The Secretary Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee PO Box 6100 Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Sent by Email to: [email protected] CONTAMINATION OF AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE FACILITIES FROM THE USE OF FIRE FIGHTING FOAMS Attached is my submission to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the above referred matter. My submission only addresses the contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown and the surrounding areas. Yours faithfully John Donahoo FIE(Aust) MEDOWIE NSW 2318 14 December 2015 Attachment: Submission by John Donahoo SUBMISSION BY JOHN DONAHOO CONTAMINATION OF RAAF BASE WILLIAMTOWN AND SURROUNDING AREAS BY AQUEOUS FILM FORMING FOAM (AFFF) Introduction If a natural disaster occurred in some faraway land that many Australians have never heard about, our Federal Government would be the first to chip in ten or twenty million dollars in relief funding. However, a situation has arisen where a Commonwealth made disaster has occurred here in our own backyard, and both our Federal and State Governments have yet to grab this problem by the throat and properly look after their own people. In the past, the Federal Government has been quick to criticise insurance companies for being slow to approve insurance claims after natural disasters. In this case, as the Commonwealth carries its own insurance, and as they are clearly liable for compensation, then they should heed their own advice and commence negotiating properly and expeditiously with all affected landowners and leaseholders. Normally a running commentary is not provided by government agencies when they are dealing with a problem. However, in this case where a very difficult problem has arisen, that is exactly what they should have done, and should be now doing. This way they take the people with them and seek out ideas and explain what may or may not work for environmental remediation of contaminated soil, groundwater and surface water. Defence Obsfuscation and One-Liners Obfuscation is defined as the obscuring of intended meaning in communication, making the message confusing, willfully ambiguous, or harder to understand. The people of lower Port Stephens have been subject to considerable obfuscation by Defence to date and examples include the following: a. Several years ago in response to a question at a community meeting, Defence advised that the Williamtown runway would not be extended to the northwest (This would drag ANEF lines closer to Raymond Terrace). At the next meeting they advised that such a proposal was now one option of many to be considered. The maximum possible runway extension to the northwest is now being constructed. b. The draft JSF EIS canvassed the option of extending the runway to the southeast as requested by the community and a map was provided in that document that showed that there would be little or no reduction to ANEFs over Raymond Terrace with that option. Clearly, moving the runway implied moving the Instrument Landing System (ILS) glide slope by the same distance because the glide slope location was the cause of the high ANEFs over Raymond Terrace. The only way the associated ANEF map that supported the above conclusion could have been produced was to assume the ILS glide slope remained in its current location. c. On November 17, 2015 the Newcastle Herald reported that a Defence Assistant Secretary when asked whether Defence was working to remove contaminated sediment from the base that was contaminating the run-off, said: ‘‘I do not believe we can because it is an operational air force base’’. This is an example of a Defence ‘one liner’ which is just not a credible statement and moreover, no reasons were provided for the statement. Moreover, Method of Work Plans (MOWP) are regularly prepared to enable extensive upgrade works to be performed at military airfields and civil airports throughout Australia, and there is no reason why such an MOWP could not be prepared for contamination works at Williamtown. The current runway extension works is a prime example. d. On October 26, the Newcastle Herald reported the following: “THE Department of Defence repeatedly withheld damning information about the contamination threat posed by Williamtown RAAF base during its bid to have more than $1 billion worth of upgrade works approved. Documents obtained by the Newcastle Herald reveal Defence failed to disclose the chemical threat to three separate inquiries undertaken since 2014 by Federal Parliament’s standing committee on public works. It was also left out of the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the F-35A Joint Strike Fighters to be based at Williamtown from 2018. The federal Department of Environment approved the introduction of the jets in July and the contamination was made public in September.Toxic chemicals from the old fire-fighting foam were detected in surface and groundwater on and off the base in 2012. Federal Newcastle MP and public works standing committee member Sharon Claydon said Defence ‘‘absolutely’’ had an obligation to disclose the contamination spread. She said it was crucial given the committee’s job of deliberating on the nationally-significant upgrade projects, worth more than $1.5 billion, for the introduction of the jets across numerous sites. ‘‘The committee is relying upon the evidence put before it and assuming that is in good faith,’’ she said. ‘‘When you find out otherwise there are questions to be asked.’’ Public works worth more than $15 million must be referred to the standing committee. In all three inquiries, the contamination was not detailed in Defence’s lengthy submissions, instead glossed over in one line. Ms Claydon said she felt ‘‘extreme disappointment’’ at the ‘‘very cursory reference’’. ‘‘That clearly needs to be front and centre of considerations of all contemporary and future works [at the base],’’ she said. The NSW Environment Protection Authority, which has no power over Defence land, said plans to install a 10,000 litre underground diesel tank at Williamtown was of ‘‘particular interest’’. An EPA spokeswoman confirmed it was ‘‘aware” of the potential for the works to cause “further offsite impacts’’ and had ‘‘requested’’ an inspection. Defence staff will be grilled about the contamination at another standing committee hearing in Canberra on Friday. Former Williamtown base commander John Donahoo said Defence's silence in the strike fighter EIS about the chemical spread amounted to "trying to pull the wool over the community's eyes". A spokeswoman for the Department of Environment said the flying operations of the jets would have no impact on water. Concerns aired over JSF upgrade works RESIDENTS want major upgrade works at Williamtown RAAF Base stopped until the contamination threat is “properly examined”. Williamtown and Surrounds Residents Action Group head Cain Gorfine said major earthworks were taking place on a heavily contaminated site, which was a serious concern for neighbours. “They are digging right in the heart of the contamination zone and there is no regulatory body overseeing it,” he said. “We have no confidence that Defence, as the polluter, is doing the right thing.” Detailed Defence submissions to three inquiries held by Federal Parliament’s standing committee on public works reveal the contamination was revealed as a one-line item on each occasion. The first inquiry, held in 2014, examined the proposed facilities for the new Joint Strike Fighter jets. It was told that ‘‘low levels of sub-surface contaminants have been identified in the area of the proposed F-35A Operational Precinct’’. The second inquiry, which endorsed a $274 million upgrade at Williamtown, was advised that changes to stormwater drains would provide ‘‘environmental best practice in relation to... Aqueous Film Forming Foam discharge management’’. The third and current inquiry, into a $409 million upgrade of air traffic systems and infrastructure at multiple bases, was told in September of ‘‘potential contamination’’ from the foam at RAAF bases Darwin, Townsville, Amberley, Williamtown, Pearce, at RAAF Gingin and the Army Aviation Centre at Oakey. This advice was given the same month NSW agencies banned recreation and commercial fishing at Tilligerry Creek and Fullerton Cove and warned residents living near the base to stop drinking bore water.” e. Leonard O'Connell's rural property at Nelson Bay Road, Salt Ash has been subject to inundation by floodwaters from Moors drain since about 1990. He believes that this has been caused by the progressive development at RAAF Base Williamtown since 1940. His situation could be exacerbated by further proposed base development. To assess the drainage problems at Williamtown, Defence were requested last August via a submission to the Parliamentary Works Committee (PWC) to undertake a hydrology study to determine if augmentation of drainage is required as a result of existing and proposed development at RAAF Base Williamtown. The Defence one line response contained in the PWC report was that the Stage 2 Base Redevelopment did not increase the drainage flow from the base. Well that may be so as that project does not include the extensive aircraft pavement works as they are part of a separate project, but a responsible neighbour would properly address the issue raised and not just fob people off. More likely than not, Base development since 1940 has increased the drainage volumetric flow rate and the total volume of water discharged into Moors Drain and this could be the reason for frequent flooding at Leonard’s family property. f. The F-35A EIS process was a disappointment, as many issues raised were not addressed. Defence are spending money to reduce noise to their personnel but are reluctant to spend money to reduce noise off base. Much of the proposed Defence Development costing hundreds of millions of dollars moves the existing working accommodation to the north away from future F-35A aircraft noise. However, Defence seems not prepared to spend any money to reduce noise to local residents.