House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Ministerial Statement Klemzig Groundwater Testing KLEMZIG GROUNDWATER TESTING The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly Colton Minister for Environment and Conservation Minister for the River Murray Minister for Water The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water) (14:54): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement. Leave granted. The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly The Hon. P. CAICA: On 16 August 2010 I received a briefing from the EPA indicating that they would be undertaking testing of bores in the Klemzig area as a result of their having received a notification of contamination at what I am told was a former smallgoods factory on O.G. Road at Klemzig. I was advised that various substances had been identified on the smallgoods factory site, all associated with motor fuel, including benzene, a known carcinogen. I was advised that the benzene levels were at a concentration of 22 milligrams per litre, far in excess of the guidelines of 0.001 to 0.3 milligrams per litre. There was no evidence at the time to indicate that domestic bores were affected. There was no suggestion in the EPA briefing that any members of the public were at risk. The EPA indicated that they were to approach the owners of 17 registered wells to conduct groundwater testing to rule out any health risk. I was advised that testing would commence within a day of the samples being taken, that the EPA would prepare advice in conjunction with SA Health and that the EPA would provide advice to those persons whose wells had been tested. It was confirmed with me yesterday that a doorknock of properties with registered wells within a 500-metre radius of the former smallgoods factory site was undertaken. There were 17 properties doorknocked because they had registered bores. I was advised that this occurred on 17 August 2010. I am advised also that Port Adelaide Enfield council staff members were notified verbally and via email on 16 August 2010. Of the 17 properties doorknocked, four private groundwater wells were sampled on 17 and 18 August 2010. I am advised that these four were tested because, in the majority of cases, the wells no longer existed or could no longer be accessed, so they were not in use by residents. The EPA tested the four groundwater wells that were in active use by residents. They were analysed for total petroleum hydrocarbons, BTEX, lead and methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE). Results showed that in three of the four tested wells groundwater contaminants that were being looked for were not found. I am further advised that in one property the laboratory reported some total petroleum hydrocarbon fractions that were indicative of a middle weight petroleum-based product such as diesel. I am further advised that this groundwater well was subsequently re-tested on both 22 August 2010 and 17 November 2010 and analysed for the petroleum hydrocarbons. I am advised that results from these later testings indicated that no contaminants were found. I repeat: no contaminants were found. The EPA has advised that it could not establish the source of the initial positive TPH detected in the first sampling test but that, because two subsequent sampling events showed no presence of hydrocarbon contaminants, no further sampling was required. These tests revealed no contamination of groundwater under these residential premises. There was no risk of hydrocarbon contamination identified. There was no evidence to suggest that contamination existed under residential areas near the former smallgoods factory site. I am advised that the residential properties sampled were all advised of the testing results for their wells. The three properties that initially returned no contaminant results were advised by phone and writing on 20 October 2010. The fourth property received a final report from the EPA on 20 December 2010. As per usual advice provided, the EPA reinforced to groundwater bore owners that they must carry out regular testing of water quality to ensure the water is fit for purpose. At the time of the original briefing, the EPA determined that no broadscale media release was deemed necessary, as there was no evidence of any risk to public health and safety. Following the testing, it was established— Members interjecting: The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, ask me some questions afterwards if you like. Members interjecting: The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly The Hon. P. CAICA: Good. I look forward to it. Following the testing, it was established that no hydrocarbon contamination was present at those residences; consequently, there was nothing to announce. Changes brought in by this government created an obligation on the part of property owners to advise the EPA of contamination on their sites. This government appreciates there is a strong desire on the part of the public for ready access to information held by the EPA regarding site contamination. That is why, late last year, I encouraged the EPA to ensure that information relating to contaminated sites is made more easily available on the EPA website. This information is currently available from the EPA. It is a government priority to ensure that, in cases where contamination in residential areas is established, residents are informed first. The EPA and the government are concerned—greatly concerned—that residents within the local area have been misinformed about potential risks in relation to this issue, and the EPA will be undertaking a local letterbox drop to reinforce the message that from the tests required by the EPA at the residential bores there were no detectable levels of substances found.