RAAF Base Richmond is among 28 Defence sites covered by the Commonwealth’s lawsuit against chemical company 3M over contamination linked to firefighting foam.
The federal government commenced proceedings in the Federal Court in May, seeking more than $2 billion to recover past and future costs of investigating, managing and cleaning up PFAS contamination. It alleges that 3M withheld information and gave assurances about its firefighting foam’s environmental safety that were inconsistent with what the company knew. Those allegations have not been determined by the court.
The Richmond base has been placed among 17 sites in the highest risk category described in the Commonwealth’s claim, according to ABC News reporting in August. The ABC said that category covers sites where PFAS continues to leach, contamination is spreading and guideline values in drinking or recreational water are exceeded.
The case seeks to recover the Commonwealth’s costs for environmental, economic and cultural impacts. It is not a personal injury claim and will not determine whether an individual’s illness was caused by PFAS exposure.
That distinction has frustrated some people who worked with the foam. In a June report for the ABC’s 7.30, Adam Harvey spoke to retired firefighter Graeme Murphy, who described his exposure during training and his subsequent cancer diagnoses. Murphy said firefighters should not have to keep battling to establish the risks associated with their work. His experience raises a serious question, but the court case does not establish a link between his illnesses and PFAS.
Assistant Minister for Defence Peter Khalil told 7.30 the proceedings were focused on the environmental, economic and cultural impacts of contamination and the costs incurred in responding to them. The program also heard from researchers who differed on what the available evidence shows about particular health effects.
3M has said it will defend the claim. In a statement reported by the ABC, the company said it stopped selling the products at issue in Australia around two decades ago and that Defence continued using PFAS-containing foams after that time.
For Hawkesbury residents, the lawsuit puts Richmond’s long-running contamination concerns within a national legal action. Whether the Commonwealth proves its allegations against 3M remains for the Federal Court to decide. The need to monitor and manage PFAS around the base continues while that case proceeds.
Acknowledgement: This report draws on Adam Harvey’s 4 June 2026 report for ABC 7.30 and subsequent ABC News reporting by Xanthe Gregory, as well as the Commonwealth’s announcement of the proceedings.
OPINION
Hawkesbury PFAS could travel far beyond our waterways
By Grant Scott
When Hawkesbury residents think about PFAS, they may think of RAAF Base Richmond, the drains and the creeks. The sewer deserves attention too. PFAS entering a sewage treatment plant does not simply disappear.
Some compounds can leave in treated water. Others, including PFOS, can accumulate in biosolids: the treated sewage solids that are reused on land. Sydney Water says about 60 per cent of its biosolids are applied to agricultural soils on more than 40 farms across the Central West and South West of NSW.
Richmond is part of the reason to ask where those contaminants go. In December 2024, the ABC reported on a Sydney Water risk assessment obtained under freedom of information laws. It found that biosolids from Richmond, Riverstone and Quakers Hill were the most contaminated with PFAS in Sydney Water’s network. That finding does not, by itself, establish which farms received Richmond biosolids or how much PFAS, if any, reached their soil. The public should be able to see that information.
The rules governing this reuse are under review. The NSW Environment Protection Authority has consulted on revised biosolids requirements, including PFAS testing, contaminant limits and record keeping. Those safeguards matter. But if they leave treatment plants and farmers to deal indefinitely with PFAS entering the system, they address only part of the problem.
Maine offers a warning. The US state banned the application of sewage sludge and sludge-derived products to land in 2022 after PFAS contamination became a serious concern. A ban can prevent further spreading, but the contaminated material still needs somewhere to go.
Here in the Hawkesbury, Defence has identified PFAS source areas at RAAF Base Richmond, including its sewage treatment plant. Its assessment says PFAS moves off the base mainly through surface water drains to the east. That makes the drains a priority, but it does not make the sewage pathway irrelevant. Before any connection between the base and the town sewer proceeds, the community needs to know what PFAS could enter that system and how it would be controlled.
Contaminated hard surfaces also warrant close examination. Fire-training areas, wash bays and hardstands may continue to release PFAS after firefighting foam use has stopped. The practical response is to identify and test each source, then choose treatment or containment methods that demonstrably reduce what leaves the site.
Three steps would bring greater confidence. Sydney Water and Defence should publish clear, comparable PFAS results for the relevant sewage, treated water and biosolids, along with the destinations of Richmond’s biosolids. Any proposal to connect the base to the town sewer should include effective PFAS controls before discharge. And the final NSW biosolids rules should be accompanied by a program to reduce contamination entering wastewater systems.
The Hawkesbury has lived with PFAS concerns for more than a decade. We should know whether material from Richmond is carrying those chemicals elsewhere, and act at the source wherever the evidence shows it can be stopped.
Grant Scott is a chartered engineer and principal consultant with Ambiolock Australia, which develops PFAS source-control technologies and is exploring research on PFAS in biosolids. He writes the PFAS Source Control newsletter on Substack.
