Environmental watchdog steps in to deal with Recycal ‘shredder floc’ after Launceston lead scare

The environmental watchdog has employed its own contractors, at a cost of $300,000, to deal with lead-emitting waste material at Launceston recycling firm Recycal, a tribunal has heard.

Recycal's Rocherlea facility. Picture: Facebook

A tribunal stoush between controversial metal waste company Recycal and Tasmania’s environmental watchdog will go ahead this month, despite attempts to have the hearing delayed.

Fears were raised early this year the Launceston recycling firm was spreading lead dust over nearby homes, a school, a bakery and a farm.

On February 1, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) ordered that Recycal shut down its metal shredder, with concerns the lead was being spread through “shredder floc” waste material.

At the same time, Public Health Tasmania urgently advised nearby residents and businesses about the potential risks and offered free blood tests.

After a failed attempt for a stay on the order, Recycal returned to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal last week – this time waging a battle for extra time to get ready for this month’s appeal.

In a newly-published decision, the tribunal heard evidence that in response to Recycal allegedly not complying with the EPA’s order to cover its floc stockpiles, it had hired contractors to undertake work at the Rocherlea site, applying a dust-suppressing binding agent.

According to the decision and ahead of an appeal hearing later this month, Recycal has filed witness statements from environmental scientist Michael Cramer, and Mark Potter, an expert in fire risk management for the purposes.

In response, the EPA filed evidence from its director Wesley Ford, and Mark Veitch, the Tasmanian Public Health director, along with evidence from nine witnesses and a statement from environmental auditor John Throssell.

But a fortnight ago, Recycal applied for an adjournment, saying it had been unable to retain an environmental expert to give evidence at the hearing, despite what it described as its “diligent attempts”.

As a result, Recycal argued it would be procedurally unfair to proceed on the June dates.

It also argued the EPA’s work to secure the floc ameliorated the risk of off-site dust migration and therefore any prejudice to its opponent.

However, tribunal deputy president Richard Grueber noted that work – “at a cost of some $300,000” was being undertaken by the EPA because Recycal had refused to comply with its orders.

He said Recycal had taken “no steps” to prevent dust emissions from its existing floc piles, although noted the company had stopped shredding floc, so was not producing dust from new floc.

Mr Grueber, in refusing Recycal’s application for an adjournment, said he didn’t believe more time would help the company in finding an expert – and noted Mr Cramer should be able to address the issues in question.

He said if the hearing was adjourned, it would not be heard potentially until August, which would be a “significant delay given the public health issues”.

The hearing will run for five days from June 17.

Follow @ambervwilson