REGARDING the article 'Staggering cost of airport PFAS bill revealed' (Daily, February 4).
It adds weight to the concern that the airport project is being driven by penalties, project timelines and contractual obligations, and demonstrates poor planning and lurching from crisis to crisis.
The oversight of identifying and planning for PFAS chemicals in the project's Environmental Impact Statement is just one example of the project's mismanagement.
The recommendation to release the water into the ocean was made because it was the fastest way to get contaminated water off-site, with little consideration for the community or environmental best practice. If there was no time restriction on the required actions, the Department of Environment and Science would have made a different recommendation.
They would treat the water first and perform a gradual release over time.
I know, because I asked them.
Kudos to Kathryn Hyman for obtaining the original information and not falling for a diluted handout of information from the Sunshine Coast Council.
Contractural penalties with the construction company are placing this council under extreme pressure to meet potentially unreasonable deadlines.
It is also important to remember there is a 99-year airport lease agreement with Palisade.
The penalties that might be incurred if contractual obligations are not met with Palisade are still unknown to the wider community.