Officials refusing to release foam contamination info

Government officials are refusing to reveal details about the levels of toxic chemical contamination of groundwater below two air bases.

Testing is being done to determine whether drinking water outside bases at Ohakea, near Palmerston North, and Woodbourne, near Blenheim are contaminated by toxic chemicals from firefighting foam.

The Defence Force learned two years ago there was a contamination problem at the two bases.

After new health guidelines were set in June, it was discovered the contamination was above acceptable levels.

But it did not tell the public until last week, and it has never said how much above acceptable levels it is, despite repeated requests from RNZ.

The Ministry for the Environment said in a statement that the levels of contamination varies between the two sites, and the government was "taking the issue very seriously".

Testing is being done and the results would be made public, the ministry said.

Although the exact levels of the contamination have not been made public, low levels of the toxin have been found in milk from dairy farms near Ohakea but people have been told it is safe to drink.

Locals near the Ohakea and Woodbourne airbases have been told not to drink water from their bores.

Meantime, Auckland Airport has confirmed it is still using a foam containing one of the two toxic chemicals, PFOA. The other is PFOS.

That's despite the government tightening the rules back in 2006 to ban the chemical for in firefighting.

The Defence Force has not used it since 2002.

Refining New Zealand confirmed it has found chemicals present at or below the guideline levels after testing the groundwater and soil at Marsden Point, Northland.

In Australia, the chemicals have leaked into drinking water, triggering the country's largest ever environmental investigation.

There's been global concern about the health and environmental effects of the two chemicals since 1999.

The compounds have been linked to a number of diseases, including an increased cancer risk.

In May 2000, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told Australian officials that PFOS "appears to combine persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity properties to an extraordinary degree".

PFOA has been found to be very similar to it.

DuPont earlier this year settled lawsuits against it over the chemicals in the US for more than $US600 million.

California last month added PFOA and PFOS to the list of chemicals known to interfere with normal reproduction.

Last year, the US EPA drastically lowered the health advisory guidelines for exposure to the two chemicals.

The new guidelines for Australasia introduced in April are close to the new ones in the US.

Some researchers, including from Harvard, say the maximum suggested exposure limits are still way too high.

Despite the problems in Australia and the US, officials in New Zealand are at pains to point out that the volume of the foam used here was much smaller.

TIMELINE

• 1999 - 3M data shows PFOS extremely persistent and bad for rats; the US company stops using PFOS by 2002
• 2000 - US EPA expands investigation to PFOA and begins to tighten use rules for PFOS
• 2000 - OECD agrees to do a hazard assessment; finds the chemicals bioaccumulate in fish and mammals, and humans
• 2001 to 2008 - Research funded by a $70m settlement with DuPont has independent panel monitor 69,000 exposed people over seven years; finds probable link to high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, kidney cancer and pregnancy-induced hypertension
• 2003 - Australian government issues alert about environmental and health concerns, and orders they be restricted to essential use only
• 2003 - Australian Defence study recommends site testing of soil and water where firefighting foam used
• 2004 - New Zealand participates in an OECD survey into PFOS and PFOA manufacture and use
• 2005 - UK concludes PFOS is a risk to the environment
• 2005 - DuPont fined $16 million by EPA over PFOA pollution and coverup, drawing big attention to the issue in the US
• 2006 - New Zealand withdraws PFOS and PFOA from the list of chemicals firefighters can use
• 2008 - Airservices in Australia begins big studies of PFOS and PFOA
• 2009 - PFOS included in the Stockholm convention n Persistent Organic Pollutants
• 2011-2013 - NZ nationwide survey of shows 100 percent of human samples show presence of PFOS
• 2012 - Australian Defence warns New South Wales government of a town being contaminated but insists it keep the information confidential
• 2014 - PFOA classified as possibly carcinogenic
• 2015 - In US, PFOS from firefighting foam discovered in the water near hundreds of military bases, airports and fire department training sites
• 2016 - Australian Senate inquiry into contamination by PFOS and PFOA foam
• 2016 - UN's persistent organic pollutants review committee finds PFOA was likely to "lead to significant adverse human health and environmental effects such that global action is warranted". By contrast, Australian health advice, on which NZ health advice is based, says there is no substantial proof the chemicals cause significant human health risks
• 2016 - US EPA drops exposure limits in health advisory for PFOA and PFOS hugely, to 70 parts per trillion
• 2017 - Food Standards Australia New Zealand adopts a similar guideline to the US EPA advisory
• 2017 - In Australia, 20 airports are being investigated, and 18 defence sites are being treated as a high priority