Transcript - Interview with ABC Four Corners regarding PFAS investigations

Deputy Secretary for Defence Estate and Infrastructure, Steve Grzeskowiak 

ABC Four Corners, Linton Besser

RAAF Williamtown, NSW

Interview conducted 4 October 2017

LINTON BESSER:

Steve, can I ask you to tell me your name and your title first?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

So, Steve Grzeskowiak, Deputy Secretary for Estate and Infrastructure in the Department of Defence.

LINTON BESSER:

How did Defence let this happen?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

So this is a legacy issue. It goes back to the 1970s. At that time, there was a fire-fighting foam product made by the 3M Company called Lightwater, and Defence and many other organisations that had a need to extinguish fuel-based fires used that product and others like it for putting out fires. The products were deemed to be environmentally safe and safe for people at that time – certainly the manufacturers said they were safe – and so the people that used them over years, over decades – for training in the main – had no idea or conception that by putting those products into the soil, that they would still be there many decades later and that they would migrate through the environment.

So that’s the nature of this issue. It’s been a slowly emerging issue over quite a long time. Defence is probably at the leading edge in Australia in terms of activities to try and understand where these chemicals are in the environment in terms of the investigations that we’re running here at Williamtown and at other places in the country. We’re also at the leading edge in this country in terms of trying to understand techniques for cleaning up these chemicals.

The chemicals we now know are very persistent in the environment and they’re very difficult to break down. So here at Williamtown and at Oakey and at Tindal now, we’re starting to clean water using a range of filtration techniques, and we’re starting to dig away some surface soil and drains to remove the PFAS that’s contaminated those soils over the years, and stockpile that so it can be looked at later on in terms of how do you actually then clean the soil. So it’s really- you’re aware that the nature of these chemicals back when they were used really wasn’t understood by anybody that was using them.

LINTON BESSER:

Has Defence been upfront with the people of Williamtown and Katherine and Oakey about the PFAS contamination caused by Defence?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

So we’ve committed to being open and transparent with the communities that we deal with. We consider ourselves to be part of the communities. Defence bases have usually been in place for a long time; many Defence people that work at these bases live in the local communities; we’ll still be here in a long time. So we’ve committed to be open and transparent with the communities. We’re running a lot of community information sessions. All of the information that we produce from our environmental analysis is published and briefed back to the community. We have appointed people to be liaison officers, specifically at areas where we’re running investigations, to try and ensure that we can engage with the community. For example, here at Williamtown the community reference group, which is run by the New South Wales Government, Defence always attends those meetings. We try to answer the questions as best we can that come from the community, but there are some questions that we just don’t yet know the answer to because the technology, the science hasn’t got to the point of really fully understanding some issues.

LINTON BESSER:

 So if Defence has been transparent as you say, why is it that the residents of these towns have said to us they feel betrayed by Defence?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

Look, I acknowledge that the people who live in the investigation zones will be feeling a great degree of anxiety and worry around this. We recognise that. We’re trying to work with people to give them as much information as we can. Where- it’s in part- now, people are worried about possible future health effects from exposure to these chemicals, worried about the effects on property values because of reputation of the area, maybe worried about their businesses if they’re seeing a decline in business. And we recognise and understand those things. In large part it’s because of that that we need to take sort of scientific approach to what we’re doing. We need to follow national standards in the investigations we’re doing so that the information that we produce can be relied upon as accurate as possible for decisions to be made about what might be done.

LINTON BESSER:

A lot of them feel – sure – anxious and worried but a lot of them are very angry.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

Yes and we’re aware of that. We have- I’ve personally been here and engaged with the community on a number of occasions. My team are here for every community reference group and we’re aware of the anger.

LINTON BESSER:

And can you appreciate why they feel so angry?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

I think so. I think we’ve never walked away from the fact that we used these products through the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s and in to the early 2000s. The people who live in the area around here, of course, didn’t know about those products, as at the time we didn’t know that they might be long-term environmental contaminants. And of course, people would feel that something has been done that- to them that was nothing that they could control, of course people would feel angry about that. And we understand that.

LINTON BESSER:

You mentioned it when we were out doing the tour but if I could get you to explain it in the interview; just in a single answer if you can explain the clean up that’s underway here.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 So, here at Williamtown, we’ve got three water treatment plants in operation at the moment. The oldest one of those has been running for a little over 18 months, which is cleaning up water from the Joint Strike Fighter works that are ongoing, where we have to do foundation work. Then we have a water treatment plant on Lake Cochran – which is the detention basin as part of the storm water system – that’s been cleaning water from Lake Cochran since January this year. And we’ve recently installed a third plant on one of the exits into Moors Drain, which is an American technology that’s proving very effective in cleaning the water. In that time we’ve taken PFAS out of around 900 million litres. That’s an awful lot of water. So, that’s a first step in terms of our beginning to clean this up. We’re focussing on these areas of the base because this is the source area, this is where the contaminants were put into the ground.

When we first started engaging with the community here, obviously they were saying; well, can you just stop this coming off the base? And so we’ve- that’s what we’re trying to do.

LINTON BESSER:

 Nine hundred million litres, just explain what that is proportionately. I mean, what percentage of the total PFAS mess is that?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

Well, if you look at a place like Lake Cochran, our aim there is to stop discharge from Lake Cochran down into Dawsons Drain …

LINTON BESSER:

 [Talks over] But I guess what I’m asking is- 900 million litres is impressive, it’s a big number but I guess I’m asking is that one per cent of the job or is that 80 per cent of the job?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 So, it’s certainly not 80 per cent of the job. It’s difficult to know exactly how much as a percentage of the job it is because these- the chemicals, we’ve got them mapped in the area around the investigation zone. It’s difficult to predict how long it will take us to be able to clean these chemicals out of water. I’d be misleading people if I said we could do this by the end of the year, for example. This is something that will take many years. It took many decades for these chemicals to find their way into the environment and it’s going to take a significant amount of time for us to be able to clean them up.

LINTON BESSER:

What’s been the cost of running those filtration plants here at Williamtown in the past year?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

So, over the last year or so, it would be of the order of $10 million, including buying some of the plants and running the others. It’s an expensive enterprise. We’re starting to look at similar technology being applied at other bases.

LINTON BESSER:

 So, if we – I know it’s not an exact science – but if we can assume that if it costs $10 million at Williamtown, it will cost millions at, at least some of the other 23 sites you’re investigating. Taxpayers are going to be footing a big bill for this mess, aren’t they?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 The cost is going to rise in to many millions of dollars. Of that there is no doubt. But we are committed to follow through with the clean up. And as we work closely with the environmental protection agencies of the various states and territories, they’re fully across what we’re doing. And we’re still in discussions and conversations about how far we need to go with this before we can say the job is done.

LINTON BESSER:

Has the contamination been contained at Williamtown?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 In terms of contained on the base; obviously not, because we know from our investigations that there is PFAS chemicals in the ground and surface water off the base, in the investigation zones. That’s why – as a precaution – we started providing clean drinking water to residents, more than around two years ago. And provided advice as a consequence of the health studies we have done around people not – for example – using contaminated pool water for watering vegetables and the like. So, we know the chemical has spread off the base. We’ve got that mapped fairly well at the moment. We’re constantly reviewing that information and adding to that information. And the hard part of clean up will be the question of how do you clean up – for example – the underground aquifer where we know there is contamination?

LINTON BESSER:

And what’s the answer to that question?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

We’re working with industry on trying to work out answers to those questions. One possibility is to use many more of the types of water filtering plants that we’re using at the moment. There may be other techniques or solutions that could be used. We’re probably talking to in excess of 30 companies at the moment from industry - including overseas - who think they’ve got ideas about how we can clean water and how we can clean soil.

LINTON BESSER:

 The filtration plant on Lake Cochran, it’s had to be turned off in periods of heavy rain, hasn’t it?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 The plant has been turned off from time-to-time. It doesn’t run 24/7. But what we seek to achieve with that plant is to keep the level of the lake below a level where it would discharge naturally through the weir into Dawsons Drain. I can’t rule out that that overflow into Dawsons Drain won’t happen. In times of heavy rain that is still likely to happen. But our aim is to minimise the number of occurrences of that happening.

LINTON BESSER:

 It hasn’t rained for a time and three weeks ago we had a sample tested in Dawsons Drain and it shows elevated levels of PFAS chemicals. It hasn’t rained for some time. What does that say about the effectiveness of the filtration plant over at Lake Cochran?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 I think the issue there is that because we know it’s been discharged off the base over a long, long period of time, there is likely to be PFAS in the soil within Dawsons Drain. We’re talking to the Port Stephens Council – who are responsible for the drain maintenance – about what future plans we can put in place to do works on those drains. For example, for the service stormwater drains on the base here at Williamtown, we’ve started a process of removing the top 200mm of soil out of those drains, which is where we know some of those PFAS chemicals have accumulated, and we’re storing that soil in a place where it can’t produce- can’t leach back into the environment, and that, again, reduces another migration path of PFAS off the base. It may well be that a similar program of works in parts of the drains outside of the base is appropriate, and we’ll know that when the current study work is completed.

LINTON BESSER:

But for people living around the base, so many years after the problem was identified …

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

 Just hold on a sec-

LINTON BESSER:

That sounds like an angle grinder.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 It does sound like an angle grinder.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

 No, it’s a fridge compressor’s just kicked in I think.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

 Oh, it’s a fridge.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Yeah, I think it’s in the bar area there somewhere.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

 It won’t go for very long though.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

It’s kind of faded now.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Okay, let’s go with that.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

 Still rolling.

LINTON BESSER:

 For the people living around the base, so many years after the problem was first identified, is it really acceptable that the PFAS contamination has still not been contained?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

So, the issue of containment; we’re sort of on the way to that process. It’s difficult, in an area where, at times, the water table comes very close to, if not to the surface. With the water treatment plants we’ve put in place, we can be confident that we’ve significantly reduced any PFAS flow off the base, but I couldn’t say it’s down to zero, because that probably wouldn’t be accurate. But it’s significantly reduced compared to what would have been happening before we started this process.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

I might- just while it’s going, I might just get 20 seconds of recording the background there. Yeah, thanks. I’ll just ask everyone to be quiet just for 20 seconds please. And, Atmos.

Okay, thanks. So, and we’re rolling again?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

 Yeah.

LINTON BESSER:

It’s not just the people living around the base that have expressed concern about the lack of containment. The chief scientist of New South Wales, Mary O’Kane, has told us that it’s unacceptable that the problem still has not been contained. What’s your response to that?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 So, we’re open to all ideas from anybody who thinks they have a good idea about how we can do better than we’re doing. If there was a process that we could put in place that would stop the migration instantly, we’d put it in place, but the technology doesn’t exist to do that. We have spoken to a range of people who’ve had a range of ideas.

For example, early on there was a view that we could simply block the various drainage channels, create dams and stop water running off the base. But if we did that, at the next heavy rain event, Newcastle Airport would close, because we’d just simply turn it into a lake.

So, there are some practical issues with our ability to simply stop the PFAS coming off the base, but it’s fair to say that at Lake Cochran now, with the plant that we’ve got running, there are very few occasions where water containing PFAS that has not been treated through the plant would discharge into Dawsons Drain. So we have massively reduced the discharge that might be coming off the base.

LINTON BESSER:

 Your own consultant’s report – AECOM – it shows that the plume of PFAS will still be present in 2036.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

That’s right. So they did some modelling for us as part of the hydrogeological studies that we commissioned …

LINTON BESSER:

 [Talks over] So, that’s right? We’ll still have a PFAS contamination in Williamtown in 2036.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

That is what their modelling showed. Remember, what we now know about these chemicals is that they last for a long time in the environment, and once they’re in underground water, in an aquifer as they are here, then they’re difficult to remove. Now, that report assumed no clean up activity was taking place. So, if we can start to do more clean up activity, then we can assume that the area would be free of PFAS in advance of those dates.

LINTON BESSER:

 So Williamtown will one day be completely free of PFAS?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 That would be my hope. It depends on what we’re able to do with the technology that’s available.

LINTON BESSER:

 But what commitment can you give here and now as to that question? Will Williamtown ever be free of PFAS?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 I think the answer to that question is yes. It’s a question of how long it takes and how much work needs to be done. Remember, there are a whole range of industrial processes and products that have used PFAS chemicals over the years, and so contamination from the environment doesn’t just come from fire-fighting foams used …

LINTON BESSER:

 [Interrupts] No, but you’re not denying that the principal source has been the Williamtown Base, and it’s …

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 [Interrupts] No, I think in this area that would be the principal source.

LINTON BESSER:

 I mean, we’ve been told by one expert that contamination is so chronic in Williamtown that it is unviable because of the expense and the complexity to ever expect Defence to be able to remove all of the PFAS to the level of drinking water.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 And that goes to what I said earlier about the problem that we do not yet know the solution to is PFAS that’s in the underground water, and how do you clean that up? We’re talking to industry. There are some people who have some promising ideas, and we’ll work with those people to try and develop technologies that can assist.

LINTON BESSER:

The other criticism of the chief scientist has been, hasn’t it, that the construction work at Williamtown has furthered the contamination.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 And I’m aware of that criticism. The first water treatment plant we put in place was for a construction works. When you dig foundations for buildings here, they tend to- the holes tend to fill up with water, so you need to de-water. So, in that de-watering process, all the water that was taken out of the ground was then filtered and cleaned through a large water treatment plant before being injected back into the ground. So, that would give us some confidence that we certainly did not add to the amount of PFAS in the environment. We definitely did remove PFAS from the environment as part of that process.

LINTON BESSER:

 We’ve talked about the cost of filtering the water at Williamtown. You have a whole department, some of whom are sitting in the room, you have a whole department now focused on this and the hiring of many consultants. Since this division was created, if I can call it that, what’s been the total spend so far on tackling this problem across the country?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 Yeah, so I have a whole branch – we would refer to it as – of people who are focused on this problem. We’re engaging a large number of environmental consultants. I wouldn’t have the exact figure with me, but the figure would be in excess of $100 million either currently expended or committed to be expended. That would cover off all of the environmental investigations around Australia that we’re doing; the various water treatment plants that we’ve purchased and the cost of running them; that includes the $55 million that the Government talked about around 18 months ago in terms of its commitment for things like the financial assistance scheme to people, the connection of people to town water, the funding of the epidemiological study and research and the like.

LINTON BESSER:

And over what period of time was that?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

Well, we’ve been- since around 2012, I would say.

LINTON BESSER:

 So, if there’s still going- if your consultants have forecast a PFAS problem still continuing here at Williamtown in 2036, and in five years you’ve spent $100 million, we’re talking about- are we talking a billion dollar mess here?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 I don’t know what the final cost of cleaning up these chemicals will be. Remember, that consultant’s report, 2036, assumed no clean up activity was done. So, it’s not really possible to estimate how much will need to be spent to clean up these chemicals, but it’s going to be significant. Of that there is no doubt.

LINTON BESSER:

 In the hundreds of millions of dollars?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

I would say so.

LINTON BESSER:

 Steve, why is it that Defence deliberately sought to hide the fact that it had caused PFAS to run off the base here in Williamtown?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 I don’t think it’s a case that Defence deliberately sought to hide that information at all. What’s your source?

LINTON BESSER:

 Well, would you say that your senior environmental manager, [name withheld], is a reliable and credible person?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 I’m not going to talk here about people that work in Defence.

LINTON BESSER:

Well, I won’t name her. Would you say your environmental manager here is a credible, reliable person?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 I’ve got a team of environmental people who work for me in various capacities around the country. We use some of the finest …

LINTON BESSER:

[Interrupts] Are they reliable and credible?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

Well, they’re- I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but they’re good people.

LINTON BESSER:

And they wouldn’t lie in work emails or in official meetings?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 Most people go to work with the hope of trying to do the best job they can do in the circumstances that they find themselves.

LINTON BESSER:

 Well, on May 2 2012, your environmental manager here wrote an email telling the local regulatory authority that PFAS chemicals were leaving the base. Was she telling the truth?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 In May 2012, we actually advised the New South Wales EPA – Environmental Protection Agency – that we had discovered these chemicals leaving the base. In May 2012, we also told the Hunter Water Corporation of that information.

LINTON BESSER:

 So, it’s very clear at that point, isn’t it, if you’re having those conversations, that you know that PFAS contamination is leaving the base?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 Yeah, we did know that then, and so we were having conversations with …

LINTON BESSER:

 [Interrupts] So, if you knew that then, Steve, why didn’t you tell the people of Williamtown then?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

So- and that’s a good question. We knew the chemical was leaving the base, but we didn’t know where it was going. It’s- the people who deal with contaminants had historically been used to dealing with contaminants like solvents and hydrocarbons, and when you look at the behaviour of solvents and hydrocarbons, they actually don’t go very far in the environment. They might go a few hundred metres before they sort of go to ground and just stop. Even in 2012, the environmental world and the people that operate in that space didn’t appreciate how mobile these chemicals would be in the environment. We now know that they’re able to attach themselves to water – both surface water and groundwater – and travel long distances. Long distances. That wasn’t appreciated even in 2012, so when we’ve had environmental investigations done here, we’ve found that these chemicals have moved further than anybody, with the knowledge available in 2012 to most people, would have realised.

LINTON BESSER:

Now, at that point in time, Defence did not want that knowledge to get out, did it?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 We told the New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency. We told Hunter Water in mid-2012. We talked to them about the investigations we were going to run. They were aware of those investigations. They didn’t raise any concerns with us in terms of the nature of these chemicals being towards the top of their priority list for issues. It’s fair to say …

LINTON BESSER:

 [Interrupts] But in your discussions with the EPA at that time, you insisted on confidentiality, didn’t you?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

We would have insisted on confidentiality for reports that we provided, and we do that routinely for reports that we provide. Remember, we publish all of our reports that we have done …

LINTON BESSER:

[Interrupts] We’re not talking about reports. We’re talking about what was discussed at the meeting in May of 2012 at the EPA.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

Yeah. In 2012, we would have discussed what we found and what our plans were going to be for the next stage.

LINTON BESSER:

 But you insisted on confidentiality at that meeting.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

I’d have to go and have a look at what was actually insisted upon.

LINTON BESSER:

Well, Mark Taylor did an inquiry which covered off some of this, as you’re aware.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 I’m aware of his report.

LINTON BESSER:

 And he issued preliminary reports. And in his preliminary reports which were published for the purposes of seeking feedback or guidance on inaccuracies, et cetera, he identified these emails and this discussion and the insistence on confidentiality from Defence. And at no point did Defence contact Mark Taylor and say that he had that wrong, did they?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 No, and it would be normal for us to have confidential conversations with authorities about a range of issues.

LINTON BESSER:

 But isn’t the point that if Defence knew that this toxic chemical was leaving its land and travelling into land which was not part of the Defence estate, isn’t it the case that people that live in those areas have a right to know what’s happened in the areas in which they inhabit?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 Well I think today, with the knowledge that we have, I think we’d have done things differently. I think of that, there’s no doubt. So back then, people didn’t understand what we were dealing with in terms of how far it might go. So people wouldn’t have known what we might tell the community. We didn’t have much information about it. We followed a national standard approach to the investigation. The national standard, which comes from the National Environmental Protection Measures legislation, tells you to go and look at the source area of contamination first and really understand that, and then it says when you’ve done that, then go and look to see what pathways might be for where the contamination might have moved to, then go and do that. And then, if necessary, go and conduct detailed environmental studies which may or may not lead to ecological and human health studies. Let me finish.

Informed in our experience through 2012 to 2015, we’ve actually now changed the way we’re doing business. So now, when we do investigations – and we made this change a couple of years ago – we look outside of those first if we suspect there might be a contaminant there. And we do that so we can inform residents early. So I think if we had our time again, should we have told the community back in 2012, in the middle of 2012? We probably should.

LINTON BESSER:

I think what you just said to me is that at that point in 2012, one of the reasons you insisted on confidentiality and not informing the wider community was because you were unaware of the nature of the contamination, effectively, the pace at which these chemicals travel. But by September 2015, you knew full well the detail of the contamination and the nature of the contamination. And in fact, at that time, Defence tried to have the EPA delay its public announcement, didn’t it?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

We gave our draft environmental reports to the EPA in- some time in around mid to late August 2015. This is part of normal business, when you’ve had a large environmental investigation undertaken. By then, the community were aware that we were doing that investigation. We’d told them at least a year earlier.

LINTON BESSER:

 The community had no idea prior to your announcement on 3 September that their lands were contaminated.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 The community were aware for around a year that we were doing environmental investigations…

LINTON BESSER:

 On the base?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 Off the base. So we gave that report to the New South Wales EPA as part of a quality assurance process for the validation of reports, and they – New South Wales EPA – have a lot of knowledge around- about the area. We just wanted to make sure that there was nothing in their report that was an error. And the plan was to release that report to the public. That plan was usually around a four week consultation period, and then release the report. I can’t talk for the New South Wales EPA, but during that four week consultation period, the EPA put out their announcement on, I think, 3 September which talked about the investigation zone for the detailed investigations that would go on…

LINTON BESSER:

 [Talks over] And Defence wanted that announcement delayed?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 We did talk to New South Wales EPA on the day.

LINTON BESSER:

 And asked for more time.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 Our point at the time – and I was personally involved in those conversations – was that we wanted an ability to release the report but have a community session at the same time so we can invite people along and brief them about what that meant and what was going to happen. The EPA’s view was that they needed to act, and they would be the best people to comment on that. I think they put out their media release 7 or 8 o’clock in the evening on that day.

LINTON BESSER:

Well, they felt they needed to act for the same reason that both Mark Taylor and the chief scientist Mary O’Kane say that that three-year delay was unjustifiable. They say certainly the public should have been told in May 2012, as you’ve conceded, but as the months went by and as more of those investigations continue, so the burden of responsibility to inform the public only grew.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 And as I’ve said, from May 2012 onwards, we were in discussions and conversations with Hunter Water and the New South Wales EPA around this issue.

LINTON BESSER:

But not the local residents?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 No. But at no point at that time did the other authorities that we were talking to - to my knowledge - suggest that this was an issue that needed to be telegraphed to the public at that time. As I’ve said earlier, if we had our time again, we’ve acknowledged that we now have- I think we’d respond differently, and we would advise the public, as we now do, when we run investigations.

LINTON BESSER:

 I think you were advised by the EPA that there needed to be consultation with the media long before September 2015.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

I’m not aware of that.

LINTON BESSER:

 What would you say to people like Nick Marshall? He bought his house in 2014, two years after you knew about the contamination, and as you said, you should have told the public. He didn’t know about it, there was nothing on his land titles. He executed the normal due diligence that I’m sure you’ve done in the past, that many of us have done. He says he would never have bought his property, had he known. What would you like to say to him?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 So we- I acknowledge that this issue is difficult for a lot of people. It causes significant worry and stress.

LINTON BESSER:

 No, no. He’s angry about not having the knowledge at the time he purchased the property.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

We- I’d need to check on the data which we first informed people at Oakey, who lived adjacent to our base. It was around that time, it was certainly ahead of when we told people outside the base at Williamtown. But certainly, properties have not been put on any list that might exist in local government in terms of potential contamination. So I think these are regrettable situations that people find themselves in. We’re committed to try and clean up and sort this out, but that is going to take an amount of time.

LINTON BESSER:

 Well, he says his carpet’s been pulled out from under him, or his entire financial asset is his home. He says he can’t even get a $20,000 loan to renovate his kitchen against his property, which is not encumbered by mortgage at all.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

So I can’t comment in detail on that, because I’m obviously not aware…

LINTON BESSER:

 But how would you feel, Steve, if that was you?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 So I understand that people would feel let down, there’s no doubt about that, but the issue now is that from where we are, it’s about how do we clean this up? And that’s what we’re focused on at the moment.

LINTON BESSER:

Defence has been hit with two class actions. They allege financial loss to people like Nick Marshall - not quite 1000 people - due to the negligence of Defence. What’s your response to that?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

So there are two class actions; one here at Williamtown and one in Oakey. They’re lodged as class actions against the Commonwealth, legal process is ongoing and I’m not in a position to comment on any aspect of those actions.

LINTON BESSER:

It’s a bad look for Defence, isn’t it, to have your own communities coming after you in the courts?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 Well, the class actions exist and they’ll play through the legal system that exists. Defence will be part of that, but I can’t comment in detail on the development of those actions.

LINTON BESSER:

Steve, is there any evidence that links PFAS chemicals to adverse human health impacts?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

So, in Defence we don’t claim to be experts in health. So obviously we take our advice from the health experts in the Department of Health, be it Federal or state and territory, and they advise us that there’s no consistent evidence that exposure to these chemicals causes any adverse health effect on people. That advice was reiterated earlier this year when Food Standards Australia New Zealand did a global literature review of evidence and set some health-based guidance values for drinking water and recreational-use water. And again, they reiterated that there was no consistent evidence of adverse health effects in people.

LINTON BESSER:

 If there was no evidence, would you and I be sitting here today?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

That’s a hypothetical question that I can’t answer.

LINTON BESSER:

Well, I’ll rephrase it: is there any evidence of any adverse human health impacts associated with PFAS chemicals? Is there any evidence?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

See, that’s not a question I’m really qualified to answer. Better direct it to the health experts. We rely on experts in fields like health and environment for guidance, and their guidance was there was no consistent evidence.

LINTON BESSER:

 But you’re a smart, senior public servant in charge of the Defence clean-up, and you’re aware there is some evidence?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

I’m not- I haven’t actually looked at the detailed evidence. There are, to my knowledge, thousands of research papers that have been written on these chemicals over the last 15 or 20 years. I’ve had a look at a couple of them, but they were largely to do with tests on rodents. So, I have to rely on what the Health Department tell me, and they tell me there is no consistent evidence.

LINTON BESSER:

Defence told a public meeting in 2014 in Oakey that this was the new asbestos.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 I’m aware of that statement that was made by one employee in the Department of Defence. That individual was not qualified to make a statement like that. He shouldn’t have said what he said. I said in the Senate Inquiry in Oakey that was an inappropriate thing for that individual to say. He was not qualified in any way to make that assertion.

LINTON BESSER:

 It was like an electric shock to the people listening.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

It was a most regrettable occurrence, I have to say.

LINTON BESSER:

In the year 2000, Steve, the product’s manufacturer 3M announced it was ceasing production because the product, quote, could potentially pose a risk to human health. Was the company wrong?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 I don’t know. In the year- I remember reading those statements; the statements said that 3M voluntarily ceased production following conversations with the US EPA because the chemicals were now known to persist for a long time in the environment, to bio-accumulate in animals and people, and there was a possibility that there could be human health effects. But I don’t think there was any knowledge at that time that there would be, there was a possibility. So I’m aware of that. 3M phased out production over a period of time. That’s why in the early 2000s Defence changed to a different product, certainly for fire-fighting foams.

LINTON BESSER:

Well, when that announcement was made, I think the month was May 2000, what did Defence do? In May 2000?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

When that announcement came to the attention of authorities in Australia, that would have triggered some work that led to Defence looking for an alternative product. We moved away from 3M Lightwater. We now use a product called Ansulite.
The process of changing from one product to another requires a fair amount of research to make sure that the product that you’re going to move to is going to be effective and is going to be environmentally as safe as it can be. So, that would have taken a while. So we moved to Ansulite over a period in the early 2000s.

LINTON BESSER:

Okay. One more time?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Want to try it again, maybe, yeah excellent, yeah, yeah. Just the jet, thanks.

LINTON BESSER:

 In May 2000, when the announcement was made, what action did Defence take?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 So that announcement, when it came to the attention of authorities in Australia, would have triggered a review of the product we use and what products could be used in the future. And as a consequence of that, which would have taken a period of time, because the due diligence that needs to be undertaken when selecting a new product, in the- around 2004, Defence moved- started moving to a new product, started getting rid of stocks of the old product.

LINTON BESSER:

3M contacted all of its customers at that point. Did Defence receive that notification from 3M?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 I’d need to check on that. If 3M say that they contacted all of their customers, I assume that’s probably what happened.

LINTON BESSER:

 We’ve spoken with people who ran the early investigations for Defence into PFAS contamination. They say no-one in Defence was aware that 3M had made this announcement until they stumbled across the bio-accumulation of PFAS in fish which had been killed after a discharge of fire-fighting foam at Richmond Base in Sydney.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 I think that would be unlikely in my view. I’d obviously need to do some detailed research, look back through research from the early 2000s, to be able to be certain of that. But I would hope that at that time, certainly within a few months of an announcement like that, it would come to the attention of people who worked in the environmental space in Australia, and certainly people who use the product.

LINTON BESSER:

Well, there was a major report done for Defence in May 2003, and it was only in the preparation of that report that the environmental managers for the Defence estate became aware – they say – of this announcement.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 This is a large organization, and it is entirely possible that other people in the department were aware. For example, the people that were actually responsible for the purchase and procurement of those products. So if 3M wrote to Defence, they wouldn’t have written to the environmental management team. They would have written to the people that procured the product.

LINTON BESSER:

So, it was lost in the bureaucracy?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

I wouldn’t go that far, but I think connecting all the necessary people sometimes in a big organisation can take some time.

LINTON BESSER:

 One of the world’s leading health experts on PFAS, Steve, has told us that there is indeed sufficient evidence to say that PFAS is positively associated with human disease.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

So again, I’m not an expert in health. I’ve spoken to a lot of health experts, including the Commonwealth’s deputy chief medical officer, and chief medical officers from some of the states and territories, and they all tell me that currently there is no consistent evidence of adverse health effects on people.

LINTON BESSER:

 There was a landmark epidemiological study in America I’m sure you’re aware of known as the CA Panel, loosely.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 I’ve heard of that, yep.

LINTON BESSER:

After its study of tens of thousands of people with PFAS in their blood, found there was, quote, a probable link between PFAS exposure and six diseases, including two types of cancer. Was that panel wrong?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 I don’t know. But I just, I look at the World Health Organization listing of PFOS on their scale of carcinogens. They currently have it listed as a chemical that is a possible carcinogen. And their hierarchy of listing has at the top of the tree known carcinogens like alcohol and tobacco and the like. The next level down is probable carcinogens, and the one below that is possible carcinogens. So PFOS is currently listed on the World Health Organization’s list of possible carcinogens. What that tells me is, at that global level, the people that are responsible for making these assessments are saying that it’s possible but it’s not yet reached the stage of being classified as probable.

LINTON BESSER:

Putting PFAS to one side, have Defence ever received any other earlier advice that the foam – this fire-fighting foam made by 3M – must not be allowed to enter the environment?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

Earlier than when?

LINTON BESSER:

 Well, we were talking about 2000.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 Not that I’m aware of, but as I said before, Defence is a big organisation and I could never rule out that possibility.

LINTON BESSER:

 At Tindal, before the base even opened in 1989, Defence was explicitly told the foam was a contaminant that shouldn’t be allowed to get into surface water or groundwater in a consultant’s report commissioned by Defence.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 I haven’t seen that report. My understanding is that we were advised from companies like 3M, who made the product, that the product was safe to use and posed no risk to the environment.

LINTON BESSER:

 I appreciate you have to take me on my word about this, but if you accept for a minute what I’m saying, that this report by Kin Hill(*) did tell Defence this, clearly that advice wasn’t followed, was it?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

When I look back at the practices that were used in the 1980s and ‘90s, in terms of how we use these products, the practice was to train with the foams in the fire-fighting training areas and generally to allow the foams to run off into the ground. We don’t do that anymore. So we, in the early 2000s, when we changed products, we also changed practices and so now most of the fire-fighting training is just simply using water; occasionally we do have to use AFFF product for training and when we do, we do that in areas which are generally concrete-based, where we can collect, through drainage systems, the product and then have it trucked away for disposal through registered treatment process.

LINTON BESSER:

In Tindal where, again, Defence was explicitly warned that this stuff was a contaminant, that it mustn’t be allowed to get into the water or into the groundwater, the fire-fighters up there have described to us how the foam was routinely sprayed onto the bare earth; that the fire pit was routinely overshot by the fire vehicles and that the concentrate, the AFFF concentrate, was discharged routinely onto the tarmac and washed into stormwater at Tindal.

Now, if you accept what I’m saying, that Defence was in receipt of this consultant’s report, that is an abject failure, isn’t it?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

So, firstly, I don’t know about that report, but I will go away and check that. And our practices in terms of how we used these products in the 1980s and ‘90s were not good. We now know that. We’ve changed those practices from the mid-2000s and we have very good practices.

LINTON BESSER:

[Interrupts] But they knew that then, Steve, with respect, they knew that then because they were told before the base opened that this stuff mustn’t be allowed to get into the water, and yet it was. There were no controls put on it; there was no bunding, there was nothing like that. Now, that is a failure, isn’t it?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

That would not reflect, certainly, good practice today. That practice is the past.

LINTON BESSER:

 But did it reflect good practice then?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 Without knowing the detail of what was done, it’s difficult for me to say. But there’s no doubt about it that the way we used these products in the fire-fighting and air fields of Defence back in the ’80s and ’90s was not as good as it should have been. We know that. We changed those practices in the early 2000s and today we hardly ever discharge AFFF foams into the environment. The reason we use these products is to save lives when, heaven forbid, there’s an aircraft crash. So the people that use them, my understanding is that they were told they were safe to use, so the people that were using them didn’t realise that they may form an environmental hazard in the future.

LINTON BESSER:

 It’s not an indictment of the boots on the ground at all. If anything, it’s an indictment of the senior levels of Defence and now people of Katherine, they’re paying the price, aren’t they?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

Well, certainly there’d be people in Katherine who’d be now concerned about the situation. So we’re trying to provide as much information as we can to the residents of Katherine. We’ll be having a drop in session later this week.

LINTON BESSER:

[Talks over] But it’s- sorry, it’s more than concern and worry and anxiety; there is a material impact on their lives. They’re having water in boxes delivered; they can’t use their own water. So it’s more than concern, isn’t it?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

Well, for those people who have relied on bore water in Katherine, who we are providing alternative water to and we’re in the process of installing rainwater tanks for those people to give them a reliable source of water for their properties, yes, that is making a difference to their lives. We’re in regular contact with those people. In Katherine I have dedicated people on the ground to make sure that we’re getting those rainwater tanks installed; that’ll be done in time for the next wet season up there. And once that’s done, then the- any potential exposure pathways for those people is removed. Their exposure pathway was using bore water which had higher levels of PFAS in that water.

LINTON BESSER:

A resident at Katherine has described the public information sessions that you’ve held as exercises in spin.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 Well, we’re keen to improve how we do these things. I’ve personally been to Katherine and done two or three of those public information sessions. We’ve got another one this week. So we’re happy to take questions; we always do presentations but we always have question and answer sessions. We’re following, as I said earlier, a scientific-based approach: following the national standards, using accredited companies to do the evaluations and the environmental analysis. And we try and keep the information that we talk about to known facts. We try not to speculate; we try and stick to known facts. That means, from time to time, we’re not able to put the full answer on the table because, if we honestly don’t know the full answer, we say what we know but we can’t infer or make things up.

LINTON BESSER:

What lessons has Defence learned from this PFAS debacle?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 So, the PFAS investigation program that we’ve been running now for a few years, I think the main lesson for me is that we need to always be cognisant about our relationship with communities and we need to be on the front foot in terms of getting information out to communities. So, we’ve actually changed our approach so we now advise communities of investigations we’re doing, we do investigations outside of a base first, looking for these types of chemicals, before we look in detail on the base. You know, we value our relationship with communities because we see ourselves as part of those communities. So I think trying to be as open and transparent as possible, but we will always need to stick to factual information as much as we can.

LINTON BESSER:

Would you like to take this opportunity to offer those people affected an apology?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

As I said before, we acknowledge that Defence has put these chemicals into the environment and we’ve never walked away from that. We acknowledge the worry and stress, anxiety that people are going through. We acknowledge that we have changed the way some people have to live because they’re on bottled water until we can connect them to town water. And our undertaking is that we’re not going to walk away from this. We see ourselves as part of the community and we want to try and clean this up. We’re doing a lot of work to try and find the right technologies that can sort out this problem.

LINTON BESSER:

When did Defence last use 3M foam at Williamtown?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

At Williamtown we started to change in around 2004. The last use would have been probably within a few years of that time. I’m confident that by 2010 it had all been removed and the last remaining PFAS would’ve been, for example, in an aircraft hangar fire-fighting system, which is not discharged, you know, unless there’s an actual fire. And so I think the answer is it would have been some time around the mid-2000s.

LINTON BESSER:

… He told us that Defence made him an offer to reimburse him if he found an alternative property and bought it.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Okay.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 I don’t know who would have made that offer.

LINTON BESSER:

Do you want to- do you mind checking that? Coming back to us?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 Someone over there made a note of it. We’ve never made that offer.

SPEAKER:

We’ll check. Yeah, I’ll mention it to them after we do this, Steve.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 The answer’s that would not have happened.

LINTON BESSER:

Okay. Have we got the sound rolling?

There are now, as I understand it – you’ll correct me in your answer – there are now 23 Defence sites under investigation, many of which are confirmed PFAS contamination zones. Describe the scale of the national picture for Defence.

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 So, from a Defence perspective, that’s right. We’ve got 23 investigations ongoing at various stages. Some of those have literally only just started; some of them are virtually complete. We’re doing investigations at those sites because our research shows that we used the fire-fighting products at those sites, but that doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily contaminated people’s land or it’s in people’s water, and that’s why we’re doing the investigation; so we can understand that.

It’s a significant series of investigations. When taken together, probably one of the largest, if not the largest environmental investigation that’s ever happened in Australia. So, we’re applying a lot of effort to this, taking the issue very seriously. As well, there’d be a range of other organisations that have used these products over the years where investigations may be being done around Australia.

LINTON BESSER:

And in how many years is it going to take before we get to the other end of this?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

So, our investigation process routinely now lasts around a year or 18 months, depends to some extent on the size and complexity of the investigation. When we first started this process, investigations were taking two to two-and-a-half years, which was more normal in the environmental world, but we’ve found ways of speeding up investigations by running various activities in parallel, and driving the environmental companies that do this to try and find quicker ways of running the investigations, while still maintaining accreditation and national standards in the work we do.

LINTON BESSER:

My question- sorry, we’re done, but my question is: when will Australia see the back of its PFAS contamination problem?

STEVE GRZESKOWIAK:

 That’s a difficult one. It’s- I think, Australia-wide, if you look beyond Defence and to a range of other uses, we’re still discovering the full extent and nature of the spread of these chemicals in the environment.

LINTON BESSER:

Good. Happy, Lisa?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

 Thank you. Thank you very much.

LINTON BESSER:

Thank you, Steve. Alright. All good.