Chapter 5Remediation of PFAS affected sites

5.1Given the persistence of PFAS chemicals, and concerns about potential impacts on human health, active remediation is often pursued to reduce contamination where it occurs. Remediation is planned or underway across many PFAS-contaminated sites.

5.2Remediation encompasses the removal of PFAS from contaminated sites, as well as the reduction of PFAS where removal is not currently possible. In addition to addressing the source of contamination, remediation aims to remove or mitigate contamination wherever it has spread, including soil, groundwater and surface water. Remediation also encompasses the storage or destruction of resultant waste.

5.3A variety of monitoring and remediation programs are underway or planned across Australia, administered by a number of Commonwealth and state agencies. The Department of Defence (Defence) and Airservices Australia (Airservices) both administer programs for sites under their jurisdiction, while state-level environment protection authorities oversee state-level remediation works.

5.4This chapter describes active remediation programs, examines the currently available technologies, presents a case study of remediation in Wreck Bay, and considers the broad approach to remediation in Australia.

Remediation programs

5.5Commonwealth, state and territory agencies currently undertake a variety of remediation and monitoring programs and research. Given the prevalence of PFAS contamination on Defence sites and airports, the most active programs are administered by Defence, Airservices and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (Infrastructure Department). State and territory remediation is generally managed by each state's environmental protection authority.

Defence PFAS Investigation and Management Program

5.6The historic use of firefighting foams containing PFAS at Defence facilities means that, despite phasing out PFAS-containing foams in 2004, high levels of PFAS remain present in the environment around many Defence sites. Defence works with Commonwealth, state and local authorities in managing PFAS contamination around Defence sites. Defence's national PFAS Investigation and Management Program works with industry partners and research groups to investigate and remediate PFAS contamination and support impacted communities. The program has management teams located across Australia and publishes key reports and verified test results on its website.

5.7As part of the program, Defence has invested $807 million in managing and remediating PFAS contamination.[1] Outcomes include:

160 000 tonnes of contaminated soil have been removed;

11 water treatment plants have been installed;

11.5 billion litres of water have been treated;

378 properties have been connected to town water;

160 rainwater tanks have been provided to 117 properties;

869 properties are receiving water assistance (bottled water); and

183 community information sessions have been held.[2]

Source: Defence, PFAS Investigation and Management Program Snapshot—October 2024.

5.8Defence has identified 28 priority program sites for PFAS remediation, as shown in Figure 5.1, above. At these sites, Defence focuses on 'addressing PFAS sources on bases such as former fire training areas, and managing significant contamination flow pathways (such as groundwater or stormwater drains) where it is reasonably practicable to do so'.[3]

5.9Remediation has commenced at eight of the sites, with more to follow in 2025 (as shown in Table 5.1), and international engagement is underway to accelerate the remediation and management process.[4]

Source: Table created from information presented in Department of Defence, Submission 66, [pp. 8–14].

5.10The specific remediation works undertaken or planned at each site vary according to 'the nature of the site, the historical PFAS use, [and] the geology and hydrology of the site', and might include 'water treatment…extensive treatment of contaminated soil on sites and either treatment of soil or removal of soil, [and] drainage diversion…'.[5] Details on the specific remediation actions undertaken at each site are published on Defence's website.[6]

5.11Defence notes that completely eliminating PFAS and stopping its movement from a site of concern is not possible given current technology.[7]

5.12Remediation works undertaken by this project are generally limited to Defence property or to boundaries established by Defence. The PFAS Independent Review identified 'unintended consequences' of this limitation, noting that 'the fact that a property is in a PFAS management area does not necessarily give any indication of whether the property is contaminated, or to what level'.[8]

5.13Similarly, just because an area lies outside the Defence propertyboundary, it does not mean that it is not subject to PFAS contamination from Defence. Remediation of the sites adjacent to Defence boundaries would likely be beneficial to the wider environment.

Airservices National PFAS Management Program

5.14Another source of significant PFAS contamination is the historical use of PFAS-containing firefighting foams at airports. Airservices provides aviation rescue and firefighting services at 27 of Australia's busiest airports and is implementing a National PFAS Management Program to manage and remediate these sites. The program includes site investigations, monitoring, management actions and, where appropriate, remediation.

5.15Airservices started using PFAS-free foams in 2010. Out of the 27 airports where Airservices provides fire and rescue services, 18 locations are subject to investigation by Airservices, namely:

Australian Capital Territory—Canberra

New South Wales—Sydney

Northern Territory—Alice Springs, Yulara

Queensland—Brisbane, Cairns, Gold Coast, Mackay, Rockhampton, Sunshine Coast

South Australia—Adelaide

Tasmania—Hobart, Launceston

Victoria—Avalon, Melbourne

Western Australia—Karratha, Perth, Port Hedland.

5.16Most of Airservices' PFAS projects are still in their investigation phase. However, remediation has commenced at Launceston Airport, while action plans have been finalised for sites at Canberra Airport, with approvals to begin the work underway. Additional remediation action plans are under development for Mackay, Rockhampton, Brisbane, Avalon, Karratha and Melbourne airports, expected to be finalised by mid–2025.[9]

5.17Airservices provided a case study of its remediation activities at Launceston Airport. In addition to pre-existing management activities, including cleaning of stormwater drains and monitoring of surface and ground water, the works involve 'excavation and removal' of PFAS-affected soil and infrastructure, and their 'safe and lawful disposal'. This includes the removal of all existing infrastructure of the decommissioned firefighting training ground.[10] Having commenced in October 2024, these works are expected to take approximately six months to complete.

5.18Airservices' 2023–2024 Annual Report states that $88.3 million 'has been provided' to facilitate PFAS program work, as at 30 June 2024, with $129 million provided in 2022–2023.[11]

5.19Airservices also noted its engagement with ongoing research into remediation technologies and best practice. In its submission, Airservices highlighted six of these trials, including studies into groundwater remediation, wastewater treatment, PFAS destruction and concrete treatment.[12]

PFAS Airports Investigation Program

5.20The Australian Government has committed $130.5 million for the PFAS Airports Investigation Program at civilian airports where the Commonwealth historically provided firefighting services using PFAS-containing foams. The program is administered by the Commonwealth Infrastructure Department and aims to 'determine the nature and extent of PFAS contamination at airports through independently audited whole-of-site testing, and to develop robust management plans to address any identified risks'.

5.21A pilot program commenced in 2022 with testing at eight airports. The pilot supported development of a 'whole-of-site investigative approach' and a PFAS Investigation Framework. Participation in the program is voluntary, and sixteen airports are currently participating in the program.

5.22Investigation is underway at Adelaide, Bankstown, Brisbane (including the former Eagle Farm airport site), Canberra, Hobart, Launceston, Melbourne and Parafield airports, which participated in the pilot program and are now considered Tranche 1. These are scheduled to be completed beginning in mid –2026.[13]

5.23In March 2024, investigations began at Archerfield, Camden, Gold Coast, Jandakot, Moorabbin, Mount Isa and Townsville airports, considered Tranche 2 and are expected to last between two and three years. Alice Springs, Darwin, Essendon Fields, Perth and Sydney airports have declined to participate in the program but remain eligible for future investigations.[14] Planning activities are underway for future tranches, which may include the five non-participating airports as well as 16 non-federally leased airports and Avalon Airport, which is owned and leased by Defence.[15]

5.24The wider program is expected to be completed by 30 June 2027. Although the program will be used for planning of future remediation activity, the Infrastructure Department noted that '[m]anagement and remediation activities are beyond the scope for the program'.[16]

5.25Investigation has previously been carried out at Norfolk Island Airport, with investigation reports released in 2022, 2023 and 2024. The Infrastructure Department has invested $1.946 million on investigation, remediation and monitoring at Norfolk Island.[17] Remediation works appear to be primarily water filtration from the airport bore tank and the installation of 'do not drink' signs at public bathrooms, alongside ongoing monitoring.[18]

State-level management and remediation

5.26A great deal of PFAS management and remediation falls under the authority of the states; generally their environment protection authorities (EPAs). In January 2018, the Heads of EPAs Australia and New Zealand agreed to a PFAS National Environmental Management Plan (PFAS NEMP). A second version of the PFAS NEMP was published in January 2020, with a third version currently available in draft form. Notably, the draft third version includes considerably more discussion of remediation methods and strategies than the second version, reflecting the fast-changing technological landscape in this area.[19]

5.27The draft third version sets out a clear hierarchy in terms of preferred remediation technologies. The preferred option is 'separation and treatment for destruction of the PFAS contaminated materials on site', followed by 'management approaches to on-site interventions on source-receptor pathways' and, lastly, 'off-site removal to a specific landfill cell'. The PFAS NEMP notes, however, that the preferred option may not be practical or possible in all circumstances.[20]

5.28In New South Wales, the EPA leads the PFAS Investigation Program, which has completed 1100 investigations to date.[21] Fifty-one sites with significant levels of PFAS contamination have been identified,[22] and the NSW Government possesses regulatory powers through the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 to direct remediation efforts.[23] The NSW EPA described a 'collaborative approach to the management of PFAS across [state] agencies', but noted that '[t]his has not always been our experience in working with federal agencies'.[24]

5.29The Victorian EPA manages 'the disposal, reuse and management of PFAS affected materials, like soil, in line with Victoria's environment protection regulations'.[25] In addition to Defence sites located in Victoria, the Victorian EPA has identified some contamination in the Maribyrnong River catchment due to runoff from the nearby Melbourne Airport. The Victorian EPA has engaged with Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Limited relating to PFAS remediation at the Melbourne Airport site and monitors these activities.[26]

5.30The Queensland government has established a PFAS Interdepartmental Committee from representatives of various departments to monitor and oversee the response to PFAS contamination in Queensland. In addition to previously identified investigations run by Defence and Airservices, the interdepartmental committee is monitoring investigations by CS Energy, the Queensland Fire Department and Queensland Ports at various sites around the state.[27]

5.31The Western Australian Department of Water and Environmental Regulation has conducted several investigations into PFAS contamination in key areas and otherwise engages with Defence and Airservices regarding affected sites in the state.[28]

5.32The South Australian EPA assesses site contamination and regulates the disposal of PFAS-contaminated waste.[29] It has developed guidelines for the disposal of PFAS-contaminated landfill and solid waste and has undertaken industry consultation on the management of PFAS-contaminated waste.[30]

5.33The Tasmanian Government endorsed its PFAS Action Plan for Tasmania in September 2018.[31] The state EPA completed a monitoring program in 2020 that located PFAS contamination at low levels at 92 per cent of the 76 sites it surveyed and participates in the PFAS working groups for Tasmanian airports.[32]

5.34The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) government released its PFAS action plan in August 2019. The ACT EPA determines responsibility for the disposal of PFAS waste. The ACT Government is also a member of the Project Control Group for the Jervis Bay Range Facility and assists the Commonwealth Infrastructure Department in PFAS response activities as required.[33]

5.35The Northern Territory Department of Lands, Planning and Environment (the NT department) noted that, as a small jurisdiction, the Northern Territory (NT) is 'highly reliant on national policy and regulatory frameworks to provide guidance on where and how to prioritise' PFAS management and remediation efforts.[34] The NT department also noted that the lack of a thermal destruction facility in the NT means 'there is no cost-effective disposal option available', with the result that remediation requirements that may be imposed 'cannot practically be fulfilled by regulated entities, or only at prohibitive costs'.[35]

Remediation techniques and technologies

5.36There are two main technological approaches to the remediation of PFAS-contaminated sites, namely destructive and non-destructive technologies. Destructive technologies break down PFAS completely into naturally occurring molecules and negate the need for waste management, but are very expensive, and still in the early stages of development. Non-destructive technologies primarily focus on water and soil treatment and are widely available, but generate waste that needs to be managed.[36] Submitters who canvassed the different technological approaches agreed that a combination of the two approaches is required to effectively remediate PFAS contamination.[37]

5.37The CSIRO noted that '[o]ur understanding of PFAS treatment technologies and practices has significantly improved over the past 10 years', and it seems clear that this is an area of ongoing research and development and the potential for emerging technologies that may require flexible and responsive approaches to PFAS remediation.[38]

Destructive technologies

5.38Destructive technologies involve the complete removal of PFAS by breaking them down 'into small, naturally occurring molecules such as carbon dioxide, fluoride and water'. In practice, this takes the form of waste incineration, which the CSIRO noted was 'very expensive and not widely available'. The CSIRO further cautioned that, due to the emerging nature of this technology, best practices are still in development and international standards do not yet exist.[39]

5.39Professor and Head of School of Civil Engineering at the University of Sydney, Dr Stuart Khan, noted that, in addition to high cost and limited availability, '[h]igh-temperature incineration is going to produce fluorine and other by-products', and highlighted the importance of 'mak[ing] sure that we're not actually releasing further degraded or even undegraded PFAS into the atmosphere'.[40]

5.40The CSIRO advised that technologies such as biodegradation and ultraviolet-light irradiation, which have been effective for other contaminants, 'have proven ineffective or highly inefficient' as tools for PFAS remediation.[41]

5.41Water treatment company, SciDev identified granular activated carbon reactivation as a developing technology for PFAS destruction, noting its treatment as such by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in its 2024 guidance.[42]

5.42SciDev urged the prioritisation of PFAS destruction over disposal, noting that disposal in landfill 'merely relocates and concentrates the PFAS contaminant load in a new location'.[43] However, the company acknowledged that many existing hazardous waste combustion units do not currently operate at the conditions required for PFAS destruction, and that processes would need to be independently evaluated before authorisation.[44]

5.43Noting the expense, scarcity and developing nature of destructive technology, the CSIRO considered that a 'combination of non-destructive PFAS removal with subsequent PFAS destruction in the concentrated waste stream is often the most sustainable and cost-efficient approach to dealing with PFAS'.[45]

Non-destructive technologies

5.44The most well-established technologies for PFAS remediation are non-destructive. Although they do not destroy PFAS, they can 'reduce PFAS movement into the environment (for example, sealants, adsorbents) and remove PFAS to below regulatory levels (for example, water filters, resins)'.[46]

5.45Several submitters expressed concern about the waste that results from non-destructive technologies. The Australian & New Zealand Biosolids Partnership contended that '[t]here is no viable means of treating PFAS through wastewater treatment. PFAS in wastewater accumulates in biosolids…'[47] SciDev described 'a cyclic pattern wherein PFAS-containing wastes are deposited and subsequently leach PFAS, the PFAS-containing leachate is treated, and the PFAS-containing wastes from leachate treatment are placed back into the landfill'.[48]

5.46In addition to considering destructive waste incineration, the Sydney Water Corporation is investigating encapsulation technologies, where the waste is stored in a 'secured landfill' that prevents leaching.[49]

5.47The Independent review of land uses around Defence bases impacted by PFAS contamination, conducted by Mr Jim Varghese AM (the PFAS Independent Review) included a case study of soil remediation conducted at RAAF Base Richmond, using activated carbon-based amendments to reduce the leachability of PFAS in soils. The review described this technology as 'a sustainable alternative to excavation, transport and landfilling or incineration of large quantities of soil', and noted that studies have 'shown no significant degradation in effectiveness over time'.[50]

Case study: Remediation at Wreck Bay

5.48The committee visited Wreck Bay in the Jervis Bay Territory, and subsequently heard evidence from members of this small First Nations community regarding its experience with Defence's remediation efforts at the nearby Jervis Bay Range Facility and HMAS Creswell. The PFAS management and monitoring areas relating to these facilities extend to Wreck Bay village and through much of the community's traditional land, over which their ownership is recognised. The extent of Defence's management and monitoring areas are outlined in Figure 5.2, below.

Source: Department of Defence, Jervis Bay Range Facility, 8 November 2024, accessed 7 February 2025.

5.49At the Jervis Bay Range Facility, Defence remediation has been focused primarily on groundwater treatment. A temporary groundwater treatment plant was built in November 2022, treating water that flows into Mary Creek.[51] This plant has treated over 21 million litres of water since construction.[52]

5.50The plant uses ion exchange technology to remove PFAS from surface water. Defence explained that the 'removed PFAS concentrate is sent to a licenced treatment facility in Victoria for thermal destruction'. A permanent water treatment plant is planned for construction beginning in early 2025.[53]

5.51Defence has prepared a remediation action plan for the Jervis Bay Range Facility, which includes surface water and groundwater treatment, removal of contaminated soil, and diverting water around contaminated sites.[54] In its submission, Defence stated that it intends to commence these works in early 2025.[55] Figure 5.3 shows the planned remediation works as shared with the community in 2023.

Source: Department of Defence, Jervis Bay Range Facility: Community information session, February 2023, [p. 5].

5.52Defence has also conducted investigations into the Mary Creek catchment and has found:

… PFAS mainly moves off the base through surface water during wet weather events. Contaminated surface water and groundwater have also been found to be mixed in the swamps and wetlands located across the area.[56]

5.53In answers to questions on notice, Defence stated that Mary Creek continues to present PFAS contamination levels that are 'above drinking water guidelines and are often reported above recreational water guidelines'. However, the PFAS levels at the Mary Creek 'discharge points into both Mary Beach and Summercloud Bay are below the recreational use guideline'.[57]

5.54Since completing the investigations, Defence has spent $11.7 million on remediation work at HMAS Creswell and the Jervis Bay Range Facility.[58]

5.55According to Defence, the forecast expenditure for future works at the Jervis Bay Range Facility and HMAS Creswell is approximately $80 million, which 'includes currently contracted remediation works, ongoing monitoring and water treatment plant operating costs through to 2035'. Defence noted that the forecast cost is subject to change, 'based on ongoing investigations and external factors such as the cost of materials and labour'.[59]

5.56Defence operates dedicated phone lines for members of the public to make enquiries about PFAS contamination and remediation efforts at Defence sites. Defence reports that 17 phone calls have been made regarding the Jervis Bay Range Facility remediation project since 2017. Feedback provided through this phone line has included 'general dissatisfaction with Defence's PFAS management response', and complaints about 'communication approaches and methods of advertising engagement events'.[60]

5.57Ms Annette Brown, Chairperson of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council echoed this dissatisfaction with Defence's community engagement at the public hearing in Nowra:

The Commonwealth and its agencies sit silent and think that a one-page newsletter is satisfactory and that the ACT government can come down and test it every three months. No-one talks to the board. No-one comes in and tells the community, 'We've tested this, and these are the results.' They don't share that information. The agencies continue to be silent.[61]

5.58Defence has held nine community engagement sessions with the community of Wreck Bay. The most recent engagement session was held in February 2023.[62]

5.59Community members feel that information about the remediation efforts is opaque, overly technical and difficult to understand. Evidence from Wreck Bay community members also indicated a desire for greater independence of remediation programs. Mr Freeman said:

… we need an independent space that investigates. I think the Commonwealth investigating itself is problematic and it compromises the data. I don't think that we can adequately create any type of remediation if the perpetrators are talking about how to fix their own problems and don't have an independent agency that is forced to come in without it being part of or purchased by the perpetrator. In this instance, the remediation plans have been sourced and paid for by the Commonwealth, and it's internal.[63]

5.60Mr Darryn Sturgeon commented on the fact that Defence has offered ad hoc soil testing for properties in Wreck Bay, saying that his mother took up this offer. When the test results came back indicating contamination, there was no capacity for remediation. Instead, remediation was undertaken by WBACC, who 'did drainage work in the backyard'.[64]

5.61Most other Wreck Bay community members appeared unaware that free ad hoc soil testing was available to them.[65]

5.62Defence confirmed that it has received 14 ad hoc sampling requests in the Shoalhaven area and actioned 12 of these requests. The other two requests were withdrawn by the stakeholder following initial enquiries.[66]

5.63Ms Brown argued that Defence 'needs to come out from behind their fences' and engage in a meaningful way with the community:

They contaminated in the early 1990s and failed to monitor that contamination. The remediation action plan that came out of the Coffey report said that it would fix itself. Defence needed to monitor it, but they chose not to continue the testing on Wreck Bay land. So, again, Defence is allowed to continually contaminate the region.[67]

5.64Noting the lack of remediation undertaken outside Defence property, MsAnnette Brown, Chairperson of WBACC, contended:

PFAS needs to be monitored outside the boundaries of the airfield, which is a naval base, but it's not done. The Commonwealth departments don't step outside their boundaries, so we don't know how big that level of contamination is and we can't continue to monitor it unless we're resourced for it.[68]

5.65Community members repeatedly criticised poor communication and a 'culture of secrecy' from Defence relating to remediation activities around Wreck Bay, both at the committee's site visit on 20 January 2025 and at its subsequent Nowra hearing on 21 January 2025.[69] Mr Sturgeon told the committee that, in order to work in remediation at the Jervis Bay Range Facility, workers were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement.[70]

5.66During its community visit, the committee observed the signage erected at Mary Creek, noting that the signage still indicates that the area is under investigation, rather than clearly stating that the area is contaminated, potentially misleading community members as to the extent of PFAS contamination and resulting necessary precautions.[71]

5.67Despite this, Defence representatives argued that Australia is a world leader in remediation. Ms Celia Perkins stated:

My reflection would be that Australia, particularly the Australian Department of Defence, is leading the field in investigation and scientific inquiry about the nature of PFAS contamination and its remediation, and we haven't seen anything amongst NATO members. Most of our counterparts are still at the early investigation-and-monitoring phase, so I would say that—and I'm very proud of the work Defence has done here—we are leading the field in the investigation. The United States and the United States Department of Defence are important partners, and they probably lead the field in research. But Defence in Australia is ahead of our counterparts in remediation.[72]

5.68Community members expressed a desire for clearer messaging, and to take a more active role in monitoring and remediation processes. Ms Brown called for 'a committee that monitors Jervis Bay Territory and the levels of contamination that exist now and will exist in the future, and that comes up with strategies for how the community and the department deal with them'.[73]

5.69Defence, and other witnesses acknowledged that, with current technology, it is unlikely that contaminated bushland surrounding the Jervis Bay Range Facility can be completely remediated without irreparably damaging the local environment.[74] However, Defence also committed to improving communication with the community.[75]

Committee view

5.70The committee considers that the current level of engagement and communication with affected communities is insufficient. These communities understandably have limited trust towards government agencies, but are nonetheless eager to participate in and support remediation and monitoring activities. While communication must be improved, the committee urges responsible agencies to explore ways to involve communities in remediation and monitoring activities, wherever possible. This approach would also provide an opportunity to rebuild trust and goodwill where it has broken down.

5.71The committee recommends that the Department of Defence and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts work with the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council, and other relevant stakeholders, to improve signage, messaging and information provided to the community.

Current approaches

5.72Some submitters were critical of Australia's approach to remediation. At the same time government agencies indicated that this approach is evolving.

5.73The United Firefighters Union of Australia criticised the 'current patchwork' of remediation projects across the nation, submitting that they '[do] not provide the community with the reassurance that remediation is providing holistic solutions across Australia'.[76] The union called for a Commonwealth grants program to fund remediation projects across Australia, and recommended that this be funded at least partially by pursuing 'litigation against manufacturers and suppliers of firefighting foams containing PFAS'.[77]

5.74Similarly, Professor Ravi Naidu from Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (crcCARE) submitted that:

… currently, Australian policies regarding PFAS management are fragmented and lack comprehensive national standards. This inconsistency creates gaps in addressing contamination, leading to delays in effective risk communication and mitigation strategies.[78]

5.75crcCARE maintained that different government agencies involved in PFAS 'have distinct priorities and funding streams, leading to fragmentation and duplication of efforts'. The organisation argued that the absence of a national PFAS research strategy or framework 'limits the ability to identify research gaps and prioritise studies', and limited funding has led to a 'focus on short-term projects, rather than long-term strategic investments'.[79]

5.76Submitters were concerned that investigation has taken many years and remediation efforts have been limited around the nation. Field & Game Australia, whose submission focused on PFAS contamination at The Heart Morass in East Gippsland, Victoria, recommended that governments prioritise and fund effective remediation efforts', including at The Heart Morass, 'ensuring contamination is controlled and reduced over time'. In addition, it recommended governments develop 'clear timelines and communication plans to keep stakeholders informed of progress'.[80]

5.77Fire Rescue Victoria (FRV) argued that environmental regulators need to better support organisations in dealing with PFAS contamination and 'allow the trial of new treatments and solutions':

Every PFAS mitigation strategy FRV have implemented has been not only measurable and successful, but prior to implementation, the 'experts' have said our goals were impossible to achieve. The fire appliance decontamination process, the PFAS blood reduction treatment, and the fire station remediation processes focussing on immobilisation, were all deemed impossible, until we did them.[81]

5.78Mr Greg Peak recommended a 'centralised database that tracks PFAS contamination, remediation efforts, and health impacts' be established to allow communities to be 'informed about the risks they face, and the measures being taken to mitigate them'. Mr Peak also suggested improved regulatory oversight through strengthening the enforcement of environmental protection laws and 'imposing stricter penalties for non-compliance [to] serve as a deterrent against further contamination'.[82]

Outcomes of the PFAS Independent review

5.79In December 2024, the Government released the PFAS Independent Review, together with the government response to this report. The report considered RAAF Base Williamtown (NSW), Swartz Barracks (Qld) and RAAF Base Tindal (NT). Among 19 total recommendations, the review made four recommendations relating to remediation, which in some cases have wider implications for remediation, beyond Defence. The recommendations specifically concerned addressing unintended consequences of establishing PFAS management, the currency of health risk assessments, the publication advice on remediation prospects and feasibility, and a review of the objectives of the national policy.[83] The Government accepted all four of these recommendations.[84]

5.80A significant aspect of the Government's response was a commitment to establish a National Coordinating Body with Commonwealth and state ministerial oversight. The new entity will, among other things, 'engage with state/territory and local governments responsible for PFAS contamination management along with local affected communities and First Nations communities'.[85]

5.81At the committee's Nowra hearing, Defence indicated it was 'commissioning an interdepartmental committee … to start the process of establishing a membership'.[86] A trial of community engagement at Williamtown would, depending on results, be followed by similar engagements at Katherine and Oakey.[87] There was not currently any plan to establish a community engagement mechanism for the Jervis Bay Territory.

5.82In its response to the recommendation relating to a review of the national policy, the Government stated:

The Government acknowledges that the complete removal of PFAS from the environment is not possible. The fundamental goal of remediation should be to render a site acceptable and safe for long-term continuation of its existing use or proposed use. In instances where the contamination cannot be removed or eliminated, then measures should be taken to manage the exposure to land users.

The Government will work with states and territories to review approaches to the assessment of site contamination […] with a view to streamlining standards and guidance for PFAS in the environment.

Any future reviews should explicitly address the ubiquitous nature of PFAS contamination and identify the best approaches to managing low level, widespread PFAS impacts, considering the limitations and practical applications of commercially available technologies.[88]

Footnotes

[1]Department of Defence, Submission 66, [p. 4].

[2]Department of Defence, PFAS Investigation and Management Program Snapshot, October 2024.

[3]Department of Defence, Submission 66, [p. 6].

[4]Department of Defence, Submission 66, [p. 6].

[5]Ms Celia Perkins, Acting Associate Secretary, Department of Defence, Committee Hansard, 21January 2025, p. 39.

[6]See Department of Defence, PFAS management sites (accessed 23 January 2025).

[7]Department of Defence, Submission 66, [p. 6].

[8]Mr Jim Varghese AM, Independent review of land uses around key Defence bases impacted by PFAS contamination, March 2024, p. 54.

[9]Airservices Australia, Submission 69, p. 7.

[10]Airservices Australia, Submission 69, p. 8.

[11]Airservices Australia, Annual Report 2023–24, p. 103.

[12]Airservices Australia, Submission 69, pp. 11–12.

[13]Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, Submission 2, p. 4.

[14]DITRDCA, Submission 2, p. 4.

[15]DITRDCA, Submission 2, p. 4.

[16]DITRDCA, Submission 2, p. 5.

[17]DITRDCA, Submission 2, p. 5.

[18]DITRDCA, Submission 2, p. 5.

[19]National Chemicals Working Group of the Heads of EPAs Australia and New Zealand, PFAS National Environmental Management Plan – Version 2.0, January 2020, pp. 67–69; National Chemicals Working Group of the Heads of EPAs Australia and New Zealand, Draft PFAS National Environmental Management Plan – Version 3.0, 2022, pp. 85–91.

[20]National Chemicals Working Group of the Heads of EPAs Australia and New Zealand, Draft PFAS National Environmental Management Plan – Version 3.0, 2022, pp. 89–90.

[21]NSW Premier's Department, Submission 20, p. 9.

[22]NSW Premier's Department, Submission 20, p. 10.

[23]NSW Premier's Department, Submission 20, p. 11.

[24]Mr Tony Chappel, Chief Executive Officer, Environmental Protection Authority, New South Wales, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 30.

[25]Environment Protection Authority Victoria, PFAS and EPA's role, 30 May 2023 (accessed 30 January 2025).

[26]Environment Protection Authority Victoria, Maribyrnong River: Risk assessment with consumption of recreationally caught fish, 25 July 2024 (accessed 30 January 2025).

[27]Queensland Government, PFAS site investigations, 23 September 2024 (accessed 30 January 2025).

[28]Western Australian Government, PFAS investigations in Western Australia, 16 August 2023 (accessed 30 January 2025).

[29]Environment Protection Authority South Australia, Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), 30April 2024 (accessed 30 January 2025).

[30]Environment Protection Authority South Australia, Guidance for managing PFAS in SA, 10 January 2025 (accessed 30 January 2025).

[31]Tasmanian Government, Submission 73, [p. 1].

[32]Tasmanian Government, Submission 73, [p. 2].

[33]ACT Government, PFAS action plan: Australian Capital Territory, August 2019.

[34]Northern Territory Department of Lands, Planning and Environment, Submission 68, p. 2.

[35]Northern Territory Department of Lands, Planning and Environment, Submission 68, p. 5.

[36]CSIRO, Submission 22, p. 13.

[37]CSIRO, Submission 22, p. 13; SciDev, Submission 41, p. 15; United Firefighters Union of Australia, Submission 104, p. 5.

[38]CSIRO, Submission 22, p. 12.

[39]CSIRO, Submission 22, p. 13.

[40]Dr Stuart Khan, Professor and Head of School, School of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, pp. 13–14.

[41]CSIRO, Submission 22, p. 12.

[42]SciDev, Submission 41, pp. 16–17.

[43]SciDev, Submission 41, p. 16.

[44]SciDev, Submission 41, p. 17.

[45]CSIRO, Submission 22, p. 13.

[46]CSIRO, Submission 22, p. 12.

[47]Australian & New Zealand Biosolids Partnership, Submission 53, [p. 5].

[48]SciDev, Submission 41, p. 16.

[49]Mr Paul Plowman, Executive General Manager, Water and Environment Services, Sydney Water Corporation, Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 25.

[50]Mr Jim Varghese AM, Independent review of land uses around key Defence bases impacted by PFAS contamination, March 2024, p. 47.

[51]Department of Defence, Jervis Bay Range Facility, 8 November 2024, accessed 3 February 2025.

[52]Department of Defence, Submission 66, [p. 8].

[53]Ms Celia Perkins, Acting Associate Secretary, Department of Defence, Committee Hansard, 21January 2025, p. 39; Department of Defence, response to questions on notice, public hearing 21 January 2025 (received 11 February 2025), [p. 1].

[54]Department of Defence, Jervis Bay Range Facility, 8 November 2024 (accessed 3 February 2025).

[55]Department of Defence, Submission 66, [p. 8].

[56]Department of Defence, Jervis Bay Range Facility, 8 November 2024, accessed 3 February 2025.

[57]Department of Defence, response to written questions on notice from Senator Thorpe (received 17 February 2025), [pp. 3–4].

[58]Ms Celia Perkins, Acting Associate Secretary, Department of Defence, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 46.

[59]Department of Defence, responses to questions taken on notice, public hearing 21 January 2025 (received 11 February 2025), [p. 59].

[60]Department of Defence, responses to questions taken on notice, public hearing 21 January 2025 (received 11 February 2025), [p. 6].

[61]Ms Annette Brown, Chairperson, Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 15.

[62]Department of Defence, Submission 66, [p. 8].

[63]Mr Clive Freeman, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 6.

[64]Mr Darryn Sturgeon, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 13.

[65]Committee Hansard, 22 January 2025, p. 13.

[66]Department of Defence, responses to questions taken on notice, public hearing 21 January 2025 (received 11 February 2025), [p. 4].

[67]Ms Annette Brown, Chairperson, Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 15.

[68]Ms Annette Brown, Chairperson, Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 3. See also Mr Darryn Sturgeon, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 10.

[69]See, for example: Ms Maxine Brown, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 2; Ms Annette Brown, Chairperson, Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, pp.3, 11, 15; Mr Clive Freeman, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, pp. 6, 8; Ms Donya Whaddy, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 5.

[70]Mr Darryn Sturgeon, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 10.

[71]See Appendix 2.

[72]Ms Celia Perkins, Acting Associate Secretary, Department of Defence, Committee Hansard, 21January 2025, p. 40.

[73]Ms Annette Brown, Chairperson, Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 14. See also Mr Clive Freeman, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 13.

[74]Dr David Goldberg, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 21.

[75]Ms Celia Perkins, Acting Associate Secretary, Department of Defence, Committee Hansard, 21January 2025, p. 46.

[76]United Firefighters Union of Australia, Submission 104, p. 6.

[77]United Firefighters Union of Australia, Submission 104, p. 6.

[78]crcCARE, Submission 36, p. 2.

[79]crcCARE, Submission 36, p. 9.

[80]Field & Game Australia, Submission 52, [p. 3].

[81]Fire Rescue Victoria, Submission 9, [pp. 3–4].

[82]Greg Peak, Submission 5, [p. 2].

[83]Mr Jim Varghese AM, Independent review of land uses around key Defence bases impacted by PFAS contamination, March 2024, pp. 11–12, 42–49.

[84]Australian Government, Government response to the Independent review of land uses around Defence bases impacted by PFAS contamination, December 2024, [pp. 7–9].

[85]Australian Government, Government response to the Independent review of land uses around Defence bases impacted by PFAS contamination, December 2024, [p. 4].

[86]Ms Celia Perkins, Acting Associate Secretary, Department of Defence, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 43.

[87]Ms Celia Perkins, Acting Associate Secretary, Department of Defence, Committee Hansard, 21 January 2025, p. 44.

[88]Australian Government, Government response to the Independent review of land uses around Defence bases impacted by PFAS contamination, December 2024, [p. 9].