BETWEEN 750kg and 2.3 tonnes of lead is in the lead-paint primer on the ex-HMAS Adelaide, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) heard yesterday.

The shock news on the hearing’s last day contradicts Government assurances throughout the Sea Dumping assessment process that no lead paint was on the ship.

Government consultants, including a naval expert and project manager, said in tribunal documents that they were unaware there was lead-based paint on the ship.

Barrister Nigel Cotman, SC, said in a submission: “No satisfactory explanation has been proffered why two men with an intimate knowledge of, and exposure to, the ship as part of the scuttling preparation process and one equally experienced man with the responsibility of checking that process, all missed red lead bearing paint as a major component of the ship paint work below the main deck.“

The red-lead paint was discovered by US marine engineer, Werner Hoyt, when he flew to Sydney last week as an expert witness for the No Ship Action Group.

A Government witness, scientist Ross McFarland of AECOM, said he calculated 754 kg of lead aboard the ship, but when questioned by Barrister Cotman, conceded the figure could be three times as high, at about 2.3 tonnes.

Under cross examination, Mr McFarland admitted that the sampling regime he undertook was based on surface areas which were accessible and was therefore flawed, because many inaccessible surface areas had lead-paint primer.

Barrister Cotman said: "You have effectively eliminated from the sample a large proportion of the matter you were testing for.”

“Yes,” said Mr McFarland.

Questions were also raised by Dr Peter deFur, a US based expert about the reliability of the X-ray fluorescence (XRF) machine that was used to calculate the amount of lead in the paint.

Lead-paint primer covers a potential 23,922 sq metres of steel surface of the seven-deck warship with percentages of lead in the paint varying with a high of 40 per cent and an average of 28 per cent.

A tribunal panel of three including President of the AAT, Justice Garry Downes, Mr Peter Wulf and Mr Mark Hyman will consider extensive submissions detailing possible environmental damage, the precautionary principle and recycling options. Justice Downes said the matter raised difficult issues.

The ship had tested positive for PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), the tribunal heard on the first day of the hearing on Monday last week. In the past six weeks the State Government has removed 750kg of electrical cables, some fibreglass and gasket material which were believed to contain PCBs. 

Following the evidence provided by the State with regards to the removal of 750 kg of the electrical cables and other items that tested positive for PCBs, the No Ship Action Group no longer consider PCBs to be an issue in dispute in the matter.

In summary, Barrister Cotman, acting with the Environmental Defender’s Office on behalf of the No Ship group, outlined potential environmental damage and Australia’s commitment to the precautionary principle.

Barrister Cotman said the very possible 2.3 tonnes of lead was a significant amount of a dangerous substance to put in the sea.

“The biological processes are not well understood about how lead tetroxide changes form into the more toxic form of lead.”

Once the lead paint gets into an acidic environment such as a digestive tract of small sea creatures or fish, he said, it transformed to a toxic form of lead. Barrister Cotman said once the ship is on the seabed there was the prospect of an anaerobic environment forming on the surface of the lead paint with the population of marine invertebrates on the surface of the paint.

These biological processes could cause the lead to be released in a form that will have significant environmental impact, he said.

Barrister Cotman said recycling the ship at nearby Garden Island is a definite option to scuttling. He also indicated significant carbon emission savings were achievable from the recycling process and the government should be leading the way with this iniative. The NSW government have estimated costs for recycling at around $2 million dollars after sales of most materials.

The 3500 tonne hull is recyclable steel and the upper three decks are manufactured from high quality aluminium.

According to project manager for the HMAS Adelaide Project David Coyle,  a significant component of the overall recycling cost was the $1 million price tag for removing the 5 tonnes of fibreglass insulation remaining on the ship.

In his final summary, Barrister Cotman said:

“Scuttling of a vessel, as Mr Polglaze observed in oral evidence, is a one way process.  If the vessel is scuttled, and then found to be causing harm, it will not be possible (except at vast expense) to remedy that harm.

“That consideration, together with the precautionary principle set out in the Protocol, dictates that the decision to grant the permit should be set aside if there is reason to believe that it is likely to cause harm to the marine environment.  The time frame that needs to be considered in this respect is the total lifespan of the wreck, which may be hundreds of years (and not its usable life as a dive site, which will be much shorter).

“The presence on the vessel of two known biocides – lead and copper – in unknown quantities provides a strong basis for concluding that harm to the marine environment is likely,“ Barrister Cotman said.

Lawyers for the government said the anti-fouling paint will be inert.

"Our community has had to fundraise more than $70,000 to discover the truth about what was on this warship,” NSAG spokesperson Michelle Meares said.

“We were told by the State and Federal Governments and given personal assurances by Minister Tony Kelly that there was no lead paint and no PCBs onboard this ship.

"Well, there were PCBs onboard and there is lead paint. They were wrong.”

No Ship Action Group

MEDIA INQUIRIES
www.noship.com.au

Ben Smith  0409 693 205
 
Michelle Meares  0439 645 372

NOTE:
Under Article 3 of the London Protocol - an international agreement of which Australia is a signatory - in implementing this Protocol, Contracting Parties shall apply a precautionary approach to environmental protection from dumping of wastes or other matter whereby appropriate preventative measures are taken when there is reason to believe that wastes or other matter introduced into the marine environment are likely to cause harm even when there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal relation between inputs and their effects.

The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 requires a Sea Dumping Permit to be consistent with the aims of the London Protocol.

Barrister Cotman said the “aims” of the Protocol are to be seen in “the need to protect the marine environment and to promote the sustainable use and conservation of marine resources”, and the urgent need for action to “prevent, reduce and where practicable eliminate pollution of the sea caused by dumping”.

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 and 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 [PDF]