THE State Government tried to stop testing of suspected lead paint on the ex-HMAS Adelaide, arguing it was acceptable to dump 28 tonnes of lead off Avoca Beach, at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal this morning.
But Justice Garry Downes, president of the AAT, wanted to make a decision on the case with the full facts to hand.
The State of NSW then agreed to do testing.
Downes said the hearing would not finish on Thursday as planned but would be extended.
State Government witness John Polglaze, who inspected the ship while assessing the Sea Dumping Permit for the Federal Minister for Environment Peter Garrett, offered no explanation as to how a potential 28 tonnes of red lead paint on 21,000 sq m of ship interior were missed.
The suspected lead paint was discovered when the Environmental Defender’s Office, acting for No Ship Action Group, flew out a naval engineer expert from the US.
Mr Werner Hoyt inspected the warship soon after he arrived on Monday.
The State Government barrister argued testing the newly-discovered paint would not yield results before the hearing finished. She proposed the hearing proceed on the assumption there were 28 tonnes of lead paint and the State would attempt to argue the lead would not affect the environment if dumped off Avoca Beach.
Concurrent evidence, in which five witnesses simultaneously gave evidence, took place in the afternoon. It introduced No Ship Action Group’s ecotoxicologist, Dr Peter deFur, via live video link from the United States.
Justice Downes said the tribunal would be guided by the Precautionary Principle, which is part of the London Protocol, and part of an act of law in Australia (When scientific evidence is uncertain, the Precautionary Principle states decision-makers should take action to limit continued environmental damage and should err on the side of caution when evaluating proposals that may seriously or irreversibly impact on the environment http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/rn/1997-98/98rn04.htm).
There would be contamination of the surrounding area if the scuttling went ahead, State Government environmental scientist and scuba diver John Polglaze said.
“There is going to be introduction of contaminants in that environment [where we scuttle a ship],’’ Mr Polglaze said. “The question is what will be the environmental consequences, and are they acceptable or not.”
Dr deFur said lead in water can create toxic levels of lead in fish which are then consumed by people.
“There is some evidence from several regulatory agencies in the US which have set fish consumption criteria for lead [in the same way they already have set criteria] as for mercury and PCBs,” Dr deFur said.
Dr deFur said he had worked on two cases of lead poisoning through fish consumption, one in freshwater and one in seawater.
“There are no known safe exposure levels to lead,” Dr deFur said
The tribunal noted that after previous scuttlings of warships around Australia, and there have been five sunk since 2001, the subsequent sediment testing only took place in the months or year or two after sinking. The tribunal noted there are no long-term studies.
If sunk, the ex-HMAS Adelaide would be the closest ever warship to an Australian shore and popular beach.
Justice Garry Downes asked the State Barrister: “Does anyone take into account, for example, the distant future? These ships will still be there in some form or other in 300 years time.”
Justice Downes asked what if the scuttling were approved, the ship was scuttled, and the sediment later showed lead far exceeded allowable levels.
“What would then happen?” Justice Downes asked the State Barrister.
“There would be some reaction then,” the State’s Barrister said.
“How do you clean it up then?” Justice Downes asked.
The State Government’s Barrister said she would need to take further instructions from her client. She added there was a fishing exclusion zone around the proposed scuttling site, which is believed to be 200 m by 350 m.
Later in proceedings Justice Downes noted “fish can swim”.
The hearing resumes at 9am on Thursday morning.