❓ Dr. Pettitt raises concerns about PFAS contamination from the Belmont Fire Training Facility, questioning the Minister on pipeline safety, site management, remediation efforts, and information disclosure. The Minister declined to answer, citing excessive resource requirements.
AnsweredQoN 1175Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I
refer to Questions on Notice 271 and 491regarding 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 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 271 and 491regarding 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 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
Minister for the Environment
Response time
5 days
An answer to these questions cannot be provided without breaching Standing Order 106. The information sought is extensive and would require an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources. If the Honourable Member reframes the question into a more concise question, I will endeavour to provide a response consistent with the Legislative Council Standing Orders.
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.