Chapter 4PFAS in drinking water

4.1PFAS in Australia's drinking water supplies is an issue of concern to communities, governments and water service providers. Monitoring, testing and removal of PFAS from drinking water supplies presents a number of challenges for industry, science and governments.

4.2PFAS have chemical characteristics that make them difficult environmental contaminants to manage and remediate.PFAS are soluble in water and highly bioavailable to aquatic organisms and plants.[1] These characteristics allow PFAS to move long distances from a point of contamination and can result in infiltration of surface and groundwater catchments.[2]

4.3Elevated levels of PFAS are commonly found in water catchments near sewage treatment plants, landfills or places where PFAS-containing firefighting foams have been used, for example near military bases, commercial airports, mining operations or fuel refineries.[3] While the extent and distribution of PFAS contamination varies greatly, they have become ubiquitous in the environment.[4]

4.4This chapter considers PFAS in Australian drinking water, outlining the ubiquitous nature of PFAS in the environment, including in water catchments. The current regulatory guidelines governing drinking water in Australia are outlined, including the existing, and updated draft Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG).

4.5The chapter details evidence from submitters and witnesses about the ADWG and compares Australia's guidelines with international jurisdictions. The chapter then details the status of PFAS testing amongst water suppliers in Australia, and outlines PFAS treatment technologies, including their current limitations.

4.6Providing two case studies of communities impacted by PFAS contamination in their water supply—the First Nations community of Wreck Bay, Jervis Bay Territory (JBT), and the Blue Mountains, NSW, community—the chapter concludes with the committee's views and areas for future inquiry.

Australian Drinking Water Guidelines

4.7Water policy is primarily a responsibility of the states and territories, as such water management varies across different jurisdictions. For most states and territories, drinking water policy is set by the state health departments while water supplies are managed and provided by water utilities.[5] Often these water utilities are state-owned corporations.[6]

4.8The Commonwealth Government is responsible for national coordination of drinking water.[7] One initiative of the federal government to this end is the development of the ADWG.[8]

Current Guidelines

4.9The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines were designed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council in 2011.[9] Guideline values for PFAS were first added in August 2018.[10] The current ADWG are maintained by NHMRC and are intended for use by all agencies involved in the supply of drinking water, including catchment and water resource managers, drinking water suppliers, water regulators, and health authorities. The ADWG are not mandatory or legally enforceable unless integrated into state and territory laws, which is at the discretion of individual states and territories.[11] All states and territories have a Water Act, Public Health Act or Drinking Water Act that references the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011. However, some states are stricter than others in how the ADWG is enshrined into their legislation.[12]

4.10Table 4.1, below, outlines the current ADWG for PFOA, PFOS and PFHxS.

Draft revised Guidelines

4.11In 2022, the Health Department requested that the NHMRC undertake an independent review of the Australian health-based guideline values for PFAS in the ADWG.[13] In addition to reviewing the current guidance values for PFOA, PFOS and PFHxS, the review also considered perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) and hexafluoropropopylene oxide (HFPO) dimer acid and its ammonium salt (referred to as ''GenX chemicals').[14]

4.12Updated draft ADWG were released for public consultation on 21 October 2024.[15] The updated ADWG propose a significant decrease in what is considered safe levels of PFAS. It is expected that new ADWG will be published in 2025. Proposed changes are outlined below:

Source: NHMRC, Submission 57, p. 3.

4.13While the proposed draft guidelines are significantly stricter than the current Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, the guidance values are still weaker than those imposed in other international jurisdictions.[16]

International drinking water standards

4.14In April 2024, the United States announced their National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for six PFAS.[17] The United States regulation is significantly stricter than Australia's existing ADWG as well as the draft updated ADWG released in October 2024.

Source: NHMRC, Submission 57, p. 3; United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA),Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) - Final PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, January 2025, (accessed 3 February 2025).

4.15The United States drinking water guidelines are also intended to become legally enforceable 'Maximum Contaminant Levels' (MCLs). Under the directive, public water systems have five years (until 2029) to implement solutions to reduce PFAS if monitoring shows drinking water levels exceed the MCLs.Public water systems will also have three years (until 2027) to show evidence of monitoring for PFAS.[18]

4.16The European Union (EU) also has strict guidelines on safe levels of PFAS in drinking water. However, instead of having guidelines for individual PFAS compounds, the EU Drinking Water Directive 2020/2184 sets a combined limit of '0.1 μg/L [100ng/L] for the sum of 20 PFAS compounds and 0.5 μg/L [500ng/L] for PFAS Total (all PFAS) in drinking water'.[19] European Union member states will be required to ensure compliance with these standards by 2026.[20]

Opinions on the updated NHMRC Australian Drinking Water Guidelines

4.17Many submissions raised concerns about the proposed PFAS limits set out in the draft ADWG.[21] Community group, STOP PFAS Blue Mountains, was concerned that the proposed new guidelines do not go far enough, and recommended Australia 'align its drinking water standards with the stricter PFAS drinking water limits established in the United States'.[22] To highlight the importance of aligning the Australian drinking water guidelines to the updated American guidelines, Mr John Dee, founder and spokesperson for the STOP PFAS Blue Mountains group, asked if, when given the choice about drinking a glass of water:

Do you want the Australian one that's got 200 parts per trillion of PFOA or the American one with four parts per trillion? It's your choice. Which one are you going to have? If you ask that of every Australian, they'll want the four parts per trillion.[23]

4.18STOP PFAS Blue Mountains also recommended that the 'federal government should legally enforce the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines', which currently remains an advisory document.[24]

4.19Dr Ian Wright raised the importance of the Commonwealth Government providing strong leadership that goes beyond numerical guidelines:

The Commonwealth needs to provide strong leadership here, and I think there's a great opportunity with the current revision of the Australian drinking water guidelines. … But along with that needs to come information to help explain things to people, to customers. For example: What if your water supply does have elevated PFAS? What are the alternatives? What if the filter works? Where can you get water? Can you get your blood tested?[25]

4.20The committee also heard evidence advocating for the updated ADWG to cover a broader range of PFAS. Professor Denis O'Carroll said:

At the moment, because utilities, for example, are only mandated to look for three or four PFAS, that's all they will report. We know there's much more PFAS out there. There would be a minimal incremental cost associated with quantifying more. …the NHMRC should consider a wider range of PFAS for regulation.[26]

4.21In response to a question on notice, the Health Department stated that NHMRC's current PFAS review 'relates only to the specific chemical substances of PFOS, PFHxS, PFOA, PFBS and GenX chemicals'. These five PFAS were selected by NHMRC and the Health Department 'based on the health advisories proposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) at the time (June 2022)'. The Health Department also stated:

The most prevalent PFAS found in the Australian population to date have been PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS. There is limited evidence available for many PFAS chemicals.

Additional PFAS may be reviewed in the future as part of the rolling revision of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. The Water Quality Advisory Committee will consider possible review topics and other high priority water quality issues as part of its next workplan commencing in early 2026.

Based on the findings from the review (available in the NHMRC 2024 Addendum Report), NHMRC and the Water Quality Advisory Committee had concerns about the feasibility of implementing a guideline value for a PFAS sum/mixture with the current options available, given the limited health evidence available for other PFAS. Therefore, no single total/sum guideline value for a PFAS mixture has been proposed at this time but it may be reconsidered should further evidence and methods become available.[27]

4.22Evidence provided by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) highlighted that the technology is available to test for a wider variety of PFAS, describing:

Recent advancements in ultra-high resolution non-targeted PFAS analysis now provides a powerful toolto detect a larger number of PFAS (and other contaminants of concern) in complex mixtures occurring in samples… it can also provide a chemical profile (fingerprint) of samples for future examination of emerging contaminants, ensuring that assessments can account for the presence and extent of all PFAS found in samples, identification of sources, and effective remediation or management.[28]

4.23Not all submitters and witnesses advocated for stricter drinking water guidelines. Submissions from the water industry raised concerns that stricter drinking water guidelines could result in a substantial increase in costs for water distributors, which would then be passed on to consumers.[29] Water Services Association Australia, the peak body for the water services sector in Australia, stated in its submission:

PFAS monitoring, investigation, and treatment impose a financial burden on water utilities. For larger utilities, these costs are often manageable, but smaller utilities may face significant financial strain. Without direct government funding or access to alternative, non-customer funded capital investment avenues, these costs are likely to be passed on to customers through higher water bills.[30]

4.24The Queensland Water Directorate—the central advisory and advocacy body within Queensland's urban water and sewerage services sector—questioned whether the additional level of protection provided by the proposed limits 'may not justify the cost of implementation specifically for the Australian context'.[31]

4.25At the public hearing in Penrith, Sydney Water explained that, as of the 6 January 2025, 'all of our systems will actually meet the US EPA guidelines' of 'four parts per trillion'—demonstrating that it is possible to meet the proposed limits.[32]

4.26However, when speaking about its recent $3.4 million investment in a new PFAS treatment facility—recently installed at its Cascade Water Filtration Plant in Katoomba—Sydney Water explained:

We are lucky enough as an organisation the size of Sydney Water. It's a privilege that not everyone around the country has—to have the technical capability, the expertise and the resources to do something that we've just done.[33]

Extent of PFAS in water supplies

4.27This section outlines recent evidence on the prevalence and extent of PFAS contamination in drinking water supplies.

4.28A recent study led by researchers at the University of NSW collated and assessed PFAS concentration data for over 45000 surface and groundwater samples from around the world. The study found a substantial fraction of the samples exceeded both Australian and international drinking water guidelines, ‘with the extent of exceedance depending on the jurisdiction and PFAS source’.[34]

4.29Professor Denis O'Carroll, one of the authors on the University of NSW paper, explained the significance of their study to the way in which water testing has been conducted in Australia:

In Australia to date PFAS has typically only been quantified in drinking water when there is a suspected PFAS source to a drinking water source, however results from our study, and Sydney Water's recent discovery of PFAS in drinking water at the Cascade filtration plant in the Blue Mountains, suggest that PFAS is likely to be found in drinking water even when there is no suspected source.[35]

4.30Recent media reports suggest there are many more communities with contaminated drinking water, which have previously gone undetected. On 3 February 2025, ABC News reported on a recent 'regional testing blitz for PFAS' undertaken by NSW Health that identified three regional towns which had PFAS in their drinking water at levels higher than the proposed updated ADWG.[36] The sources of the PFAS contamination are still being investigated.

4.31NSW Health confirmed on their website that as of 17 January 2025, that all 83 local water utilities in NSW have tested their supply systems. Three local water utilities had supplies that exceed the proposed ADWG, these included:

Tarcutta, in Riverina Water County Council area and

Narrabri, in Narrabri Shire Council area.

Warialda, in the Gwydir Shire Council area.[37]

4.32Warialda, in the Gwydir Shire Council area, initially did not comply with the current drinking water guidelines. However, investigations identified two bores as the source of the PFAS contamination. These bores have now been cut off from the water supply. Subsequent tests have revealed PFAS levels to be below the current guidelines.[38]

Testing of PFAS in water supplies

4.33Currently, there is no national requirement to monitor levels of PFAS in drinking water in Australia. As outlined in NHMRC's ADWG draft fact sheet on PFAS:

… water quality data for PFAS have been collected to date on an ad hoc (as needed) basis in areas with contaminated PFAS sites. Some water utilities carry out regular monitoring due to the proximity of their raw water to PFAS contamination sites. Some other water utilities now include PFAS in monitoring programs, even when there is no identified source of contamination.[39]

4.34While there is no requirement for water services to test and report on PFAS levels, many water services do. When asked at the public hearing in Penrith how many water services were testing and publishing data on PFAS, the CEO of Water Services Association Australia, Mr Adam Lovell replied:

I would say most. I don't have an exact number for you, but the larger capital cities are certainly collecting that data and publishing it, mostly on their websites.[40]

4.35Cancer Council Australia shared in its submission that, at least to its knowledge, the water utilities:

… Melbourne Water, SA Water, WaterNSW, and SeqWater, regularly monitor PFAS levels in drinking water, and some make these results publicly available including Icon Water, Sydney Water.[41]

4.36However, due to there being no requirement for water services to test or share PFAS contamination data, the distribution and extent of PFAS contamination across waterways in Australia is unclear.

4.37The absence of consistent information around PFAS contamination in drinking water and across waterways was a common theme amongst submissions to the inquiry.[42] The Concerned Waterways Alliance, a network of community organisations dedicated to protecting the health of waterways across southern Victoria, submitted:

Monitoring programs in Victoria are limited in scope and frequency and fail to provide comprehensive data on PFAS contamination in waterways. Public transparency is also limited, leaving affected communities with insufficient information on exposure risks.[43]

4.38Associate Professor Ian Wright highlighted that, currently, the most comprehensive map of PFAS hotspots in Australia is produced and managed by the volunteer-led environmental non-government organisation, Friends of the Earth.[44]

4.39Friends of the Earth confirmed the popularity of its PFAS Australia Map in its submission, saying that it 'had 41,000 active users visit the site in 2024'. Friends of the Earth also asked; 'Why is it left to a small handful of volunteers to attempt to monitor the multi-billion dollar PFAS problem across the country?'[45]

4.40The importance of having a centralised resource of known PFAS hotspots was echoed by the Environmental Defenders Office:

Communities also need greater transparency when it comes to possible PFAS contamination, and potential risks to human health. A central, accessible resource, such as a database or register, should provide this information on a national scale.[46]

4.41Similarly, the Australian Academy of Science recommended a 'nationally coordinated monitoring program to determine the extent of PFAS contamination levels across Australia'.[47]

4.42Professor Stuart Khan, Head of the School of Civil Engineering at the University of Sydney, echoed the need for the Commonwealth Government to take 'a much more active role in setting drinking water quality and risk management requirements'. In additional information provided to the committee, Professor Khan suggested that the Commonwealth Government should consider introducing an 'Australian Safe Drinking Water Act', which would 'enable the Commonwealth to mandate consistent application of best practices for managing drinking water'.[48] This request was echoed by STOP PFAS Blue Mountains.[49]

Drinking water treatment options

4.43PFAS treatment technologies can be categorised by either being destructive or non-destructive. As the names suggests, non-destructive technologies can only extract and contain PFAS from a particular source. Destructive technologies can breakdown PFAS into its original molecules.[50] At this point in time, destructive technologies are very expensive and not widely available.[51]

4.44Common treatment options for removing PFAS from contaminated or potentially contaminated water include ''membrane technology (nanofiltration or reverse osmosis) or using sorption technology (typically specific activated carbon or ion exchange processes)'.[52]

4.45Neither of these treatment options work in the routine treatment of wastewater. As Professor Jochen Mueller explained, neither membrane nor sorption technologies are:

… applicable to (routine) treatment of wastewater since wastewater contains high levels of other chemicals and solids. These techniques can only act as a potential further treatment step following conventional wastewater treatment processes, as is done in the production of purified recycled water.[53]

4.46The absence of viable treatment options for wastewater has implications for the recycling of biosolids (solid by-product of the wastewater treatment process) and recycled water.

Case studies

Wreck Bay, Jervis Bay Territory

4.47On 20 January 2025, the committee visited the First Nations community of Wreck Bay, JBT, where PFAS-containing firefighting foams were used on the neighbouring naval base, HMAS Creswell, and the Jervis Bay Range Facility for more than three decades since the 1970s.

4.48During its visit to Wreck Bay, the committee heard about the serious impacts of PFAS contamination on the community, its lands and waters, and cultural practices. This section considers concerns around drinking water in Wreck Bay; the health impacts of the contamination are discussed in Chapter 3 of this report; remediation efforts are outlined in Chapter 5; and cultural impacts of the contamination are detailed in Chapter 6, of this report.

4.49Drinking water at Wreck Bay and in other parts of JBT is sourced from nearby Lake Windermere. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (Infrastructure Department) is responsible for the Lake Windermere catchment. Shoalhaven Water undertakes routine monthly testing for PFAS in JBT's drinking water, on behalf of the Infrastructure Department.[54]

4.50JBT's drinking water results are released each month in the Jervis Bay community bulletins, published by the Infrastructure Department. Testing for January 2025 showed PFAS levels in JBT drinking water 'remain many times lower than levels recommended by the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines'.[55]

Source: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, JBT drinking water – PFAS testing results, 20 January 2025, (accessed 6 February 225).

4.51While drinking water in Wreck Bay is being tested and found to be below the current ADWG, community members remain concerned about the level of PFAS in their tap water. Wreck Bay community member, Mr Matt Simms shared his concerns at the public hearing in Nowra, saying; 'America says that there is no safe level of PFAS for consumption for anyone, for drinking… but it's still running through our taps'.[56]

4.52Another community member, Ms Donya Whaddy, noted that water that comes from taps in Wreck Bay Village is discoloured, saying: 'Our water out there—you run the bath and it's yellow. What is that? We haven't got an answer'.[57]

4.53While attending the site visit at Wreck Bay, and during the hearing in Nowra, senators heard that members of the community were concerned about drinking town water, so were instead paying for bottled water out of their aged-care packages.[58]

4.54When Senator Thorpe questioned the Department of Defence on whether they had costed the provision of alternative drinking water sources to the community, representatives of the department informed the committee that they had not:

CHAIR:Have you ever costed what connection to different mains would cost?

Ms Perkins:I don't believe we've done that work at Wreck Bay. We have done mains connections in other communities, and, as I said, we'll continue to be guided with colleagues on access to other reticulated water networks.

CHAIR:Have you ever costed providing rainwater tanks to every household in the community?

Ms Perkins:I don't believe we have in Wreck Bay.[59]

4.55Mr Simms outlined the community's distrust regarding the current drinking water testing, saying:

Are they the same people that have poisoned the country? As a community member, I don't really trust their numbers and their stats. They could be manipulating that to suit their own agenda and to cover themselves up. Aunty Annette [Brown] spoke before about our people being trained up and upskilled in all this sort of stuff. Could funding be given to us so we can train our own people up? The only people that I trust when it comes to this poison are my people.[60]

4.56A recommendation made by Chairperson of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council, Ms Annette Brown, was that:

… the Commonwealth establish a monitoring committee that includes grassroots people—Aboriginal people—and that it answers to parliament. They don't answer to their own departments; they have to report back to parliament.[61]

Blue Mountains, New South Wales

4.57In June 2024, elevated levels of PFAS were identified at Cascade Water Filtration Plant in Katoomba, NSW. Prior to June 2024, Sydney Water had not completed any testing at the Cascade Water Filtration Plant as the catchment area feeding into the plant was not a known 'PFAS hotspot'.

4.58The elevated level of PFAS detected in the Blue Mountains was below the current ADWG, but above the United States Drinking Water Guidelines and the updated draft ADWG, released for consultation in October 2024.

Source: Sydney Water, PFAS monitoring results (accessed 6 February 2025); NHMRC, Submission 57, p. 3.

4.59In July 2024, WaterNSW started an investigation into the source of PFAS found at the Cascade Water Filtration Plant.[62] In August 2024, WaterNSW announced that it had shut off Medlow Dam and Greaves Creek Dam from the drinking water supplies, following tests showing high levels of PFAS in these catchments.[63]

4.60WaterNSW investigations into the source of PFAS in the Blue Mountain catchment area are ongoing. WaterNSW anticipates that the investigation report will be available in mid-2025.[64]

4.61In September 2024, Professor Wright was asked by Fairfax journalists to sample PFAS testing in the Blue Mountains catchment area.[65] Results from this testing suggested that the elevated level of PFAS in Medlow Dam could have been connected to a 1992 petrol tanker crash fire.[66]

4.62Associate Professor Wright argued how the discovery of elevated levels of PFAS in the Blue Mountains:

… exposed the many inadequacies in management of Australian drinking water supplies. A major shortcoming is the lack of routine monitoring of drinking water supply systems, including their catchments, storages, water treatment facilities and reticulated water supply systems… It is unknown how long the Blue Mountains water has contained such elevated PFAS.[67]

4.63At the public hearing in Penrith, Mr Dee shared the community's fear that they 'have been drinking contaminated drinking water, potentially, for 32 years', and expressed concern at how the matter had been treated by the NSW government, saying:

NSW Health is refusing to do any blood tests of our communities, even though I and many other people in our community have recently found through blood tests that we've got dangerously high levels of cholesterol in our bodies… I'm really concerned about the water industry and the health industry basically covering this up.[68]

4.64Since 3 October 2024, Sydney Water has conducted monthly testing of all its water treatment plants, and weekly testing of the Cascade and North Richmond treatment plants.[69]

4.65In December 2024, the NSW Government announced a new $3.4 million filtration unit would be installed at the Cascade Water Filtration Plant in Katoomba.[70] The new filtration plant has been operational since 6 January 2025.[71]

Footnotes

[1]HEPA, PFAS National Environmental Management Plan Version 2.0, January 2020, p. 8.

[2]See, for example, Department of Climate Change, Energy and the Environment and Water, Submission 33, p. 3; Department of Health and Aged Care interim Australian Centre for Disease Control, Submission 100, p. 4.

[3]Department of Health and Aged Care, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS),30 October 2024, (accessed 13 February 2025).

[4]See, for example, Airservices Australia, Submission 69, p. 14; Dr Kate Hughes, Submission 89, p. 1; Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 56, p. 3.

[5]Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 56, p. 5.

[6]Mr Adam Lovell, Executive Director Water Services Association of Australia, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 20.

[7]Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, National water policy, October 2023 (accessed 3 February 2025).

[8]National Health and Medical Research Council, Submission 57, p. 1.

[9]National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Drinking Water Guidelines(accessed 3 February 2025).

[10]National Health and Medical Research Council, Submission 57, p. 2.

[11]Professor Steve Wesselingh, CEO, National Health and Medical Research Council, NHMRC update on the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, 14 June 2024 (accessed 13 February 2025).

[12]Frontier economics, Urban water regulation reform, December 2017, p. 27.

[13]National Health and Medical Research Council, Submission 57, p. 2.

[14]National Health and Medical Research Council, Submission 57, p. 2–3.

[15]National Health and Medical Research Council, Submission 57, p. 3.

[16]United States Environmental Protection Agency, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)—Final PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, January 2025 (accessed 3 February 2025).

[17]United States Environmental Protection Agency, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)—Final PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, January 2025.

[18]United States Environmental Protection Agency, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)—Final PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, January 2025.

[19]Water Europe, Facing the PFAS Issue: Views from the European Water Sector, December 2024, p. 4.

[20]Water Europe, Facing the PFAS Issue: Views from the European Water Sector, December 2024, p. 4.

[21]See, for example: Toxics Free Australia, Submission 72, p. 5; Climate Action Merribek, Submission 13, p. 8; STOP PFAS Blue Mountains, Submission 76, p. 11.

[22]STOP PFAS Blue Mountains, Submission 76, p. 11.

[23]Mr Jon Dee, Stop PFAS, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 16.

[24]STOP PFAS Blue Mountains, Submission 76, p. 11.

[25]Dr Ian Wright, Associate Professor, School of Science, Western Sydney University, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 2.

[26]Professor Denis Michael O'Carroll, Professor, University of New South Wales, Committee Hansard, 13 November 2024, p. 22.

[27]Department of Health and Aged Care, Response to written questions from Senator Thorpe (received 11 February 2025), [p. 3] and [p. 5].

[28]CSIRO, Submission 22, p. 7.

[29]See, for example: Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 56, p. 8; Queensland Water Directorate, Submission 90, p. 3; Riverina Water County Council, Submission 64, p. 4.

[30]Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 56, p. 8.

[31]Queensland Water Directorate, Submission 90, p. 3.

[32]Dr Kaye Power, Principal Water and Public Health Adviser, Sydney Water Corporation, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 27.

[33]Mr Paul Plowman, Executive General Manager, Water and Environment Services, Sydney Water Corporation, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 24.

[34]Professor Denis O'Carroll, Submission 1, attachment 1, p. 1.

[35]Professor Denis O'Carroll, Submission 1, p. 2.

[36]Xanthe Gregory, ''PFAS contamination testing blitz in NSW sparks calls for further investigations', ABC News, 3 February 2025 (accessed 3 February 2025).

[37]NSW Government, Latest guidance on PFAS and drinking water(accessed 13 February).

[38]NSW Government, Latest guidance on PFAS and drinking water(accessed 13 February).

[39]National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Drinking Water Guidelines - Public Consultation on Draft Guidance for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), October 2024, p. 2.

[40]Mr Adam Lovell, Chief Executive Officer, Water Services Association of Australia, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 22.

[41]Cancer Council Australia, Submission 62, p. 4.

[42]See, for example, crcCARE, Submission 36, p. 16; Name Withheld, Submission 97, p. 1.

[43]Concerned Waterways Alliance, Submission 30, p. 4.

[44]Dr Ian Wright, Submission 102, p. 2.

[45]Friends of the Earth, Submission 46, p. 1.

[46]Environmental Defenders Office, Submission 55, p. 4.

[47]Australian Academy of Science, Submission 63, p. 1.

[48]Professor Stuart Khan, Head of School of Civil Engineering, Sydney University, briefing material for public hearing 22 January 2025 (received 21 January 2025) p. 4.

[49]STOP PFAS Blue Mountains, Submission 76, p. 7.

[50]CSIRO, Submission 22, p. 4–5.

[51]See, for example, CSIRO, Submission 22, p. 4–5; Professor Jochen Mueller, Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences, answer to question taken on notice, 13 November 2024 (received 4 December 2024). See Chapter 5 for further discussion on these technologies.

[52]Professor Jochen Mueller, Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences, answer to question taken on notice, 13 November 2024 (received 4 December 2024), p. 1.

[53]Professor Jochen Mueller, Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences, answer to question taken on notice, 13 November 2024 (received 4 December 2024), p. 1.

[54]Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, JBT drinking water – PFAS testing results, 20 January 2025, (accessed 13 February 2025).

[55]DITRDCA, JBT drinking water – PFAS testing results, 20 January 2025.

[56]Mr Matt Simms, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 11.

[57]Ms Donya Whaddy, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 9.

[58]Appendix 2, Wreck Bay community visit, p. 17. Ms Donya Whaddy, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 9.

[59]Ms Celia Perkins, Acting Associate Secretary, Department of Defence, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 48.

[60]Mr Matt Simms, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 13.

[61]Ms Annette Brown, Chairperson, Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 14.

[62]WaterNSW, Blue Mountains – PFAS investigation and raw water testing results(accessed 15 January 2025).

[63]Ben Cubby and Carrie Fellner, ''White hot': Cancer-linked chemicals flowing into dam at 50 times safe level, Sydney Morning Herald, 17 September 2024 (accessed 10 January 2025).

[64]WaterNSW, PFAS Community Update – December 2024 – Blue Mountains catchment, December 2024 (accessed 10 January 2025).

[65]Dr Ian Wright, Submission 102, p. 5.

[66]Dr Ian Wright, Submission 102, p. 5.

[67]Dr Ian Wright, Submission 102, p. 6.

[68]Mr Jon Dee, Stop PFAS, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 4.

[69]Sydney Water, PFAS monitoring results (accessed 10 January 2025).

[70]The Hon. Rose Jackson MLC, NSW Minister for Water, 'Cascade Filtration Plant receives upgrade to improve drinking water quality', Media Release, 3 December 2024.

[71]Mr Paul Plowman, Executive General Manager, Water and Environment Services, Sydney Water Corporation, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 21.