SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
DEFENCE PORTFOLIO

Senator LUDLAM-I want to have a fairly brief discussion about the former Belconnen Naval
Transmission Station on the outskirts of Canberra. Who would be the most appropriate people to talk about the current status of that base?

Mr Bowles-That is me. As you have indicated, the Belconnen Naval Transmission Station was decommissioned in 2005. We are currently doing a whole range of assessments about site remediation that should be completed shortly. We are hoping by the end of the year to start remediation processes. They are likely to take approximately six months to undertake. It will all be done keeping in mind both the heritage and the environmental nature of the site. That is pretty much where we are at this stage.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you. Who is currently administering the site, and has management been
outsourced?

Mr Bowles-We still own the site. Defence Support Group is managing the process of moving to ultimate sale at some future point.

Senator LUDLAM-So there is no commercial entity managing the site on behalf of Defence?

Mr Bowles-Not to my knowledge. My group, through the infrastructure area, is managing the site
remediation issues and preparing it for future sale.

Senator LUDLAM-That is fine; presumably you would know. With an awareness that we are fairly short of time, can you identify the key areas and the types of contamination on that site?

Mr Bowles-I can give you some idea. Not only is there a large portion of contamination but there are
heritage issues that relate to what the site has been used for over the years. The site is a former landfill. It has underground fuel storage tanks and some surface soil and has also been contaminated with lead paint and asbestos from demolition waste.

Senator LUDLAM-How long has Defence known about the contamination on the site, in particular with
regard to the lead contamination?

Mr Bowles-I would have to take that on notice.

Senator LUDLAM-That is okay. Could you also take on notice when Defence became aware of the
groundwater contamination and the uncovered asbestos?

Mr Bowles-I can take that on notice. Once the site was decommissioned in 2005 basically what we did
then was a due diligence process. So it would have come up in the context of the due diligence over the last little while that we have been undertaking that exercise. I do not have specific dates but we can get that for you.

Senator LUDLAM-That is all right. I understand the lead contamination is essentially widespread paint
that chipped from the masts when they were demolished.

Mr Bowles-My understanding is it is lead paint, yes.

Senator LUDLAM-Can you characterise the asbestos contamination for us?

Mr Bowles-It is asbestos contained in demolition waste.

Senator LUDLAM-Where is it now?

Mr Bowles-On the site.

Senator LUDLAM-In piles?

Mr Bowles-I cannot tell you exactly how it is actually placed on the site.

Senator LUDLAM-That is reasonably important. It is not the sort of stuff you want blowing around. Is it contained?

Mr Bowles-Again, I would have to take on notice the specifics of the asbestos, but basically it was used as a landfill and there is demolition waste on-site.

Senator LUDLAM-I would appreciate you taking that on notice, particularly as to whether the asbestos
sources there are covered or uncovered.

Mr Bowles-Yes.

Senator LUDLAM-Can you characterise the groundwater contamination for us?

Mr Bowles-I would have to take that on notice.

Senator LUDLAM-I would appreciate that. What actions has Defence taken thus far to remediate the
site?

Mr Bowles-As I said, we have been undertaking due diligence and obviously that has identified some
areas of contamination. We are in the process of identifying a contractor to undertake the remediation work.
We hope to have that toward the end of this year, hopefully by some time in November. We think it will take around six months to remediate at this point.

Senator LUDLAM-I take it-although this is from media reports so you might like to confirm this-that
Defence has received contamination assessment reports for the site.

Mr Bowles-Again through the due diligence process we would have understood what the contaminants
are, and that is part of what we would go to tender for to get someone to remediate the side.

Senator LUDLAM-So Defence has in its possession a contamination assessment document.

Mr Bowles-I do not know specifically what we have in our hands. However, we have done a due
diligence report so I presume we have that in order to go to tender. I just cannot confirm it because I have not seen it personally.

Senator LUDLAM-That is okay. It is probably a little unfair to quote media reports at you anyway-

Mr Bowles-Thank you.

Senator LUDLAM-I am sure it happens a fair bit-but it has been reported that there is a contamination assessment report and there is also a remediation plan that has been drawn up for that site.

Mr Bowles-That is correct; we do have a site remediation action plan in place.

Senator LUDLAM-Could you table those two documents for the committee? I do not mean right now,
but if you could provide them to the committee.

Mr Bowles-Yes, we will take that on notice.

Senator LUDLAM-You will be able to provide those?

Mr Bowles-Yes.

Senator LUDLAM-That would be greatly appreciated. Can you give us an idea, without prejudicing your tendering on this at the moment, what the remediation plan recommended?

Mr Bowles-In what way?

Senator LUDLAM-What are the recommendations of the remediation plans that you have?

Mr Bowles-Broadly speaking, to mediate the site of the contaminants that have been identified.

Senator LUDLAM-What does that mean? What does that look like?

Mr Bowles-Removal of contaminants.

Senator LUDLAM-In what sort of quantities?

Mr Bowles-I would have to take that on notice.

Senator LUDLAM-Okay. I suppose we would have access to that information when the documents are
tabled.

Mr Bowles-Yes.

Senator LUDLAM-My understanding is that there is quite a large volume of contaminated landfill that
would be moved off site.

Mr Bowles-I will ask my colleague to give you some answers on that.

Mr Healey-There are two main contaminants. One is lead paint, which is chipped and on the ground,
around 900 square metres below where the three towers were. The plan is to remove 10 centimetres of soil from each of those 900 square metre areas, to replace the soil and to revegetate with seeds that we have collected from the grasslands on site. The dirty soil will be removed from the site and go to an accredited disposal place, which could be in the ACT or in New South Wales.

CHAIR-What do you do with it at the accredited disposal place?

Mr Healey-It typically goes into a hole. It is a collection point for various types of contaminated soils.

CHAIR-So it goes from one hold in the ground to another hole in the ground.

Mr Healey-It goes to a certified point where we collect these sorts of contaminated materials from various projects.

Senator Faulkner-It goes to a certified hole.

CHAIR-So it goes from an unauthorised hole to a certified hole.

Senator LUDLAM-This is less funny that we are making it out to be.

Senator Faulkner-By 6.13 pm, Senator, we are entitled to try and demonstrate we still maintain a slight sense of humour.

Mr Healey-The second main area of contamination on the site is around 6,000 cubic metres of soil that has been mixed with domestic waste, essentially, and buried over the years. The plan is to excavate that 6,000 cubic metres, separate the material into soil and other rubbish, and the rubbish will be removed from site, once again to an appropriate location.

Senator Faulkner-I do hope that the Hansard will record that even Senator Ludlam was smiling about
this.

Senator LUDLAM-It is all being videotaped, Senator. I am just as implicated as everybody else. Can I
return to some of the other sources of contamination. I understand there is groundwater contamination with PCBs.

Mr Healey-We have done some groundwater assessment and have not identified any groundwater
contamination. There has been a series of electrical transformers on the site because electricity needed to be distributed to make the transmissions services work in the past. At one only of those transformer sites there is some PCB contamination on the ground. It is quite a small area-several square metres. Once again, that area would be excavated and the PCB contaminated soil removed.

Senator LUDLAM-So we have a couple of different categories of contaminants which are slated to be
removed from the site eventually-asbestos from former construction materials, PCBs, contaminated
groundwater, lead and former landfill materials?

Mr Healey-That is right.

Senator LUDLAM-All of those are slated to be removed from the site?

Mr Healey-There is no groundwater contamination, to our knowledge.

Senator LUDLAM-Okay; we might come back to that in a little bit. What are the estimated costs of the site remediation?

Mr Healey-The estimated cost of remediation is something under $2 million.

Senator LUDLAM-How many different quotations did you get? Is that from one source or have you
shopped that around a little?

Mr Healey-No; we will put the project to tender.

Senator LUDLAM-So that is your estimated cost and you are putting that out to contractors to identify.

Mr Healey-That is correct.

Senator LUDLAM-How many qualified environmental officers does the department have and what role, if any, are they playing in the proposed remediation of the site?

Mr Healey-I do not know the answer to your first question; maybe somebody else can answer that. The certification process, though, will be by an independent site auditor accredited under the ACT legislation. It will be an independent auditor.

Mr Bowles-Senator, I do not have the exact number of environmental officers. We have quite a
comprehensive environmental section. I can take that on notice and provide that if you wish.

Senator LUDLAM-I would appreciate that. I do not have to go into that now. It was more about getting a sense of how those officers will be involved in the assessment and remediation when they occur. Will the department be accepting all liability for the contaminants and any future contamination that may occur? I understand-again from the media, so correct me if I am wrong-that the land is seen as a potential site for housing.

Mr Healey-Only a small portion of the site is potentially suitable for housing. I think the site is some 140 hectares, of which about 24 hectares may be suitable for housing. The site will be remediated. There are various standards for remediation that the auditor will sign off on, and we will be looking for a site that is remediated to the standard suitable for housing.

Senator LUDLAM-Was Defence aware that the kangaroos which were recently culled on that site were
grazing on land which we have just established was contaminated with lead, other heavy metals, PCBs and so on?

Mr Bowles-Obviously if kangaroos were on the site and were grazing they must have come across that land. We did not know specifically what was happening as far as kangaroos grazing.

Senator LUDLAM-You were not monitoring individual kangaroos or anything; I understand that. Were
autopsies on any of these kangaroos carried out subsequent to their mass culling?

Mr Bowles-I believe they were, but I could not tell you the answer to that off the top of my head.

Senator LUDLAM-Is that something that you would be able to establish for us?

Mr Bowles-The only thing I do recall about that was that they were in poor condition because of the
extended dry spells and things like that. If there are other issues that we have any knowledge of, I can definitely provide that information.

Senator LUDLAM-I would greatly appreciate that. Whether the autopsies were carried out by Defence or by other agencies, I would just appreciate knowing-

Mr Bowles-We would not do that ourselves; we would have an agency do that through a contract.

Senator LUDLAM-Okay. I understand the site has some quite significant environmental and heritage
value-there are federally listed species particularly in the grassland areas. I am wondering how it is proposed to remove such an extensive area of topsoil from that site without damaging the health of the grasslands.

Mr Healey-We are actually only removing a small amount of topsoil: 900 square metres under each
tower. That is about the size of a typical house block. So, in a 140-hectare site, we are actually removing quite a small amount of topsoil, and we have collected seed from across the site to revegetate those areas.

Senator LUDLAM-So that has been undertaken already?

Mr Healey-It has.

Senator LUDLAM-Can you briefly sketch-and I recognise we are nearly out of time on this one-the known Aboriginal heritage value of the grassland areas on the site?

Mr Healey-I am unable to answer that. I will have to take that on notice.

Senator LUDLAM-I would appreciate that; thank you. How long is it anticipated to take, after the
remediation of the land, for it to be considered safe for human habitation? Could you spell out the intentions for us?

Mr Healey-When the remediation is completed and certified, it will be suitable for habitation.

Senator LUDLAM-Certified by whom?

Mr Healey-The independent site auditor.

Senator LUDLAM-Who is that likely to be?

Mr Healey-The independent site auditor will be Sinclair Knight Merz, SKM.

Senator LUDLAM-That is an audit that is then submitted to whom?

Mr Healey-The independent site auditor is the sign-off for the authority. The ACT EPA, the NSW EPA etcetera have accredited auditors, and they accept the assessment of those auditors.

Senator LUDLAM-Site unseen? Forgive me; I am not familiar with the way the process works in the
ACT. Presumably the health department, the environment department, planning authorities and so on would be evaluating the audit report from SKM.

Mr Healey-The auditor will provide a report to the ACT.

Senator LUDLAM-And that is the last we would hear of it?

Mr Healey-I am unsure of how the ACT would assess that audit report. That is not my area of expertise.

Senator LUDLAM-I am loading you up with an awful lot of work, but will you be able to take on notice
what becomes of the audit report once it is delivered to the ACT government? I do not want great detail. Presumably it would be in your interest to know.

Senator Faulkner-That is a tough one, Senator. At the end of the day I am reluctant to take that question on notice. We could undertake to try and establish what happens in another jurisdiction but you appreciate that it is very difficult for officials the follow that one through. We generally do take things on notice, but what happens to an audit report in another jurisdiction, with respect, is a really tough thing for us to follow through.

Senator LUDLAM-Perhaps I will follow that up with my new colleagues in the ACT assembly.

Senator Faulkner-Senator, that is a much better idea.

Senator LUDLAM-Finally-and the chair touched on this before; and we are almost out of time-can
you just give us, if it is within your remit, an idea of what protocols are in place at the site where all this material is eventually going to find its final resting place?

Mr Healey-I am not able to answer that either.

Senator LUDLAM-Okay. I have one last question. I referred before to groundwater contamination, and I believe the source of that is petroleum hydrocarbons that are leaking from the fuel tanks that are still there. Can you give us a sense of the scale of that contamination?

Mr Healey-There is a fuel tank on site, which will be excavated and removed, but I do not believe there is any groundwater contamination moving off the site from that fuel tank.

Senator LUDLAM-Thanks very much for your responses.