The panelists resigned in December, blaming the actions of the Government's pulp mill task force for undermining the integrity of the Resource Planning and Development Commission.

Dr Raverty has since described the Long Reach site as "highly sensitive" and has raised concerns that issues to do with smell, effluent and particulate emissions were yet to be fully addressed by the proponent.

Those comments are believed to have created legal doubts about the process going forward.

Gunns chairman John Gay confirmed yesterday he believed Dr Raverty's comments had tainted the assessment process and was taking legal advice on the matter.

"I think he has damaged the process of the RPDC and whether the process can keep going is in great doubt," Mr Gay said last night.

"You can't have someone who is connected with other people in the process making assumptions like that.

"The whole process needs to be seriously looked at."

Premier Paul Lennon held crisis talks with Mr Gay on Wednesday in an attempt to salvage the proposal, which Mr Gay has also threatened to take offshore if delays continue.

He gave an assurance that the Government still supported a world-class pulp mill and would "do everything possible to have it assessed in a reasonable time frame".

A Government source confirmed Mr Lennon was also seeking legal advice about how to salvage the integrity of the assessment, though, surprisingly, disbanding the task force has been ruled out.

Dr Raverty was one of the scientists who drew up the original guidelines covering all kraft pulp mill proposals in Tasmania.

Whether or not those guidelines could be undermined if Gunns, or anyone else, levelled a claim of apprehended bias at Dr Raverty is believed to be the focus of the legal advice.

Ironically, it was a claim of apprehended bias in favour of the project, brought by the Tasmanian Greens, that led to Dr Raverty's resignation in December.

But Dr Raverty dismissed suggestions the guidelines could be discredited because of his comments.

He said they had been put forward by a panel of independent scientists, ratified by both the State and Federal governments, and agreed to by Gunns.

"Gunns would have no credibility if they tried to undermine them now," Dr Raverty said.

"I have always been fair and balanced and I have said from the start that this project has great merit and also great shortcomings and I believe Gunns should instead be working to address those shortcomings."

HAVE YOUR SAY Write a letter to The Examiner at PO Box 99, Launceston 7250, or email editor@examiner.com.au