated that as at September 2021, ‘PFAS environmental investigations at 26 out of the 28 sites’ have been completed, an increase from 16 investigations completed in December 2019. Defence stated that investigations at the remaining two sites (RAAF Williams, Laverton, VIC; and the Singleton military area, NSW) are expected to be concluded prior to the end of 2021.
3.9
The Department of Defence admitted ‘there has been a lull’ in communication on PFAS actions and ‘absolutely acknowledge[d] the need for more engagement with communities’. Defence stated that ‘over the last year’ it has begun ‘planning remediation actions that are specific to each site’, and further explained that its current planning work has required a focus on in-house scientific work:
[Remediation and action planning] has necessitated … more in-house work with the scientific evidence and the ongoing planning for remediation to bring that to a place where [Defence has] better information to share with communities around what the next steps are.
3.10
Defence stated the finalisation of Remediation Action Plans will bring Defence ‘to a phase where [it] will have more information to share with communities’. The Department of Defence detailed that the development of Remediation Action Plans for each site will require further consultation with the community and consideration by Defence:
Where remediation is recommended, Remediation Action Plans are developed, which typically assess options to achieve remediation goals; select and justify a preferred approach; and identify how successful implementation will be demonstrated. The development of a Remediation Action Plan requires a range of additional data (over and above that collected during the investigations phase) to inform options and the design of associated works. Following data collection and analysis, timing of any remedial works is also influenced by a range of factors, including procurement of necessary consultants and experts, complexity of addressing contamination at the site, Defence capability requirements, seasonal timing and gaining concurrence of technical advisers (who are separately accredited as auditors by state and territory Environment Protection Authorities) to verify that the remedial works are appropriate to the circumstances of each site.
3.11
Defence detailed that following remediation planning, it would then undertake the remediation actions and monitor any change in contamination levels. Using RAAF Base Williamtown as an example, Ms Celia Perkins, Deputy Secretary, Estate and Infrastructure, Department of Defence, illustrated how the remediation process would be iterative:
What we hope to do, now that we've planned remediation, is move to an implementation and monitoring phase. We think it'll take a while to see the contamination levels shift, but what we want to do then is continue the interventions and the remediations to help that. We'll learn more as we continue to study what's happening and, if that means we need to do different interventions to remediate a site, we will continue the science to do that.
Migration of PFAS from Defence bases
3.12
The Department of Defence stated its ‘focus in responding to PFAS contamination is minimising or reducing the migration of contamination from the boundary of Defence sites as far as reasonably practicable.’
3.13
The Department of Defence advised that it was ‘too soon to tell’ whether PFAS migration in any areas had stopped.
3.14
Defence outlined that the ‘ongoing monitoring of contamination after investigations are complete is a core element of [its] PFAS management area plans’ and that it is ‘undertaking groundwater and surface water monitoring.’ Defence stated that it ‘shares the results of all sampling with relevant state and territory authorities as results become available’ and publishes ‘an annual interpretive report’, which provides ‘analysis and interpretation of that data … as part of keeping affected communities informed.’
3.15
‘PFAS mass flux assessments’ were explained by Defence to ‘measure the amount of PFAS that leaves an area, in this case a Defence property in both surface water (runoff after rainfall) and groundwater.’ Defence stated it ‘primarily undertakes mass flux measurements … to inform and prioritise remedial action’ and ‘to measure improvements in the long term’.
3.16
Defence stated that it had observed various causes of PFAS migration:
In most instances PFAS flux from Defence properties is dominated by surface water transport (runoff and stormwater), with groundwater transport often a secondary mechanism. In instances where PFAS is mostly transported in surface water, remedial efforts will prioritise surface soils in source areas to reduce PFAS transport via runoff. There are exceptions where the geology (e.g. sand dunes) permit larger fluxes of PFAS in groundwater. In areas where groundwater transport is significant, remediation of groundwater may also be required.
3.17
For a PFAS mass flux assessment of a region, Defence stated that once results of individual samples are received, it requires time to analyse ‘the trends across all of those individual samples over larger areas to get a better understanding of what the water movements have been over that period.’ Mr Daniel Fankhauser, First Assistant Secretary, Infrastructure, Department of Defence, explained that this leads to more meaningful analysis for a region:
We have individual samples that we could talk to the individual property owners about, but when we have that broader analysis of what has been occurring across the sample sites, that will give us a better understanding of what is going on in that specific region.
3.18
Defence stated that it had not sought to sample each private landholder’s property in a community, and that its sampling points are ‘designed by using scientific methods based around where the investigations have indicated to us that plumes exist.’ Ms Perkins, Department of Defence, acknowledged ‘one of the important elements of the PFAS investigation and remediation work is community confidence’ and considered the proposal of expanded testing would be ‘well worth having a good look at’. Ms Perkins further stated:
I would just mention that there is some information around testing and how to get in contact around testing on the website. There are two parts to it. We'll look at it in terms of the scientific method, and then we'll look at it in terms of particular residents' interests and concerns and how we might best respond to those.
Box 3.1: Monitoring and remediation at Williamtown
Monitoring and remediation work at RAAF Base Williamtown provides an example of how the Department of Defence is using mass flux studies to inform and evaluate remediation actions.
There has been no change in PFAS contamination levels at Williamtown. Defence stated it has ‘communicated with the [Williamtown] community to indicate that, within scientific parameters, the contamination hasn't materially changed.’ Defence stated it was ‘not surprised … that the PFAS contamination has stayed at a fairly stable rate’, and explained:
Water is still flowing from the contamination site out through plumes. There are groundwater plumes at Williamtown where firefighting foam was used for a very long time over a very large area, so we have large fonts of contamination. PFAS doesn't degrade in groundwater, and we know that. That's been a result of the years of study.
Ms Perkins, Deputy Secretary, Estate and Infrastructure, Department of Defence, characterised Williamtown as ‘the most complex site’ as part of Defence’s PFAS management program, and explained:
It is [a flood plain]. The water table is high. The groundwater mixes with surface water at many points. During periods of rainfall, this happens more frequently. The second issue is that the soil at Williamtown is very sandy, so water moves very freely through the soil. This is quite different to other sites, where you have clay soil or different levels of water.
The mass flux assessments have informed the remediation actions taken at Williamtown, with Defence initially attempting to remediate the contamination source. Defence explained its focus ‘has been on remediating [the] sources of contamination on the base’, to try and break ‘the chain of PFAS flowing outside the base.’ Defence acknowledged ‘there is some scepticism’ about this strategy, but stated ‘there's some good science in it—to pump and treat on the base.’ Mass flux assessments are also planned to be continued by Defence, to evaluate whether remediation action is successful in reducing PFAS contamination.
The Department of Defence stated that ‘as part of … ongoing monitoring at Williamtown’ it has ‘found that those remediation works of the source areas have resulted in significantly reduced PFAS concentrations.’ However, Defence stated ‘it will take time for those results to flow into the groundwater samples that [it is] continuing to monitor as well.’ Ms Perkins, Department of Defence acknowledged that it ‘will be a slow process’, and elaborated:
We will continue to remain focused on remediation on the base where the contamination originated, because what we know about the flow of PFAS through groundwater and soil is that, until we clean up that source, it will continue to flow through those plumes into those affected areas. I know that’s incredibly frustrating for residents, and it will be a slow process.
Testing emerging technologies for remediation
3.19
The Department of Defence advised that it has trialled ‘a lot of new emerging technologies, with differing levels of success.’ Ms Alison Clifton, Assistant Secretary, Environment and Engineering Branch, Department of Defence, stated that Defence is now at the stage of re-assessing which technologies it should implement:
We’re now at a point where we've done enough different types of things that we think it's worthwhile having a look at our remediation strategy and assessing whether it is still the most effective way to go forward. We may need to modify some of our water treatment activities as we understand new and emerging technologies.
3.20
The Department of Defence stated it will ‘continue to also develop further strategies to address [contaminated] groundwater’, but stated that Defence is ‘very much still learning as these initiatives continue to roll out.’
3.21
Technologies delivered by companies contracted by Defence are further discussed in Chapter 8.
Engagement with the community
3.22
The Department of Defence adjusted its consultation program due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Defence stated that ‘over the last year, while Defence has been somewhat restricted by COVID’, it has been publishing information on its ‘PFAS investigation and remediation program website.’ Defence stated that alternate strategies have included:
producing pre-recorded videos on its website, ‘in relation to the findings of [Defence’s] studies at Blamey Barracks, Kapooka, and the Wagga area’, and
‘briefing through a range of stakeholders, including local representatives, so that [Defence] can convey the messages and the latest advice that [Defence] have out to their communities.’
3.23
Defence advised in November 2021, that ‘with the easing of COVID restrictions’ it was recommencing its ‘in-person and online engagement sessions.’ In-person events planned in December 2021 included events in Western Australia and New South Wales. Defence stated that it was ‘in the process of planning the 2022 community outreach and events at those sites where we continue to conclude investigations and remediation programs and we will keep … those communities informed of those events.’
3.24
The Department of Defence detailed that it had engaged with community consultation groups established by state and territory governments. In the NT, Defence stated that it was ‘funding a PFAS support officer for the Katherine community … through the Northern Territory's Department of Chief Minister and Cabinet.’ Defence further stated that it worked with the Katherine PFAS Community Consultation Group, and detailed:
[Defence have] also engaged local liaison for the Katherine community to support the rainwater tank program. This is all done in conjunction with the Katherine PFAS Community Consultation Group, which is the mechanism that has been established in conjunction with the Northern Territory government to enable two-way communication with the community and also ensure that we can release the most timely information that we hold in relation to the ongoing monitoring.’
3.25
For community engagement initiatives in NSW, the Department of Defence advised that the Williamtown Community Reference Group that Defence previously worked in conjunction with ‘was an initiative of the New South Wales government and was disbanded by the New South Wales government.’ Despite this, Defence stated ‘it remains committed to engaging closely with [affected NSW] communities.’
3.26
Defence stated that its current work ‘in the remediation and the development of management plans continues to be very detailed scientific studies.’ The Department of Defence acknowledged comments from the community about the challenge of interpreting detailed technical reports published by the Department of Defence. Ms Perkins, Department of Defence, acknowledged that while the ‘technical data is quite difficult’ to interpret, the entire technical report is ‘posted in full’. Ms Perkins advised that this is to meet the Department of Defence’s principle of ‘maximum total transparency’, and elaborated that Defence seeks to supplement this with additional information:
So the large report … is certainly posted in full. We don't want to post extracts; we want to post all that information. But when we post those to the Defence PFAS remediation and management website, we also apply fact sheets, and we have a variety of mechanisms and contact points on there for concerned residents to reach back out to us.
The nature of the consultations that will be run in the year ahead is to talk through in detail what those remediation activities have been, what the results of the ongoing monitoring are showing us at this point, and what the next steps are.
3.27
The Australian Government in its response to the Committee’s second progress report, presented out-of-sitting to the Senate on 20 January 2022, stated that ‘the Government will continue to assess options for improving communications on PFAS, including in the context of [its] evolving understanding of the science’, and further stated:
The Government recognises that communicating about PFAS contamination is difficult, including due to current gaps in scientific knowledge. Agencies working on PFAS investigation and management aim to communicate clearly, informatively, empathically, and regularly with affected communities, whose wellbeing remains the Government’s continued focus.
3.28
PFAS consultations held by Defence have varied in the style of presentations. The Department of Defence explained that its current ‘drop-in-session[s]’ are intended ‘so that residents can get that one-on-one engagement with those people who have the answers that they're looking for’; where Defence takes ‘a number of [its] subject matter experts’ to ‘be there for a number of hours on the ground.’
Concluding comment
3.29
It is evident that the clearing of PFAS contamination from affected communities is work that will be an active concern for years to come. The Committee notes that the Department of Defence has acted to apply the precautionary principle in its activities, and is continuing to research and learn to improve on remediation strategies.
3.30
The Committee appreciated the open and direct evidence provided by the Department of Defence. The Committee acknowledges the Department of Defence’s evidence that it is ‘too soon to tell’ if PFAS migration from bases has stopped, and that remediation and seeing change will be a ‘slow process’.
3.31
Chapter 2 discussed evidence that the level of communication from the Department of Defence has not met community expectations. The Committee notes the Department of Defence acknowledged that there has been a ‘lull’ in information that it has provided to communities. The Committee was also advised that this was due to the Department of Defence focusing on in-house research as part of planning remediation actions.
3.32
The Committee heard that the Department of Defence expects that the next phase of remediation planning will be accompanied with a greater level of consultation and information made available to the community. The Committee understands that remediation planning may take some time, due to the level of detail required to produce the Remediation Action Plan.
3.33
The Committee acknowledges the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic for delivering face-to-face information sessions. The Committee was pleased to hear that the Department of Defence has resumed and prioritised face-to-face community information sessions. The Committee emphasises the importance of departmental officials being available on-the-ground to answer the questions of local communities, and that these should continue.
3.34
The Committee heard that the effectiveness of remediation technologies besting tested by Defence is promising, as discussed in Chapter 8. The Committee also notes, as discussed in Chapter 4 and 5, that the Department of Defence has come to be viewed as the lead agency in the Federal Government dealing with PFAS contamination.