Sinced the anti-logging campaigns of the 1970s, growing timber in Australia has been a controversial business. In Tasmania the industry is often accused of converting too much of its forests to wood chip which is exported to Japan for not very much money.
Interestingly the same environmental lobby that criticises the export of wood chip, is also against the building of a pulp mill which would allow the wood chip to be converted to paper in Tasmania rather than Japan.
The Tasmania Minister for Planning recently contracted two independent consultants to undertake an assessment and review of the proposed new Gunns Limited Pulp Mill proposal, pursuant to the Pulp Mill Assessment Act 2007.
SWECO PIC has undertaken an assessment of the project against the Environmental Emission Limit Guidelines for any New Bleached Kraft Eucalypt Pulp Mill in Tasmania and concluded 92 percent of guidelines are met by the project with the remaining able to be addressed through permit conditions.
SWECO is a Swedish based consultancy and the report entitled ‘Assesment of the Gunns Limited Bell Bay Pulp Mill Against the Environmental Emission Limit Guidelines’, published 25 June 2007 is available at http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/justice/pulpmillassessment/sweco_pic_report
ITS Global has undertaken a review of the net social and economic benefits of the proposed mill concluding that the mill will add approximately 2.5 percent to annual Gross State Product which in lump sum terms is equivalent to $6.7 billion in net present value terms to 2030. The pulp mill is also assessed as broadening and strengthening the industrial base of the Tasmanian economy. The report is available at http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/82282/Final_ITS_Global_Report.pdf .
Both reports and supporting information are also available for download at http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/justice/pulpmillassessment
Given these reports, you would have to be simply anti-development and investment in Tasmania to oppose the pulp mill.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Oh Jenifer: I luv the RPDC bit in D.1.7-8 with appointed residents chasing NOx, SO2-3, POPS and pips etc up the street with a portable GC MS during early production.
I am told by a friend that two proposed pulp mills in Vic and SA are both designed to have zero emissions of chemicals into the ocean. If it is possible for those pulp mills not to pump toxns into the ocean then why not in Tasmania? There are valid concerns about pollution from the Tas mill, why haven’t Gunns opted for a zero ocean outfall design if such a thing is possible. What about the fishermen? I’m not anti development… lets just make sure that we don’t rob Peter to pay Paul. I’m confused as to why the pulp mill in Tasmania wasn’t designed to be cleaner in the first place. Can anyone please explain???
Ask Judith Adjani what she thinks of the pulp mill! Who the hell would take any notice of a right wing climate change sceptic!
Can’t answer your question specifically D, but one of the greatest sources of confusion in forest debates is the assumption that all forests and all wood is the same. Which they are not. Good practice for one forest or one type of wood can often be bad practice in another situation.
I would first look to see if the Vic and SA mills are based on softwood (Pinus radiata in this case) resources because that would seem most likely to me. The Bell Bay mill is primarily based upon hardwood eucalyptus chip, so my guess is the processes are different.
It would be good to hear from anyone who knows the specifics of the 3 proposals.
Kate, While I might be a climate change skeptic, I’m not right wing.
I’m a libertarian, see http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002056.html
And what are you? A climate change believer, who votes Democrat or Green?
Woops – “.. all forests and all wood ARE the same.” Whadda dummy.
But speaking of which, who the hell would take any notice of Judith Adjani? Her article in the Weekend Australian indicated to me that Judith thinks (a) all plantations are the same, which they are not; (b) plantations are not forests, which they are; and (c) Judith seems to be more facinated by, and well informed about, the machinations and intrigues of the ALP than she is about forests and markets for wood fibre.
Polution controls aand engineering methods for modern pulp mills ensure that they are friendly on the environment, be these mechanical mills as proposed for SA or chemical as proposed for Tasmania. Due to the Tasmanian process the treated effluent is very salty thus not suitable for discharge to an artificial wetlands. To safeguard the marine environemnt the Tasmanian guidelines demand a TEQ for dioxins in the treated effluent of 13 pica grams per litre. Pica means a fraction of a gram to 10 to the minus 12th power or one trillionth of a gram, or 0.000 000 000 001. The weight of a litre of water is 1000 grams or 1 kilogram. So we are talking about something so small it is expressed as 10 to the minus 15. This according to the USEPA is the limit of detection.
Thus Dioxin formation in the discharged pulp mill effluent is calculated to be almost non-existent, undetectable and significantly below the emission guidelines limit.
Jennifer: Before we get carried away, several questions should be asked here
1)where is the scaled up mill model
2)how Gunns will get the necessary experience
3)why one pundit rubbished their share prospects in my news paper today
Perhaps we could ask who is most likely to come in on the job later.
D asks about differences in pulp processes
I suggest a look at this 1990 Aus Govt doc on our pulp history “Pulp and Paper – Bleaching and the Environment” particularly Table 1.
http://www.pc.gov.au/ic/inquiry/01pulp/finalreport/01pulp.pdf
I had practical knowledge in several plants and processes mentioned there and I can say the discussions around industry problems remained much the same over some thirty years prior to this paper. There were no quick fixes then.
Natural eucalypt pulp is very dark by comparison to pine.
Bleaching was all about public acceptance, whiteness and brightness even applies to our toilet tissue. Note we don’t get unbleached hardwood tissue in that table since home grown pine is the only feedstock. Note too the other residues.
Cinders: all we have in July 2007 is a fresh pile of rhetoric on the possibilities for a new level of compliance with your government’s expectations.
However I will say this in favour of this latest process; the sooner Gunns get the thing built the better their chances of not going bust before the actual operation settles down.
Poor old Gavin, seems to be stuck in a time loop back in the eighties, by quoting a report published in 1990, things have moved on a lot since then in terms of technology for pulp mills, just as they have for mobile phones, plasma TV and a raft of technology we use every day.
Ensis a joint venture with NZ by CSIRO provides a good discussion of the move away from Chlorine Bleaching to either Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF) or TCF at http://www.ensisjv.com/Portals/0/QuestionsonKraftPulp050308-2.pdf
However for a real appreciation in the advances of the environmental credentials of modern pulp mills check graph in the State of Environment report of British Columbia at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/bcce/02_industrial_contaminants/dioxins_furans.html
British Columbia, Canada’s western most province has a tourism industry built upon whale watching, wineries and wilderness. It has a fishing industry both throughout its rivers and streams as well as along its coast.
According to its Government’s State of Environment report in 2006 it has 25 pulp and paper mills. “Nine of these mills discharge into coastal waters, 13 into inland water bodies, two into municipal sewage systems and one mill evaporates effluent.”
Prior to 1990 there was concern about pollution, since then most of the kraft mills have adopted ECF technology the same to be used at Bell Bay.
According to the State of the Environment report this has resulted in “From 1991 to 1999, average pulp mill AOX discharges {a surrogate for chlorinated organic compounds] were reduced by 83%”, and that “A 95% decrease in the amount of monitored dioxin in effluent by 1999. After 1999, it was not detectable in the effluent of any mills.”
The report confirmed that a scientific study found no evidence to suggest that current discharge present any measurable risk to the aquatic ambient environment.
This is a very clear indication that ECF is appropriate technology and the pulp mil will co-exist with other natural resource based industries such as tourism and fishing.
The SOE report could hardly be described as a ‘pile of rhetoric’.
I bet our leading expert on wood pulp technology forgets to tell us those Canadian mills aren’t processing eucalypts. I doubt too if cinders ever axed up a wild southern blue gum.
As I said there is no equivalent hardwood plant operating to those standards. A google local versus global on ECF pulp mill technology dredges up the following asides from the saturation re Gunns proposal.
http://www.oztoxics.org/ntn/pulp%20mill%20brief.pdf
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3636/is_199703/ai_n8749307
From experience idealism on closed loop operations is simply “idealism”.
Readers should simply check up on Gunns marine and atmospheric effluent tube diameters to get a handle on proposed waste totals.
Jennifer: We still have a lot of PR hurdles despite these reports. Given our recently demonstrated keenness to tackle recycled sewage on a national scale there is no wonder about the local NIMBY factor. Folks outside the industry in N E Tas. don’t need outsiders like us telling them how to suck eggs and that’s all about citizen’s rights isn’t it?
Tasmania’s greatest export has always been her children. Since colonisation, Tasmania’s children have been forced to leave this state to chase employment opportunities. A pulp mill provides an opportunity for our children to retail in this State. It also provides opportunities to encourage our children to pursue technical trades and professional skills which will be in demand as part of the project.
– Supporters of the pulp mill project have young children, live in the region and enjoy the amenities offered along the Tamar. None of these people would place at risk their children’s health. People support the mill because they are confident appropriate technical and regulatory controls will be put in place to protect the health of their children and the environment. To suggest pulp mill supporters would support a project that places their children’s health at risk is an insult.
– As part of the international community looking to address climate change, the supporters of the pulp mill look to the future where Tasmania can demonstrate how sustainable and appropriately managed forest resources can support economic development and protect natural values. As a part of the international community and as a contributor to international solutions, Tasmania cannot place into reserves her forest resources, only to import forest products from countries which do not practice the same level of sustainable management as we do. People need and want forest products. Everyone uses paper, builds in wood and sit at tables. We cannot rely on imports to meet our needs – this is a perverse form of environmental activism. We have a responsibility to demonstrate to sustainable development through action, not rhetoric.
– A strong economy creates a healthy environment. People demand education for their children, health care when sick, safe roads and jobs. During economic downturns, it is the environment which suffers as funding reduces. If we want to protect the environment, we need a strong economy which generates surplus revenue which can then support healthy envonmental projects. The pulp will support a strong economy and a healthy environment. Fair driven green policies will not achieve this outcome and will lead to environmental degradation.
– and finally, the greens will only every be happy when Tasmania’s forest reserves meet the high tide of our Island entire coast line
Those seeking up to date information on pulp mill technology and science should read the latest draft Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines issued by the IFC of the World Bank on Pulp and Paper mills available at http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/policyreview.nsf/Content/EHSGuidelinesUpdate_Comments issued on June 15.
This might be more accurate that a summation by activist/Lawyer who has appeared in the campaign against the pulp mill.
The latest from the World Bank is applicable to both hardwoods and softwoods and states in relation to chlorinated dioxins and furans. “These are an important issue when elemental chlorine is used for bleaching although the levels of dioxins discharged are below the level of scientific significance when ECF or TCF bleaching technologies are used.”
As stated the proposed pulp mill in Tasmania is ECF.
The World Bank guidelines are still only draft but are built on all the scientific findings to date, including that of ENSIS and the RPDC’s consultant’s Beca Amec.
Good post TJ: “Tasmania’s greatest export has always been her children” – They carry Celtic seeds and wanderlust however a few return with the next gen and so on, but guess what they do. Chances are they won’t run a mill since even this big proposal is just 2.5% SGP all said and done with the best info available. Let’s keep this pulp mill in proper perspective and focus on balance regarding imports and exports.
In considering the community as a whole we need to think how this proposal bottoms out with things like training. I met a lady a few months back who was quite concerned about all the fuss. Her daughter fresh out of uni had just joined Gunns. Now I reckoned previously the court action aimed at eliminating any greens influence was bad PR for the state. Building confidence round the state is sometimes more important than expanding individual profit margins.
Exploitation of resources is only appropriate if the benefits are on going. With mining it means deep drilling over decades. With pulp mills its constant R & D and for the readers who have never seen the inside of a mill, that research seems to be missing at the local level and generally beyond commissioning of this project.
Pulp making was once a complex chemical industry. Modern processing tends to be highly automated and in this country particularly so. I predict most jobs in the area will remain outside that plant after it’s built. Expect further job economies on the run.
In their R & D, Gunns need to do much more than count eagles too. We should ask who is minding all the old forest fungi etc as we go on
TJ: If any of my lot stay it’s likely to be a science or an art that keeps them most busy. We won’t discuss sport as an import or export; either way it should be taken for granted as a major player in our development beyond the mills for youngsters.
This raises another question about enough jobs opening up there for a home grown pulp mill team.
Back to the practice; when cinders offers this IFC outfit as the source of all wisdom I say they are nothing more than a publishing group on risks for investors. Regarding ECF versus TCF technology; their guides are nothing yet like practical operating standards nor are they a developed framework for regulation and compliance. All this needs to be done in a series of new labs based right in Tasmania. Organized properly by major research authorities they will be the next layer of reference for the industry also governments and that will be worth something else in the long run. That’s about final ownership TJ.
It’s been my view the current QA system won’t quite fit the bill when it comes to driving the leading edge of our forest practice and products technology to the next levels of sustainability
For more information on the pulp mill impacts, this time in relation to Commonwealth jurisdiction of Marine Areas, threatened and migratory species the developers have just released a Response to Submissions document, prepared in relation to submissions received on its Preliminary Documentation for the proposed Bell Bay Pulp Mill. This document has been provided to the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Water Resources, as part of the assessment process under the EPBC Act.
The report and its appendices can be found at http://www.gunnspulpmill.com.au/epbc/default.htm
The report summarises issues raised by submitters and addressess issues raised. By publishing such information the process is open and transparent and allows those interested to inform themselves.
The CFMEU and TCA issued a joint Press Release on March 01, 2006, entitled:
“TCA AND CFMEU – JOINT STATEMENT ON MAJOR PARTY SUPPORT FOR PULP MILL”
http://www.tca.org.au/mediacommunication/index.shtml
Perhaps in just such a spirit of openness and transparency, our friends from TCA might like to copy that Press Release into this forum.
Thanks for pointing out the TCA joint media release of March 2006 that all candidates standing for the major parties at the state election had signed a statement supporting the construction of a pulp mill at Bell Bay, provided it meets the toughest environmental rules in the world.
The next media release after the election http://www.tca.org.au/mediacommunication/docs/060319tas_cfa.pdf showed that Tasmanian voters overwhelmingly supported these candidates, about 85% of the preliminary vote counted at the time.
The pledge by these candidates related to the pulp mill meeting the environmental standards already set by the RPDC in 2004. At the time they also expressed confidence in the RPDC to conduct an integrated Social and economic assessment with the environmental impact assessment of meeting the approved 2004 emission guidelines.
This confidence proved short lived as a year later at the February 2007 Directions hearing, the RPDC could not give any definite time line to the many stages of the assessment process that it was yet to complete. It couldn’t advise the Tasmania public on how their submissions would be treated or if they would have a chance to have a say at the hearing. (See transcript of the hearing available at the RPDC web site).
Importantly it couldn’t give the developer a time line, making the project a financial risk. This failure by the RPDC led to the developer withdrawing from the process.
However in order not to loose the opportunity of the mill without testing it against the 2004 guidelines, the Parliament approved for two new reports to be undertaken by independent experts, one on the emission limits and one on the social and economic impact. These are the reports recently released and available for all people to see. In my opinion the reports demonstrate that the mill can meet the “toughest environmental rules in the world.”
Thanks for the leads re: ocean outfall. I feel better informed now. It seems that the pulp-mill effluent will contain relatively low levels of organochlorides. For the fishermen’s sake I hope those claims are true.
The link to the TCA/CFMEU Press Release of 01 March 2006 is here:
http://www.tca.org.au/mediacommunication/docs/060301tas_partysupport.pdf
Perhaps our TCA friends could append here, a copy of the pledge that all major party candidates did not hesitate to sign.
Pragmatic: that’s a curious request unless it’s merely after an admission that the whole RPDC process was sidelined by the elected government after the candidates (all?) made their pledge.
Readers should be amused if not alarmed by this most recent reversion to form. Tasmania has a long history of grabbing industrial development at any price when it comes to their environment considerations. West Coast mines, paper mills, the EZ co and Tioxide lead the show and I should know since I grew up there.
Let’s guess all current big notes including the TCA and union reps still have their heads in the sands when it comes to operating this brand new pulp mill. After direct involvement with a lot of major industry at the commissioning stage I can say much of it does not run to initial designs in the long term. Getting product consistently from one end of the mill to the other is only one challenge
New processes generally require a lot of tinkering. Some have built in automatic recycling from day one where everything goes round and round. Others dump the lot on the lowest floor. Tackling waste deep hardened sludge becomes a routine early on in many liquid based industries. Dumping vapours to atmosphere was another trick we used for say a steaming process.
Dewatering makes wood pulp transport between production stages a tricky business indeed, especially as the stuff can dry rapidly and set like concrete in all machines. Worst case in ore refining for mining is very little different, except for the mandatory tailings dams beyond the settling tanks. Much of this is beyond the understanding of economists, legal eagles and other academics. Log truck drivers could be surprised with a bit of a wait in the log yard too.
Purists may believe what they write is always right but some other bunny does the dirty work in reality. That’s why I said we won’t know until it’s up an running what its truly all about. Gunns will need some care with their choice of plant designers, contractors and operators. If this mill was largely off the shelf and straight into pine we could reckon on full production within months of plant completion. Final solutions for full scale eucalypt pulp production could take much longer, environmental targets longer still.
As I said, we see no Gunns Ltd pilot plant in any sort of continuous pulp production and IMHO that’s why your RPDC was left out of the picture.
Tasmania like most States has had in place schemes to attract industry and therefore create wealth and jobs for its residents. For Tasmanian these have been built on out competitive advantages, hydro electricity, abundance of natural resources both minerals and being the most forested State as well as deep water ports. Some of these business included ANM and APPM’s Burnie paper mill see http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/247.html . These business commenced at the end of the depression and were accompanied by giving the investors open access to concession areas of forest. This in a day when there less than 5% of the State was in National parks. These industrial giants went into the Styx, the Florentine the Tarkine to name just a few areas to extract the timber to feed these pulp mills. Yet these are forests that are claimed to be pristine!!
Tasmania also attracted other industry
RioTinto Aluminium’s Bell Bay smelter is located on the Tamar River near George Town in Northern Tasmania. It was the first built in the Southern Hemisphere, commencing production in 1955
The Tasmanian Electro Metallurgical Company Pty Ltd (TEMCO) was Australia’s only producer of manganese alloys when it was officially opened on May 11, 1962.
Based at Bell Bay, (George town), TEMCO is a major Tasmanian employer and contributes significantly to the economy and to the local community.
Along side these two industrial giants are two wood chip exports complexes originally commenced by APPM and Northern Woodchips Pty. Ltd in 1792.
It is within this heavy industrial zone that the proposed mill being designed by international experts who will also be responsible for commissioning is to be located.
Despite this massive industrial program in Georgetown and within our forests we have a situation today where both are portrayed as natural wonders. We have a group calling itself the Wilderness Society expending vast sums of publicly donated funds to fight this factory development!
When I submitted my July 11 post, the link to the March 1 Media Release was disabled, hence my request. It was reinstated by the time my post finally appeared on the thread.
In light of Cinders’ response where s/he chose to further qualify the intent of the Pledge by insisting that the RPDC should restrict it’s inquiries, I’d now like to see THE PLEDGE to determine whether candidates were supporting a process, or just an outcome.
The Warick Raverty turmoil highlighted the paucity and tardiness of Gunns’ responses to RPDC requests for further information.
Of five “KEY POINTS” in the March 1 Media- Release, point 3 seems to confer complete confidence in the RPDC and it’s procedures. If voters were then persuaded by this commitment of the signatories, then they are now incandescent with rage at the now political football. Bats and balls indeed.
Pledge please!
why have you not informed readers that the IPA to which you are employed by has in the past received funding from gunns. clear conflict of interest!