❓ Hon Dr Brad Pettitt raises concerns about PFAS contamination from the former Belmont Fire Training Facility, questioning the Minister about potential risks to drinking water, public spaces, and property development. The Minister provides limited direct answers, deferring most questions to another QON.
AnsweredQoN 1174Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I
refer to Questions on Notice (QON) 271 and 491 regarding the contamination of soil, surface water and groundwater by chemicals
known as per- and poly-fluoro alkyl substances (PFAS) and the plume at and
around the former Belmont Fire Training Facility, and I ask: (a) is the Minister aware
that the critical 84-year-old cast iron Canning-Mundaring to Perth drinking
water pipeline passes through this known contaminated site; (b) what action has the Minister taken to protect this pipeline from contamination by polluted groundwater; (c) is the Minister aware there is a children’s sand pit on both a known
contaminated site and another possibly contaminated site, within the source
site and Centenary Park; (d) is the Minister aware
if the groundwater bore at the motel on the former fire training site is
currently being used for irrigation at the PFAS source site; (e) is the Minister aware
if Centenary Park, owned by the City of Belmont has had a contaminated site
memorial placed on the certificate of title; (f) how many groundwater
bores are located within the Belmont fire station PFAS plume; (g) of those groundwater
bores referred to in (f), how many have been tested for PFAS contamination; (h) would the Minister
please table the results of PFAS testing, referred to in QON 491, of the plume
from the old Belmont Fire Station; (i) if no to (h), why not; (j) is the Minister
satisfied with the level of testing and monitoring for PFAS that has been
conducted; (k) is there a long-term
management strategy for this plume (for example, long-term environmental
monitoring, fencing, security and signposting), and if yes please detail; (l) is the contamination
able to be remediated; (m) if yes to (l), who
will bear the cost of the clean-up; (n) if no to (l), why not; (o) is dilution or natural
attenuation an option for remediation of this plume; (p) will the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) provide,
free of charge, the detailed summary of records of testing to help residential
property owners identify potential contamination risks to land and property in
the context of possible property transactions and development; (q) are 54 Hardey Road and
74 Hardey Road safe and suitable for any use, either their current, or any
proposed future use, including subdivision and development, and if so, are any
management or further remediation actions required; (r) is the Minister aware that construction work
can result in an alteration of PFAS migration (or chemical transport) pathways
through changes to surface and groundwater flows; (s) will DWER enforce
conditions to require appropriate site investigation and remediation, prior to
any development and construction works in the area of this plume; and (t) are planning
documents produced by local councils to disclose property and planning
information adequately informing people about contaminated land issues?
refer to Questions on Notice (QON) 271 and 491 regarding the contamination of soil, surface water and groundwater by chemicals
known as per- and poly-fluoro alkyl substances (PFAS) and the plume at and
around the former Belmont Fire Training Facility, and I ask: (a) is the Minister aware
that the critical 84-year-old cast iron Canning-Mundaring to Perth drinking
water pipeline passes through this known contaminated site; (b) what action has the Minister taken to protect this pipeline from contamination by polluted groundwater; (c) is the Minister aware there is a children’s sand pit on both a known
contaminated site and another possibly contaminated site, within the source
site and Centenary Park; (d) is the Minister aware
if the groundwater bore at the motel on the former fire training site is
currently being used for irrigation at the PFAS source site; (e) is the Minister aware
if Centenary Park, owned by the City of Belmont has had a contaminated site
memorial placed on the certificate of title; (f) how many groundwater
bores are located within the Belmont fire station PFAS plume; (g) of those groundwater
bores referred to in (f), how many have been tested for PFAS contamination; (h) would the Minister
please table the results of PFAS testing, referred to in QON 491, of the plume
from the old Belmont Fire Station; (i) if no to (h), why not; (j) is the Minister
satisfied with the level of testing and monitoring for PFAS that has been
conducted; (k) is there a long-term
management strategy for this plume (for example, long-term environmental
monitoring, fencing, security and signposting), and if yes please detail; (l) is the contamination
able to be remediated; (m) if yes to (l), who
will bear the cost of the clean-up; (n) if no to (l), why not; (o) is dilution or natural
attenuation an option for remediation of this plume; (p) will the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) provide,
free of charge, the detailed summary of records of testing to help residential
property owners identify potential contamination risks to land and property in
the context of possible property transactions and development; (q) are 54 Hardey Road and
74 Hardey Road safe and suitable for any use, either their current, or any
proposed future use, including subdivision and development, and if so, are any
management or further remediation actions required; (r) is the Minister aware that construction work
can result in an alteration of PFAS migration (or chemical transport) pathways
through changes to surface and groundwater flows; (s) will DWER enforce
conditions to require appropriate site investigation and remediation, prior to
any development and construction works in the area of this plume; and (t) are planning
documents produced by local councils to disclose property and planning
information adequately informing people about contaminated land issues?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
24 February 2026
Responded by
Leader of the House representing the Minister for Water
Response time
5 days
(a) Water Corporation is aware that the Canning-Mundaring pipeline runs through the former Belmont Fire Training Facility.
(b) This pipeline operates under constant pressure preventing contamination from ground water coming in through the pipe walls should a crack develop in the pipe wall. Should the water pressure be lost as the result of a burst and there was a need to perform a repair, the section of the pipe around the site of the burst, would be flushed and scoured to prevent contamination of the water source.
(c-t) Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 1175.
(b) This pipeline operates under constant pressure preventing contamination from ground water coming in through the pipe walls should a crack develop in the pipe wall. Should the water pressure be lost as the result of a burst and there was a need to perform a repair, the section of the pipe around the site of the burst, would be flushed and scoured to prevent contamination of the water source.
(c-t) Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 1175.
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.