TRISH MCLUCKIE AND MARTIN VITIELL0 OWNERS AND RESIDENTS – WILLIAMTOWN

Martin and I would like to provide the following information in relation to the senate enquiry of the Williamtown RAAF contamination of the local area. We are new residents in this area however have significant concerns for our own health, finances and ongoing lifestyle following the release of this contamination issue. We also have other concerns in relation to the lack of accurate information provided to residents.

Trish McLuckie – 51 years Employment –Last 8 years managing escalated enquiries and complaints. With ongoing health issues of stress, anxiety, high blood pressure and an auto-immune disorder I decided to commence half pay LSL to investigate an opportunity for self-employment in June 2015. I have now made a decision to resign at end of my paid leave as I feel I am unable to return to my normal job (even part- time) - the Defence contamination issue being within Tomago sand bed area would be, for me, be a substantial conflict of interest in my normal role as 'investigations coordinator' with HWC. Health - ongoing episodes (over 30 years) of non-specific auto immune disorder including rheumatoid arthritis, ITP and Graves' disease (thyroid disease). Diagnosis of ulcerated oesophagus in 2014. Flare ups of auto immune managed with prednisolone or plaquenil. Family – Partner of 10 years Martin Vitiello - 3 grown sons - 29, 26 and 21 all living within Hunter area. Youngest son diagnosed with Testicular Cancer in May 2012. No grandchildren.

Martin Vitiello – 55 years

Employment – Dept of School Education (Brisbane Water Secondary College – Umina Campus) General Assistant - since 1997. Moved to Newcastle in 2009 and applied for transfer to Newcastle area to reduce commute. 2013 & 2014 Martin needed to seek assistance from Union and senior School directors in relation to bullying by Executive school staff and the micro-management of his work tasks. He continues to commute daily (85 to 90 mins each way) to the Central Coast each day however has recently been advised he has successfully been transferred to Glendale High School commencing Term 1 2016. Health – Currently on medication for high blood pressure and high cholesterol. Family - 3 grown children – all living in South East Qld. 1 Grandchild – 4 months old.

2014 – Martin and I sought opportunities to remove themselves from our respective stressful working environments. We were renting a home in Lambton at this time. We liaised with in relation to establishing a small home based business looking after dogs in a family home environment. We found the perfect location with small acreage close to the airport and away from other homes. It would provide large flat grassed areas and had an existing large shed that could be modified so dogs could have a comfortable home away from home.

An application was made to Council prior to the purchase of this property - this involved obtaining a zoning & compliance certificate and confirmed this type of business could operate in this area. No additional information was supplied by Council in relation to the property that would have prevented us from purchasing this property – it confirmed it to be the ideal property and location to enable dogs to have short or long term stays in our home environment. In addition to this we also applied for a 149 (2) & (5) certificate to ensure that we would be up to date with any other nearby applications. This Certificate did not provide us with applications that would be applicable to our purchase - 1) that Defence would be amending the stormwater drainage and the impact this will have on our land 2) that the water exiting the base was contaminated.

After purchasing the property in July 2014 we met several times with Council and lodged an Application for our home business in late 2014. We were then asked to attend a meeting with the Planning Team and on that day our joint plans for self-employment ceased. The wastewater specialist at the Council (Andrew Weekes) told us that the land we have purchased is adjacent to Tilligerry Creek and has natural drainage to Tilligerry Creek – Council therefore cannot approve a dog minding facility unless we erect a concrete floored purpose built building and ensured that the dogs’ urine and faeces drained to a purpose built wastewater facility. The dogs were unable to run freely over the 12 acres here as their urine and faeces would ‘contaminate’ the high water table here and end up in Tilligerry Creek.

I saw from the front page of that this very same Council officer – Andrew Weekes – was, along with Paul Minette the recipient of the email from the RAAF to Port Stephens Council in 2012 informing Council of the contamination of the Williamtown area outside of the RAAF base. Council therefore has knowledge, when we applied to Council in 2014, that the waterways were contaminated with toxins but instead expressed grave concerns to us that our small home based business would somehow significantly impact this same groundwater and creek water.

Knowing our health and long term wellbeing could only be managed by ourselves, a decision was then made that I would do some training as a dog groomer and that I could complete this training whilst taking a break from my job. Martin also took some leave from his job. This time allowed me to decide if I wanted to return to work in any (possibly part-time) capacity. Once I started my new business and was able to see the potential for an income (albeit it half of my regular wage) Martin and I decided that I could follow this path and manage with the decreased income if we reduced our mortgage. We had taken on a significant mortgage for our new home but it was a large block and it was purchased for both of us as a lifestyle change and the self-employment business purpose – we then found ourselves with a large mortgage, a large area to maintain, no home based business opportunity and even less time to spend at the property.

We therefore decided to sell our property and move to a smaller more manageable yard and have manageable mortgage repayments – Martin was still travelling to Umina daily and spending weekends or afternoons mowing our acreage. The significant travel times and his stress levels at work continued to impact his wellbeing.

We set about getting appraisals from local Real Estate Agents, we re-engaged with our mortgage broker and we applied to the conveyancer for a Contract of Sale in preparation for the sale our home. Our mortgage broker advised that I would need to have the sale and new purchase approved and completed by our bank prior to me resigning as the banks will not approve a home loan for a newly established self-employed applicant.

It was at this time that we were shocked to see in the news that our home and land was in an area zoned to be contaminated by the local Defence base 4 or 5 klms down the road – it is now worthless. We now have a home where our family and friends have concerns for our health and wellbeing; they are concerned about their own health being impacted by visiting us – in particular the parents of our 4 month old grandson; my son is recovering from testicular cancer and I do not want him here exposed to further cancer causing toxins; we no longer take walks down through the contaminated property to Tilligerry Creek, we don’t want our dogs running through the contaminated watercourse there anymore, the soil in our house yard has been tested and is contaminated. Our outdoors lifestyle no longer exists here. Our daily routines are impacted by the news reports, the disregard by Defence for our personal property and health, our stress and anxiety levels are increasing substantially even though we continue to actively try to remove ourselves from these very situations.

In light of the above Martin and I would like to provide the following information to address the terms of reference for the inquiry: by 4 February 2016 on PFOS and PFOA contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown and Australian Defence Force facilities, with reference to: what contamination has occurred to the water, soil and any other natural or human made structures in the RAAF Base Williamtown and the surrounding environs,

Our property was purchased in July 2014 – 2396 Nelson Bay Rd Williamtown. It is 12.5 acres – the front western boundary being Nelson Bay Rd; the southern Boundary is a creek on our property extending from Moores drain on the western side of Nelson Bay Rd under Nelson Bay Rd and downstream to Tilligerry Creek which is our eastern boundary.

Our private property is contaminated: – Bore water, surface water, creek water and soil – testing, undertaken at our own expense by ALS, has confirmed the presence of pfos & pfoa in each of these samples; - Bore water – Defence funded testing has also confirmed presence in their samples - Cattle, dogs and chicken – no testing completed but all have had unlimited access to surface water, creek water and/or bore water The Hunter Water Supply – the supply from Tomago sand beds has been distributed throughout the Hunter Water area up until the news of the contamination broke to the media. I heard that HWC started testing in 2012 but we now know the chemicals were actually in the surface and groundwater around the RAAF base prior to that

Did the HWC owned subsidiary Hunter Water Australia have this testing available to them before they sold Hunter Water Aust lab to ALS in late 2013?

As the contaminants take up to 8 years to leave the body if human blood testing was done im sure it would still be evident high readings for water drinkers would be widespread! I believe that many people in the Newcastle area would have some level of these chemicals in their blood and that is why they dont want blood tests to be made available.

When I took our samples in to ALS at Warabrook they advised me the testing would take over a week – they advised the samples needed to be sent to another ALS Lab in Brisbane. My concerns are if Hunter Water did actually engage an outside company to complete the testing when they owned HWA in Warabrook or did they actually perform the tests? Water coming from the sandbeds is an ongoing supply - how would they send water samples away on each ‘batch’ of water coming from the sandbeds for independent testing - we know that the chemical does travel in water, and that the concentrations are higher in some tests than others, so how can they be 100% sure it wasnt in the drinking water supply if they didn’t batch the water, then test the batch, then distribute the collected batch after it had been held for a week while the test results for that batch are received? I understand the testing procedure is quite specific – why would they have tested for it 5 years ago when they didn’t know it was there. When they started testing for it in 2012 (after being notified by Defence) what were the results? Can HWC provide the Enquiry with proof of testing? How were they able to test each sample or batch?

the response of, and coordination between, the Commonwealth Government, including the Department of Defence and RAAF Base Williamtown management, and authorities to PFOS/PFOA contamination, including when base employees, local residents and businesses, Port Stephens and Newcastle City Councils, and the New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were informed of the contamination.

A former RAAF employee and chemist, mentioned to my parents that he was involved in the clean- up of prohibited chemicals from firefighting at Williamtown over 30 years ago and that RAAF personnel were aware that fire fighting chemicals were dangerous. Unfortunately he has been quite unwell since he was diagnosed with prostrate cancer several years.

At the time our property at 2396 Nelson Bay Rd was purchased in July 2014 – Defence and EPA and Council were all aware of the contaminants leaving the base. All these bodies are to be held accountable for withholding important information in relation to living on contaminated land and accessing contaminated water. I wrote to PSC on 28 May 2015 and 30 Sept 2015 in relation to the overflowing creek adjacent to our property (that enters Tilligerry Creek at our back eastern boundary). The letter on 30 Sept sent to Council as an urgent complaint upon hearing of the contamination exiting the base via Moores drain and knowing that it was this drain that was flooding the property across the road and therefore our property. Within days of my letter to Council the water in the adjacent creek subsided and it has not been filled again since – it is now a muddy culvert – as it was between rain events until April or May this year. I did receive a written response from Council indicating that 1) I could speak to the stormwater team at the Council for guidance on stormwater issues at my property, and 2) that they were unaware of the property being contaminated when we purchased it last year so they couldn’t tell us, and 3) that they have no jurisdiction over the approval of the Defence application to modify the Williamtown RAAF property or stormwater. However if had Council maintained Moores drain the increased stormwater runoff would have continued to successfully move into Tillegerry without flooding (and therefore contaminating) our properties. Ironically the local mayor visited our property and suggested that we clean out our drain – and gave me the name of a local excavator operator. He also confirmed that there are flood gates further down Tilligerry Creek (that apparently are always maintained) and these were not the cause of the water on our property failing to adequately drain from our property. He did not want to come and see for himself where our creek adequately drained into the tidal Tilligerry Creek and he did not have an explanation why the water drained away from our property within days of my letter being sent to Council after the Herald wrote of the flood water being contaminated. the adequacy of consultation and coordination between the Commonwealth Government, the New South Wales Government, Port Stephens and Newcastle City Council, the Department of Defence and Australian Defence Force, affected local communities and businesses, and other interested stakeholders,

We read of the ‘red zone’ in the Newcastle Herald. Our property was still inundated with water from April and May 2015 however didn’t think that the ‘bore’ water issue could be related to our ‘surface water’ issue. Then we saw our neighbours on the front page of the Herald and recognised that this water at our home originated from the same source as theirs. I would not call this ‘consultation’ but rather total negligence and disrespect for families, businesses and the environment. whether appropriate measures have been taken to ensure the health, wellbeing and safety of Australian military and civilian personnel at RAAF Base Williamtown,

the adequacy of Commonwealth and state and territory government environmental and human health standards and legislation, with specific reference to PFOS/PFOA contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown,

There has been extensive research and investigation completed worldwide in relation to these chemicals and the impacts they can have on health. 1) Why did Australian authorities not ensure that these chemicals were removed and/or banned when the rest of the world did 2) why are we continually told that Defence and Health are investigating the use of the chemicals – the information/results are already there in front of us on the internet – Defence and Health don’t need to spend months and/or years doing studies - they need to accept the guidance from the rest of the worlds experts and look after our health and livelihood now. We have been advised that blood tests are not available and that they will not show any likelihood of health impacts. We personally have paid over $1000 to have our soil tested and creek water tested and surface water tested and bore water tested – these all confirmed levels of contamination at our property. Defence refused to do surface water testing (the water our cattle drank and our dogs drank and played in for many months, they refused to test the creek water (even though it was sitting and covering our property for over 4 months without any flow) and they refused to do soil testing (even though we are walking on this grass with our dogs every day at our back door – our chickens are no longer free range – they are given tank water and purchased grain food and all their eggs are collected and binned); they did test one bore and visited our home to tell us the contamination level was above the drinking water recommended guidelines so don’t drink it. We showed them where the water was flooding our house yard and asked if they could test the soil under these circumstances for us however the professor here at the time confirmed that the contaminants could not be harmful by skin exposure only by consuming it orally. Approx 4 weeks ago we received a call from Defence advising that they will not be performing the soil testing on our behalf and just after that we received a call from Defence asking us did we want bottled water delivered to our home. the adequacy of health advice and testing of defence and civilian personnel and members of the public exposed, or potentially exposed, to PFOS/PFOA in and around RAAF Base Williamtown,

No testing is available – I hope that this enquiry will investigate this course of events – 1. GP’s in the area were informed by Health not to make testing available to Williamtown residents ( our GP has confirmed they have received written notification from Health) 2. When a blood test was requested by me and my blood was taken by Laverty Pathology King St Newcastle, I was later told via secretary at GP that Laverty were informed by Health that they ‘are no longer able to make testing available’. Has this screening or testing ever been done in NSW (or Australia) and if yes at what point did Health make the decision to write to GP’s to discourage testing availability and then inform blood collection laboratories that testing was not to be made available. If the tests were never available why would Health need to tell the GP not to order the testing, how would the GP have ordered the tests and why did Laverty take the blood samples from me? what progress has been made on remediation works at RAAF Base Williamtown, and the adequacy of measures to control further contamination, what consideration has been undertaken of financial impacts and assistance to affected business and individuals,

We have read in the papers that compensation has been offered to fishermen who have not had access to their regular fishing income.

No-one has contacted us in relation to the impacts we are experiencing.

any other related matters; and

We want to leave this contaminated property asap.

We paid for our own testing – Defence therefore cannot tell us we are free from the contamination and not to worry as its safe here.

Defence have covered up the risks to their own personnel all these years; they now continue to expose their own employees, contractors and local residents to the contamination and expect everyone to sit back and relax and hope it all goes away.

We are expecting the Commonwealth Department of Defence to provide us with the opportunity to relocate to an area outside of the contamination zone, to provide regular screening for all known PFOS & PFOA health related issues and to manage health costs incurred should any health issues arise as a result of the failure of Defence to contain the contaminants in accordance with international and Defence guidelines.

a. by 30 April 2016 on PFOS and PFOA contamination on other Commonwealth, state and territory sites in Australia where firefighting foams containing PFOS and PFOA were used, with reference to: i. what Commonwealth, state and territory facilities have been identified as having PFOS/PFOA contamination, and what facilities may potentially still be identified as being contaminated, ii. the response of, and coordination between, the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, local governments, commercial entities and affected local communities, iii. what measures have been taken by the Commonwealth and state and territory governments, to ensure the health, wellbeing and safety of people in close proximity to known affected sites, iv. the adequacy of public disclosure of information about PFOS/PFOA contamination, v. what consideration has been undertaken of financial impacts on affected businesses and individuals, vi. the adequacy of Commonwealth and state and territory government environmental and human health standards and legislation, with specific reference to PFOS/PFOA contamination, vii. what progress has been made on the remediation and the adequacy of measures to control further PFOS/PFOA contamination at affected Commonwealth, state and territory sites, viii. what investigation and assessment of contaminated sites and surrounding areas has occurred, and ix. any other related matters.