Elevated levels of toxic firefighting foam chemical found at Tamworth Airport
By Kerrin Thomas
It is feared groundwater near the Tamworth airport in northern NSW has been contaminated with a toxic compound found in a firefighting foam used at the site.
If people living in a small area north of the airport are drinking groundwater they have been instructed to stop while testing is undertaken and bottled water will be provided.
The warning comes after elevated levels of perfluorinated compounds, more commonly referred to as PFAS, used in a firefighting foam, were found at the airport.
Tamworth Regional Council was alerted in March by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), to the potential for contamination of the airport grounds.
It is the same substance identified in groundwater and surface water in areas surrounding RAAF bases including Williamtown, near Newcastle and Oakey, in Queensland.
The EPA said the risk for potential exposure to the surrounding area appeared to be low in this case, but said further off-site testing is needed to confirm this.
It has ordered Tamworth Regional Council to prioritise comprehensive sampling of soil, groundwater, surface water and drainage lines onsite, and offsite where required.
Council notifies landholders, starts off-site testing
Council this week delivered a letter to landholders north of the airport, which may be affected by PFAS contamination.
Council’s general manager, Paul Bennett, said the contamination could have moved north across to an industrial area.
“We’re certainly not saying it has — that’s just the general flow of any groundwater.”
Landholders are being asked to answer a questionnaire about their access to water, including the use of surface or groundwater.
Of the 127 privately owned properties in the area, 17 of those are not connected to reticulated town water.
Council advises people drinking groundwater to stop and said bottled water would be provided.
Residents with access to groundwater will be given the option to have it tested.
“The testing is going to commence next week and that should allow us to get results back before Christmas,” Mr Bennett said.
“Those people who do use groundwater, we’ll be focusing on them first.”
Mr Bennett has defended the seven months it took to inform residents, saying council has been guided by the EPA.
“They asked council to conduct some tests on our airport and given the lack of information that we have about this particular chemical, we’ve gone through a process where we’ve met all the requirements the EPA asked us to do, and provided them with constant feedback and they’ve told us the next step, the next step, the next step,” he said.
“They’ve taken largely control of all of the communications because they understand the council doesn’t have any great information about this chemical anyway.
“I guess the question was ‘what were we going to tell people?’ We still don’t really understand what the implications of this potential spill are and whether it’s even outside of the airport,” he said.
“If it’s contained within the airport, there is no issue.”
He stressed the lack of information about the dangers of PFAS.
“Nobody understands how this chemical behaves and what it does or how much has to be consumed, or anything like that,” he said.
Council to seek help in covering costs of investigations
It is not clear what organisation is responsible for the contamination — from the establishment of the airport in 1956 until the withdrawal of jet services in 1993, various Commonwealth Authorities held responsibility for providing firefighting services.
Since that time, Fire and Rescue NSW has been primarily responsible for providing firefighting services at the airport.
Tamworth Regional Council does not believe it should be responsible for leading the investigation, but as the owner of the airport the local government authority has been ordered to take the lead.
“Tamworth Regional Council owns the site but did not conduct the historical activities that caused the contamination,” a statement from the EPA said.
“The EPA is encouraged to see council taking a proactive approach to the issue and notes that detailed investigations will help to provide meaningful results to the community about any contamination in their area.”
A report to go to council next Tuesday recommends asking the Federal Government for reimbursement.
Council has already spent more than $75,000 and councillors will be asked to allocate $150,000 to cover spending to date and into the future.
“The question being asked of the council is what sort of approach do we make to the Federal Government to say ‘we’re not responsible for this,’ and what is the Federal Government going to do to respond,” Mr Bennett said.
“We’re not doing this voluntarily, we’re certainly not spending the community’s money voluntarily cleaning up somebody else’s mess.
“Certainly now we have an order, we will put that order in front of the local member… and hopefully we’ll get a positive response out of that.”