Metal recycling company loses fight with EPA over post-blaze water contamination

A metal recycling company that caused a serious water contamination problem after a catastrophic blaze has lost a battle against the state’s environmental protection agency.

Recycal Pty Ltd's Rocherlea facility. Picture: Facebook

A metal recycling company in Launceston that caused a serious water contamination problem after its waste residue combusted into a catastrophic blaze has lost a battle against the state’s environmental protection agency.

In May, Recycal went to the Supreme Court of Tasmania to fight a suite of conditions imposed upon it by the EPA, which had been later upheld by the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The February 2022 fire occurred when a shed containing “shredder floc”, or waste residue, combusted, sending plumes of smoke across Launceston and causing millions of dollars worth of damage.

The EPA had ordered Recycal to catch and remove all water run-off from its Rocherlea site so as not to continue contaminating a neighbouring farm near the Tamar River.

Rocherlea warehouse fire. Picture: Alex Treacy.

But Recycal said it was “impractical or unfeasible” to comply, arguing in a heavy rain event, 10 eductor trucks with pump action would be required to cart the water away, with a three-hour round-trip to a George Town treatment facility.

It argued the costs involved would be prohibitive.

Now, Acting Justice Shane Marshall has not only dismissed Recycal’s appeal, upholding both the EPA and the tribunal’s decisions, but also ordered the company pay its opponents’ legal costs.

In his newly-published judgment, Acting Justice Marshall noted water discharging from the Rocherlea site was polluted with heavy metals and PFOS, a synthetic material.

He said firefighters pumped about 12 million litres of water onto the 2022 fire, with contaminated water escaping through a single stormwater discharge outlet.

Fire incident at Crooked Billet Drive, Bridgewater. Picture: Chris Kidd

The judge said there was no evidence Recycal had so far complied with its requirement to catch and remove its water run-off, although the company’s lawyers said it was “working towards a plan”.

“That it has been dilatory in doing so is an understatement,” Acting Justice Marshall said.

He rejected all seven of Recycal’s grounds of appeal, finding the tribunal made no error in law by upholding the EPA’s decision.

Another blaze occurred at Recycal’s Bridgewater operation in February this year.

The company said that blaze had been caused by a car body brought in for recycling.