❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding PFAS-contaminated soil from the Forrestfield-Airport Link project and its potential reuse at Perth Airport. The questions probe discrepancies in statements about why the soil was not used.
AnsweredQoN 1254Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
FORRESTFIELD–AIRPORT
LINK — SOIL CONTAMINATION
1254. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS to the minister representing the
Minister for Transport:
I
refer to my occasional questions this year on PFAS-contaminated soil excavated
from the Forrestfield–Airport Link project.
(1) Why did Public Transport Authority senior
environmental officer Paul Monaghan tell the Perth community on the
current affairs program Today Tonight last night that the reason the
spoil was rejected by the commonwealth was ''definitely nothing to do
with the PFAS levels''?
(2) Did the PTA
tell the program that ''reports the federal government refused to allow
it to be spread for fill at the airport are wrong'', as the program reported
last night?
(3) If yes to
(2), why did the director general of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet,
Darren Foster, write to the commonwealth in December 2017 saying, ''There
is currently a commonwealth restriction preventing Perth Airport Pty Ltd from
storing and using PFAS containing material on the Perth Airport site''
as per my question on Tuesday?
(4) If the reason
that the spoil has not been confirmed for re-use at Perth Airport to date was
not PFAS contamination, what was the reason?
(5) Would the
Minister for Transport like copies of my parliamentary questions and freedom of
information documents, such as the federal Department of Environment and Energy's
response to the site-specific risk assessment, which proves that the re-use of
the spoil has been restricted by its PFAS contamination?
LINK — SOIL CONTAMINATION
1254. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS to the minister representing the
Minister for Transport:
I
refer to my occasional questions this year on PFAS-contaminated soil excavated
from the Forrestfield–Airport Link project.
(1) Why did Public Transport Authority senior
environmental officer Paul Monaghan tell the Perth community on the
current affairs program Today Tonight last night that the reason the
spoil was rejected by the commonwealth was ''definitely nothing to do
with the PFAS levels''?
(2) Did the PTA
tell the program that ''reports the federal government refused to allow
it to be spread for fill at the airport are wrong'', as the program reported
last night?
(3) If yes to
(2), why did the director general of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet,
Darren Foster, write to the commonwealth in December 2017 saying, ''There
is currently a commonwealth restriction preventing Perth Airport Pty Ltd from
storing and using PFAS containing material on the Perth Airport site''
as per my question on Tuesday?
(4) If the reason
that the spoil has not been confirmed for re-use at Perth Airport to date was
not PFAS contamination, what was the reason?
(5) Would the
Minister for Transport like copies of my parliamentary questions and freedom of
information documents, such as the federal Department of Environment and Energy's
response to the site-specific risk assessment, which proves that the re-use of
the spoil has been restricted by its PFAS contamination?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for
some notice of the question. The following information has been provided to me
by the Minister for Transport.
(1) Formal
approval has never been sought from the commonwealth to use soil excavated
during construction of the Forrestfield–Airport Link project at Perth
Airport. The commonwealth has therefore never rejected the use of soil
excavated during construction of the FAL project at Perth Airport. Any decision
to use FAL soil on the Perth Airport site is a matter to be determined by Perth
Airport in discussions with the commonwealth. The state has expressed its
support for this use.
The commonwealth Department of
Environment and Energy has reviewed, and provided comments on, a site-specific risk assessment report for a specific
site within Perth Airport. The report was not resubmitted to the
commonwealth because Perth Airport no longer plans to place soil from the FAL
project on the specific site within the airport that was the subject of that
assessment.
(2) Yes.
(3) The director
general of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet wrote to the commonwealth
in December 2017, prior to the February 2018 release of the ''PFAS
National Environmental Management Plan'', prior to the March 2018
provision of the aforementioned SSRA report to the commonwealth and at a time
when the state government understood that there was a commonwealth government
requirement in place that airport lessees ensure that any fill brought onto
airport sites be PFAS free.
(4) Perth Airport
no longer plans to place soil from the Forrestfield–Airport Link
project on the specific site within the
airport, which was the subject of the abovementioned site-specific risk
assessment. Perth Airport remains interested in utilising excess fill
from the FAL project to facilitate developments consistent with the airport
master plan, and negotiations are ongoing.
(5) No. The characterisation of the federal Department
of the Environment and Energy's response to the site- specific
risk assessment is not accepted.
some notice of the question. The following information has been provided to me
by the Minister for Transport.
(1) Formal
approval has never been sought from the commonwealth to use soil excavated
during construction of the Forrestfield–Airport Link project at Perth
Airport. The commonwealth has therefore never rejected the use of soil
excavated during construction of the FAL project at Perth Airport. Any decision
to use FAL soil on the Perth Airport site is a matter to be determined by Perth
Airport in discussions with the commonwealth. The state has expressed its
support for this use.
The commonwealth Department of
Environment and Energy has reviewed, and provided comments on, a site-specific risk assessment report for a specific
site within Perth Airport. The report was not resubmitted to the
commonwealth because Perth Airport no longer plans to place soil from the FAL
project on the specific site within the airport that was the subject of that
assessment.
(2) Yes.
(3) The director
general of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet wrote to the commonwealth
in December 2017, prior to the February 2018 release of the ''PFAS
National Environmental Management Plan'', prior to the March 2018
provision of the aforementioned SSRA report to the commonwealth and at a time
when the state government understood that there was a commonwealth government
requirement in place that airport lessees ensure that any fill brought onto
airport sites be PFAS free.
(4) Perth Airport
no longer plans to place soil from the Forrestfield–Airport Link
project on the specific site within the
airport, which was the subject of the abovementioned site-specific risk
assessment. Perth Airport remains interested in utilising excess fill
from the FAL project to facilitate developments consistent with the airport
master plan, and negotiations are ongoing.
(5) No. The characterisation of the federal Department
of the Environment and Energy's response to the site- specific
risk assessment is not accepted.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.