The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Stop myths about Tasmania's mill > Comments

Stop myths about Tasmania's mill : Comments

By Barry Chipman, published 28/9/2007

Tasmania's timber-dependent families don't wish to see the Gunn's pulp mill become a political football.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
“Tasmania's timber-dependent families are looking for a timely decision from the commonwealth”

Barry: It would be so easy for the commonwealth to have them all turning chair legs out of pulpwood.
Posted by Taz, Friday, 28 September 2007 8:45:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Again, a pro-pulp mill article that is long on one-sided rhetoric and short on substance. No wonder there is widespread concern among the citizens of the Tamar Valley about this ever increasingly discredited proposal and its sham of an approval process.
Posted by Ian D, Friday, 28 September 2007 9:35:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why don't you stupid people crawl back into your holes and read what Barry had to say.

Barry, you have summed up the problems very cogently, but still the naysayers will persist in their asinine opposition. One wonders where their brains are.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 28 September 2007 9:49:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the proposed Tamar mill is based on sound science how come the Gunn's veneer mill at New Norfolk is closing due to a shortage of suitable logs?

Who says dioxin-like compounds cannot be created with chlorine dioxide?

Can this boundless wood supply be sustained if rainfall declines 25%?
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 28 September 2007 10:49:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article certainly exposes the radical green agenda to oppose the pulp mill on just about any ground they could think of. The so called risk assessment for the greens that claims the Pulp Mill will inhibit rain and snowfall 1600 km from Tasmania to New Zealand snow fields is just as fanciful as impacts on commercial scallops caught to the east of Flinders Island.

Whilst this nonsense has been exposed for a long time (http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,20545497-5006550,00.html ) it was still being pedaled in Parliament House and in the Media only in the last weeks.

Such outrageous claims have been disproved time and again by international studies and baseline and detailed community monitoring of the Victorian pulp and paper mill that also discharges treated effluent into Bass Strait.

Yet it seems that these claims of doom and gloom have also been dumped on an unsuspecting Chief Scientist by people claiming to be ‘experts’. Let’s hope that the Federal Minister, Malcolm Turnbull and the Chief Scientist read Barry’s article.
Posted by cinders, Friday, 28 September 2007 10:56:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having moved from the mainland to Tasmania I am totally amazed that the people here don't want to allow a company to establish jobs that will help keep kids in Tasmania. I grew up about 16km from the pulp mill in the Latrobe valley in Victoria and have seen the improvements made to that plant over the years knowing that the mill has been there for over 50 years and I wholeheartedly support the idea of building a new modern and up to date pulp mill in Bell Bay where other industires are already operating.
In relation to the comment on the veneer mill, I fail to see a connection with a veneering process and a pulp mill as they are looking for totally diferent log types for each process.
I really think the time has come for people to stand up and be counted and to tell the wilderness people that we are all conservationists in our own way and we do not need idealistic people building walls against modern industry simply for the sake of being heard. Tasmania is a truly beautiful state and with the amount of natural bushland already locked up in national parks and with the phasing out of old growth harvesting, the state will have natural habitat for the bush creatures for generations to come provided they are managed properly.
A classic response to the greens and wilderness people would be to look at the fires in Tasmania and Victoria over recent summers and ask what they are doing to prevent the forrest floor build up of fuel and more improtantly, where were they when the bush was burning?
Same with the protesters who sabotage the livelyhood of those who make their living from the bush.

With a propper management program and with correct harvesting procecedures and processes, I believe we can have the best of both worlds. A sustainable industry, beautiful natural forests and an abundance of wildlife existing together in a wonderful state while allowing for employment opportunity and quality of life for the psople working in the timber and allied industries.
Posted by skubeedoo2, Friday, 28 September 2007 12:09:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taswegian

good point you raise re the Boyer veneer mill, it is closing because just about all of Tassie's old growth forests are now reserved in National Parks because of green campaigns. This mill relied upon old growth to produce the much sort after veneer for high quality furniture, a quality you can't get from regrowth.

The pulp mill will be using regrowth and plantation grown wood (young wood makes best writing paper.)

Why not visit the CSIRO Web site its good all the info you are looking for, perhaps also take Taz with you looks like he still needs a good rest.
Posted by Timberjack, Friday, 28 September 2007 3:26:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timber families? These are the people who clearfell our forests and burn everything left living with napalm.

"Bell Bay is the right location" says Bazza, totally ignoring the wishes and needs of the thousands of people in the Tamar valley who exercise their right to say otherwise.

"Bell Bay not a deterrent to tourism growth" he says. But those other industries don't cut down Tassie's native forests, they don't stink out the area, they don't want to replace our farms with trees, and they don't take hundreds of gigalitres a year of water out of our catchments to grow near worthless pulpwood, but they DO already punch a lot of pollutants into the air shed when the AMA says we can't afford any more.

Barry's sad blather continues the grotesque arrogance of the loggers who believe that they should dictate to the public how, when and where our trees should be cut down, how much public forest we should be allowed to enjoy, where a pulp mill should be located...the whole gamut of logger nonsense.

The people who ravage our remaining forests aren't the only ones dependent on forests Barry. So are the rest of us, and they belong to the public, not to you and to Gunns.
Posted by The Mikester, Friday, 28 September 2007 6:20:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't want to be too critical of your knowledge Mikester but I'm more that happy to help you get up-to-date with a few matters. My research shows that the Bell Bay region is home to 3 woodchip mills and two sawmills. Two of the woodchip mills have been operating for near 30 years and as Mr Chipman states this has had no impact upon tourism based industries becoming establish there.

Regarding forests did a bit of research there also, looks like Tassie has a fair wack of forest, around half its total land base is under native forest cover including 1 million hectares of old growth forest lock up in reserves. Also understand that close to half of Tassie's total land base is national park or world heritage. So I would say there is a pretty good balance in place for all the various interests.

Also it looks like Gunns has a fair sized holding of private land growing tree plantations and this will become the main resource for their pulp mill.

Sounds like good business sense to maximise the value of your own grown resource
Posted by Rod up the road, Friday, 28 September 2007 7:29:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taswegian; checkout this document “Sustainability Indicators for Tasmanian Forests 1996-2001”

http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/63578/RFA03_sustainability.pdf

Then take a glance at this lot before asking all your federal candidates some interesting home grown questions about Gunns proposed pulp mill impacts.

http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=412

Sure; cinders and co will say this is only covering old ground however I have something else for the TCA to chew on.

TJ watch this evolve. A national catalogue of “modern luxury contemporary designs” features a fresh statement on the front page “ -- are proud to be an official campaign partner” a reference to their latest range of “Australian Made” furniture note; solid dining settings from $2000, plus, buffet & hutch likewise.

I only started asking questions on the origin of our “Ash” furniture several weeks back but the local TCA rep got the story immediately. Competition from Asia is fierce.

How much assembled wooden style is shipped from the Tamar region?
Posted by Taz, Friday, 28 September 2007 8:04:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You really have to wonder why Malcolm Turbull is delaying his decision on the pulp mill proposal. Clearly this mill will be the most up to date pulp mill in the World. The scare mongering by the anti everythings is insane and has even got Geoffrey Cousins on the wagon. Of course Geoffrey Cousins with his enormous scientific knowledge would know more about pulp mills than anyone in the Universe!? Rather than listen to Geoffrey Cousins it would do Malcolm Turnbull better to investigate the connections between Bob Brown, Dick Smith and Geoffrey Cousins. I smell a rat....or should that be a couple of dead sea eagle's there!
Posted by Wilky, Friday, 28 September 2007 8:54:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Totally agree with your comments Wilky, I’ve done a fair bit of my own research checking out what both sides have been saying and now convinced that this mill will be a great benefit to Tasmania.

There is a old saying that I do think best describes those hell bent on stoping the mills development, that being, “There is non so blind than those that refuse to open their eyes”.

I'm quite intrigued by your comments about links between Mr Smith, Cousins, Brown and dead sea eagles, please tell us more.
Posted by Rod up the road, Saturday, 29 September 2007 8:58:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have to agree with Barry Chipman. Tasmania will be better off with this pulp mill. What a shame the Greens don’t understand the meaning of the words SUSTAINABLE and SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO BE ENVIRONMENTAL SAFE. Don’t expect any logic from the Greens, The vast wilderness between their ears encourages legalising illicit drugs, ooh yeah; these hypocrites’ ignore tons of scientific facts about drug abuse when it doesn’t agree with their emotional needs. Those in power need to wake up to themselves and made a sensible decision based on facts and not be lead about by noisy minority acting recklessly with the truth.
Posted by Johnno2, Saturday, 29 September 2007 9:59:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Any company intending to build any production capacity in this country has to include the cost and time of the EIA into the business plan. The project proponents have to present a cost, timeline and profit projection to the board and once this is approved they are held personally responsible to meet these.

As company boards tend to look very dimly upon uncertainty, a contingency has to be built into the project to cater for delays or additional costs.

The EIA process so far has now deviated so far from the mandated time and cost, that I am suprised the project is still alive. Any other company looking to invest in Tasmania will now have to add a huge additional cost contingency to the estimate.

The decision by the state to step in and bring the matter to the close would be a last ditch attempt to save the state's investment credibility, and to prevent the state being a permanent wood chip supplier to the rest of the world.

If anyone has any concern about pollution from a modern pulp mill, then they should visit a modern mill. The Visy mill at Tumut is a good example. It probably emits less than 1% of what older style mills do. The comments I have seen with regards environmental concerns seem to assume the old style 1950s technology with a few embelishments thrown in.

The economy of the town and surronding regions is booming. The influx of well educated and paid employees of the mill and its suppliers have revived a town that was slowly suffocating.

Future EIA assesments should have fixed deadlines and budget to make a report as would any professional organisation.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 30 September 2007 7:45:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Johnno2

"What a shame the Greens don’t understand the meaning of the words SUSTAINABLE and SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO BE ENVIRONMENTAL (sic) SAFE."

Are you kidding? Are you actually claiming that hazardous stack emissions are "sustainable and environmentally safe?" How do you work that one out?

You did get the "scientifically proven" one right since the science proved long ago that NOx, SO2, PM's, CO, PCDD/F's, fly-ash etc are all environmentally destructive and are health hazards, some more hazardous than others.

I believe it is you who needs to include a degree of logic in your argument when slagging off about an issue of which you clearly know little.

Perhaps then you may "made (sic) a sensible decision based on facts" - facts based on the science of the hazardous industrial pollution in question, which you omitted to include in your abusive post.
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 30 September 2007 6:43:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie me boy perhaps the following Q& A from the CSIRO web site regarding modern day pulp mills will help you understand that one of the three principles’ of sustainable development is environmental, and that principle is up front and equal with economic and social in any modern day development.

So let’s see what is being done to ensure environmental safe guards are in place to address your concerns.

Queston 7
What about the organochlorines produced in ECF and chlorine based bleaching, don’t they persist in the environment and eventually build up to unacceptable levels?

A7: The reason that the older chlorine-based bleaching technology is being phased out is largely due to environmental concerns over the levels of organochlorine by-products (measured using a term “AOX” that stands for absorbable organohalides – halogens are elements in the chlorine chemical group that also includes fluorine, bromine and iodine). In order to remove the organohalides from effluents from older mills, very extensive waste water treatment systems were required and those were very expensive.

It was found that when chlorine was replaced by chlorine dioxide in the bleaching sequence, most of the bleaching was done by the “dioxide” part of the molecule and the levels of AOX dropped by factors of between 10 and 50.

The organochlorines produced by the ECF process have been extensively studied and found to be degraded biologically and by sunlight to carbon dioxide and sodium chloride, so they do not accumulate in the biosphere in the way that certain obsolete chlorine-containing pesticides, such as DDT and chlordane, accumulate.
Posted by Timberjack, Sunday, 30 September 2007 7:14:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie,
you need to get over it. The new mills use new technology, they are safe and clean.

It is indeed a shame that so many followers of the Greens are supporting a bunch of radical ratbags leaders. Even those “leaders” in Parliament appear to have a shallow depth of understanding on complex environmental issues. These green anti-capitalists won’t be happy until every chimney stack in the country is shut down, regardless of how small the quantities are of whatever they are emitting.

So tell me Dickie, if the Greens are so smart on environmentally toxic substances, NOx, SO2, PM's, CO, PCDD/F's, fly-ash etc, how come they want to legalise so many illicit drugs that clearly have been proven by scientist’s world wide to destroy the human body, soul and mind? That’s not slagging off at the Greens, it’s a fact.

Just how smart and informed on environmental issues are the leaders of the Greens? Read the following from Hansard from the recent sitting of the NSW Parliament. It exposes the raw truth…………These Greens did not confirm and it appears that they have not even had the decency to read a major environmental report—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, so you can expect the same vocal scaremongering in Tassie, backed by very little research on the subject. See http://radicalgreenwatch.com/sos/?p=26
Posted by Johnno2, Sunday, 30 September 2007 8:36:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Johnno2

I would prefer if you remained on topic and addressed or challenged the statements posed. I am not interested in debating Green policies.

Timberjack

Thank you for that information. Whilst I am familiar with the hazards of industrial stack emissions, I am not au fait with the current debate over the proposed mill. Nor does living on the other side of the nation help.

However, I would like your opinion on the following submission to the Tasmanian government in 2005, which does not paint a pretty picture for the occupational health and safety of workers exposed to the hazards in mills where the ECF technology is utilised.

Perhaps the document has been debated at length in previous relevant threads. If so, a brief comment will suffice.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:lB5m7-P7uG0J:www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/66351/Literature_Review_of_Epidemiological_Studies.pdf+chlorine+phenols+pulp+paper+mills+health+impacts+2005+tas.gov&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=au&lr=lang_en#11
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 30 September 2007 9:02:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More than one fact has been overlooked with the Gunns mill. Coastal ocean currents stream from Tasmanian waters to the Coral Sea.

The Chipman article states the proposed mill will consume water. Two percent of annual flow from the Trevallyn Dam is mentioned. It is apparent the water consumed will be too polluted to be re used and will be dumped in the ocean.

Fresh water dumped in ocean rises to the surface. Dissolved pollution bonded to fresh water will be blown northwards from Tasmania by prevailing wind.

Irrefutable empirical evidence indicates sand worn away from the Great Australian Bight and Tasmania is transported via Bass Strait into the Eastern Australia Longshore Current (EALC) to Fraser Island Queensland, the GBR and Coral Sea.

Nutrient pollution transported by the EALC is already being drawn by tide and pressed by prevailing wind into estuaries and lakes where excess nutrient loads are feeding algae blooms, smothering seagrass food web habitat, devastating fish stocks and causing marine animal starvation. On the GBR invasive algae blooms are smothering coral and causing coral bleaching. Well fed algae thrives in warm weater.

Fact is pollution bonded to fresh water from such mill has not been scientifically assessed in relation to longshore current linking Tasmanian waters to the Coral Sea ecosystem.

Timber workers should consider the livelihood of many thousands of people associated with professional and amateur fishing tourism industries and coastal communities. Also, sea birds on the east coast of Australia are almost non existent now. Algae fed with nutrient pollution killed seagrass nursery causing mass mortality of mutton birds extending along coastline from Rockhampton Qld to NSW, Vic, South Aus and around Tasmania.

There are now unprecedented incidents of whale calves being abandoned. Whales are mammals. It is known mammals abandon their young due to starvation. The cost of fresh healthy fish is now unprecedented due to shortfall in supply. The fishing industry is collapsing. Depletion is impacting on viability of aquaculture, feed meal and industrial food production.

Existing industry and government controlled sewage outfalls polluting the ocean may be forced to recycle.
Posted by JF Aus, Sunday, 30 September 2007 11:25:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie , perhaps the following couple of pastes from the same CSIRO web site may help you with your query about OH&S in modern pulp mills.

Q14: What about odour from kraft pulp mills – I’ve heard that kraft mills always smell bad?
A14: Many older kraft mills do smell bad. This is because the process of pulping uses a compound of sulphur, called sodium sulphide. In the process of removing the lignin polymer and retaining the strength of the fibres a small amount of the sulphur is converted into malodorous gases, including hydrogen sulphide (rotten egg gas), methyl mercaptan (smells of rotten cabbage) and dimethyl sulphide (smells of burning rubber). Collectively these gases are called Total Reduced Sulphur, or TRS.

In modern kraft mills, these by-products of pulping are collected in sophisticated pollution control systems and burnt to remove the odour. The only time that these gases escape to the atmosphere are during periods of process upset.

In a mill using Accepted Modern Technology odour should only be detected beyond the mill boundary for 2 – 3 days per year at most, during the time the mill is being started up or being shut down for its annual maintenance program. The emission limit guidelines for odour established by the Tasmanian Government are the most stringent in the world.

The CSIRO also states the following.

The 500 kg of each tonne of woodchips that does not end up as pulp (mainly lignin) will be burnt to release the solar energy stored by the tree in order to run the mill and to recycle the chemicals used to pulp the wood.

Kraft mills are usually self sufficient in energy and often have a small excess of electricity to contribute to the State power grid. In summary the kraft process effectively runs on solar energy stored in the wood and turns carbon dioxide that a tree has converted into cellulose fibre into a useful and natural polymer, papermaking pulp.

That is why there are so many kraft mills in environmentally conscious countries like Sweden, Finland, Norway and Canada.
Posted by Timberjack, Monday, 1 October 2007 8:10:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The comments and links given by most commentators refer to old technology pulp and paper mills. Modern mills run very closed cycles and most noxious gases are burnt before emmission.

The stack emmissions consist mostly of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. CO is extremely low as modern ESPs (precipitators) cannot tolerate it. SO2 is measured in PPM and TRS (smelly sulphurs) in PPB and the dust from the stacks can be measured in kg per day and is slightly less palatable than table salt. Dioxins are not generated in the process and are thus at such a low level that they are not measureable in the stack.

While operating normally you cannot smell pulp odour while actually walking in the plant, and the water effluent is treated almost to the point of being drinkable. The major contaminant in the effluent is sodium cloride which while not normally known to be toxic to sea life, can shut down the pulping process quickly.

The people who say they don't want a stinking pulp mill on their door steps aren't in any danger of getting one, but wouldn't like their argument to be polluted with reality.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 1 October 2007 10:51:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TJ in response to Dickie AND Taswegian repeatedly quotes CSIRO however; Australian Government scientists have never operated a full-scale pulp mill to my knowledge. There is no pilot plant where our scientists can play with production volumes and effluents as proposed in this latest kraft mill design.

I predict is to be permitted by the current government as proposed but it will be strangled by the red tape. Gunns wishing to proceed under even stricter federal environmental conditions must add dams and other protections before operating in any capacity. All sorts of scientists will undoubtedly swarm in.

If anything kills this project, it will be Gunns stupidity in not building a smaller scale operation before stepping right into the briny. Dumping effluent at the scale proposed with out checks and balances beforehand was always going to be controversial given their obvious disregard for other industries. Jobs at one mill cannot ruin the work of others no matter how slight the impact.

This is also the downfall of the TCA. In their blindly supportive campaign including no sympathy for a wider community, many jobs in the project must now go to outsiders including I expect more than a handful poached from say South America where they seem to have an abundance of eucalypts now.

TJ may be amused that I have privately lobbied the ALP re expanding their “flexibility” in terms of who does what as we build up an enterprise. Keeping the right people home today is our greatest challenge.

TJ’s shadow is advised to haul back a core group of mobile youngsters, those who traditionally leave for “greener pastures”. Who knows but they may be already speaking Swedish. Perhaps they also drink pulp mill effluent.

Good Luck!
Posted by Taz, Monday, 1 October 2007 1:56:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
come on Taz, get up to speed.

The Commonwealth has already approved an ECF pulp mill that will pump out similar quantities of treated effluent into Bass Strait

Have a look at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_referral_detail&proposal_id=2234

The treated effluent in the order of 72,000 cubic metres or tonnes a day will be pumped after treatment to an ocean outfall off Delray Beach.

According to Sandery, P.A. and Kämpf, J., (2005) the Delray Beach outfall has similar flushing times as 5 Mile Bluff.

This Victorian outfall that also combines domestic and industrial waste is subject to community monitoring, with no reports of three eyed fish.

But you only have to look at the politics; did the Commonwealth Minister appoint a panel of scientist to help the Chief Scientist assess the Victorian mIll?

Again look at the EPBC Web site, this ECF mill was deemed not a controlled action.

Although I do agree that it is a pity that from a report in the Financial Review there is not one scientist advising the Chief Scientist that has qualifications in Pulp Mills or ECF technology.

However they do have access to reports that are published on ECF and dioxin emissions that show that right around the World mills using the same technology as Tasmania have dioxin emissions so small they cannot be measured and have no impact on marine environments.
Posted by cinders, Monday, 1 October 2007 4:43:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timberjack

Thank you for advising me to peruse the CSIRO report. Unfortunately you failed to give me an address and I have been unable to access it. However the following URL is a 2006 review of Gunn's Integrated Impact Statement by the CSIRO and it is quite critical of Gunn's report which appears to have many omissions.

http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/70703/CSIRO_ReviewOfGunnsDraftIIS_Final4Oct.pdf

I am disappointed that you also failed to address my concerns over the epidemiological studies carried out on workers in pulp mills including those employed by companies who have adopted the ECF technology.

The workers within the studies were found to have significant short and long term health problems and there is a need for potential workers to be advised of these problems.

Cinders. I'm unsure why you feel that the pulp mill approved for operations in Victoria should mitigate community concerns in Tasmania.

Rather that simply exacerbates the environmental pollution and regulators are notorious for imprudently approving of licences for pollutant industries which operate in close proximity to residential areas or fragile eco systems.

History reveals that regulators are in fact the culprits for much of the pollution communities must now endure.

I am also concerned over learning that the proposed mill in Tasmania is set to inter some 56,000 cubic metres per year of waste to landfill.

Chlorine phenols are formed even with the ECF method; landfill will be accepting ESP and scrubber waste, lime kiln dust, boiler ash, chromium, sludges etc. Ash is a known resting place for PCDD's and very few landfills have managed to contain waste to prevent leaking contaminants.

Shut downs and start ups, creating incomplete combustion, are an ideal environment for the formation of PCDD's and PCDF's.

I sense a reluctance by some posters to address the issues raised and I am reminded of many conflicting reports. Perhaps more transparency is required to obtain a satisfactory outcome for the people of Tasmania.
Posted by dickie, Monday, 1 October 2007 10:02:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come on cinders; let’s have the latest info on this Gippsland project since I’m blissfully unaware of its current operations. I could do with an update right away on their water recycling plant too.

My point earlier was you don’t have a working model. As far as I know that Australian Paper pulp mill update is not yet running to new standards, and at no time was it a likely pilot for the Gunns proposal, since there is no comparison in size with the Tasmanian situation.

BTW in Vic AP also makes paper on site, tons of it. This fact clearly supports the Federal Government’s decision for maintaining existing jobs in the complex with improved technology.

Note AP had a big advantage back in 2005, they had valuable experience working all round them at the time of their applications.

I see in cinder’s AP link above, a doc referring to that plant’s capacity to accommodate TCF. Flexibility in operation is such a desirable design criteria considering obsolescence in other parts of the P & P industry.

IMO Gunns jumped the gun on a number of other issues like maximizing the wood supply under the RFA before the dust settled on climate change. That can be seen as the most selfish act of all. Feeding global consumption from here on will get up everyone’s nose in the long run.

Another little challenge for the TCA; how many female jobs do you expect to create, in construction, operation, transport, IT and science? A viable workforce needs to be harmonious. 30 years on, I still have an interest in this side of Tassie community relationships, equal opportunities all through please
Posted by Taz, Monday, 1 October 2007 11:11:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Tasmanian parliament and its consultants have addressed health and safety issues raised, and officials charged with protecting our health and our environment has done their job writing a comprehensive permit.

The Commonwealth has only three issues, impact on threatened species, migratory species and Commonwealth Marine Areas. The major issue is effluent. The factors report summarises the Departmental findings:

Effluent

The proposed mill would use elemental chlorine-free (ECF) technology.

According to the proponent, the [treated] effluent would be approximately 64 000 tonnes/day and would comprise a solution of a large number of salts and compounds.

If the mill is approved, the maximum level of dioxins in the effluent from the plant must be no higher than 3.4 picogrammes per litre of effluent (3.4 pg TEQ/L). This is less than a third of the level allowed under the limit imposed by the Tasmanian pulp mill effluent guidelines. These guidelines represent world's best practice for an ECF pulp mill.

In the absence of a reliable model, field data from a new ECF mill in a “green fields” site might have allowed direct comparison of effluent and sediment levels over time. No such data from a “green fields” site are yet available. However, overseas experience demonstrates that conversion from elemental chlorine to ECF pulp mills, as is the proposed Bell Bay mill, with non-measurable dioxin effluents has resulted in dramatically reduced levels of dioxins and furans in sediment and biota, rather than producing environmental or health problems caused by dioxins.

As a result, regulators have endorsed the ECF process and PCDD/PCDF effluent guidelines. The RPDC limit of 10pg/L for 2,3,7,8-TCCD and 30pg/L for 2,3,7,8- TCDF (equivalent to 13pg/L) is equal to or improves upon the levels set by the US EPA, Environment Canada, and the European Commission amongst others. It also meets the UNEP Stockholm Convention Best Available Techniques (BAT) and Best Environmental Practices (BEP) guidelines.

Given the current state of technology, there would be very limited scope for additional in-process recycling in the Bell Bay pulp mill and that land-based disposal of effluent is possible, but varying in practicability and cost.
Posted by cinders, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 2:40:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rod up the road - I'm quite intrigued by your (Wilky) comments about links between Mr Smith, Cousins, Brown and dead sea eagles, please tell us more.

I am happy to elaborate on this as it is a huge scandal.

Rather than parade on a clean high moral pedestal that he purports to do, Brown is as sleazy as the rest of them. Dick Smith's daughter wants to build a huge eco-tourism facility at a coastal site on the Tasman Peninsular. Dick knew that the Green's would oppose it. So he struck a deal with Brown. He offered to fund the purchase of Recherche Bay on a no interest loan and in return Brown would direct the Green's to keep silent on his daughter's plans. The Greens did keep quiet on this but they couldn't control some of the local greens who put a lot of pressure on the local council to reject the proposal. Dick was spitting chips but blamed the Council.

Where does Geoff Cousins fit into this. It just so happens, Geoff owns a large slab of land near this coastal site and wants to subdivide it and make a killing on selling the lots. Again, he didn't want the usual opposition from the Greens that oppose everything. So Dick advised him to also strike a deal with Brown. The nausea in the media by Cousins against the pulp mill is proof the deal he struck with Brown. Again the greens have been noticeably silent on Cousin's plans for this pristine bit of coastal land. The link with the sea-eagles from Wilky is the fact that these two properties are habitat for the eagles. The shriller people are about an issue, the more suspicious you should be about their motiviations. If it was Gunns or the Walker Corp who were developing thse sites, you can bet Brown and his minions would have raised a stink about it and opposed it on whatever grounds they chose to best meet their objective.

The Greens and Brown are hypocrites and not worthy of any serious consideration in debates about development.
Posted by tragedy, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 3:21:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taz

In regards to your comment in which you recon that no one in Australia has the required experience in ECF pulp mill technology, are you then saying that all anti pulp mill critics that claim they are expects are all frauds?

Now that would be interesting
Posted by Timberjack, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 10:05:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TJ: I have claimed, there are very few independent experts on pulp mill technology working in this country.
Posted by Taz, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 11:16:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taz

Boy that is some what of a concession from you, that there just maybe a few pulp mill experts in Australia, (and you wouldn’t want to dismiss your own “knowledge”) A good concession though on your part as if we was to follow your original line guess Australia wouldn’t be allowed to have a IT industry as bet any thing, at one stage we have few experts in the field.

It’s good that you now recognise that the Bell Bay pulp mill developer may just have sort world leading international ECF pulp mill experts to help design their project.

With you I think is called sharing of skills, just like Tasmanian hydro power experts being sort to assist internationally with hydro power development.

Also bet any thing, that the CSIRO is not scared of travelling to other countries to study all types of pulp mills and they have long established exchange programs in place.

Just think in a few years Tassie could become one of the world leader in ECF technology.
Posted by Timberjack, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 7:21:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The comment that there are very few independant experts in ECF technology in Australia would imply that all the experts are presently employed in the pulping industry (surprise surprise) and thus cannot be trusted to give an unbiased advice.

This is a purile argument used by the know nots to cast doubts on the credibility of those that provide authoritive information contrary to their ideals.

This should be offensive to anyone with an IQ greater than his shoe size.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 1:33:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“ in a few years Tassie could become one of the world leader in ECF technology”

TJ, there are the usual questions about buying your cake with imported ingredients or making it yourself with local resources so for this one I’m offering some hints picked up round the traps. First issue is getting into home grown R & D before the project starts. Recall I said there is no model or operating manuals for any keen bunch of scientists to play with.

The only way this thing can be fully “owned” is through its ongoing engineering then perhaps some fresh upstream IT dedicated to the evolving situation. Universal concepts based in practice can come from the experience. All you have now is somebody’s guidelines and they are certainly not enough to start up with considering that endless government red tape.

In skills sharing, I found the odd Hydro and CSIRO bod rubbing shoulders with us on Tassie jobs too but that was a while ago. When you are ready we can have a chat about that.

Off topic but see another proposal that depends on building a new plant, in this case a gas fired power station, all in all about 1b for 500 jobs, not bad in a population about the same size as Tas.

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=general&story_id=1062613&category=general

S+M Gunns seem isolated in terms of pulp mill peers so I wonder why
Posted by Taz, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 5:33:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister you are spot on with your comments back to Taz.

Sorry Taz but I also can't let your comments pass as really your persistence in trying to devalue the scientists that have been engaged by the company developing the pulp mill is getting pathetic, even more so when you seem all to willing to promote your self as a expect judge. So it’s your opinion that you see your self as the only one in Australia with knowledge. Well crap I say.

I can bet any thing you like that the developer has all the ECF pulp mill manuals they need and a team full of scientific expects with more than the required knowledge to over see the building and commissioning of the Bell Bay mill.

I personally known just a couple of those people and they have spent several years overseas studying and most important working in ECF pulp mills.

And here in Aus the Victorian Australian pulp and paper mill is at present undergoing an upgrade to ECF. Bet they have got their required manuals also. And don’t forget that back in the late 1930’s Tasmania was the first place in the world to successfully produce newsprint from a hardwood resource. So could argue just who did write the first hardwood pulp manual, heaven forbid it couldn’t have been a bunch of two headed Taswigins could it? Always remember that the latest of any thing must have an origin.

So my case rests in that Tasmania has the proud history of developing the base technology that will now see the most modern development in modern hardwood pulp mill technology take place. And it’s great to see the major advances in that technology now includes pulping for fine writing papers.

You see here in Tassie is not just about being first to move from 6 o’clock closing or producing the Worlds best cricketer, we are up to scratch with a few other thinks also.

As some home work why not just Google “ECF pulp mill research” and you will be surprised in what and who you find
Posted by Bas, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 8:17:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bas: Don’t be sorry for me on the pulp mill manuals because you’re just guessing Gunns have them when I’m certain the TCA has none. Nobody there is talking about common problems like flushing, refining, water recycling, slurry dewatering, furnace control, feedback and phase relations. I’m also sure the federal government hasn’t got the latest manuals either hence my concern about uncommon red tape in the final outcome

Matching manuals to red tape will be the most interesting stage after mill start up, but that’s not our problem is it Bas? Studying is one thing, building one then managing a complex mill is quite a lot more. BTW cinders has not got back with an update on Maryvale pulp mill and water treatment progress.

On hardwood pulp history in this country and that was my inheritance too have a good look through all of the records in TIA then we can have a good discussion on what is missing. Don’t forget Burnie! Hey Newsprint was mostly groundwood (between stones) in the early days and a far cry from say glassine we made for Cadburys.

http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/246.html

My next Q to Bas is about what ifs on our eucalypts where they build the latest ECF plant components given our hardwood history above. Making white fluffy pulp out of “Tas Oak” is not as easy as NH pine.

“two headed Taswigins”?

Now I sincerely hope you are not referring to other blockheads on here. ,” we are up to scratch with a few other thinks also” Shame, it has to be all that blue gum liquor!

Back to Tassie history, SOME readers with a long memory may recall why Bell Bay had to have a thermal power station, others may think Bass Strait gas was an asset. I reckon we are a long way from imagining a “data center” south side
Posted by Taz, Thursday, 4 October 2007 1:15:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A decision of the Tasmanian pulp mill is due at 10:30 am today by the Federal Environment Minister under the EPBC Act. The last time the Commonwealth ruled on an ECF pulp mill that pumps 72,000 tonnes of treated effluent containing a limit of 20pg/L Dioxin into Bass Strait each day, it was deemed not to have any impact on Commonwealth Environment Value (for latest Commonwealth information on this mill read approval and details at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_referral_detail&proposal_id=2234

Yet the Ministerial decision on the Tasmanian mill looks likely to be either an outright rejection based upon impact on environment values of Bass Strait or approval subject to strict conditions. The Commonwealth have already proposed a ridiculously low limit of 3.4pg/L TEQ for Dioxins. A figure that is below the Method Detection limit of the latest USE EPA approved testing methods.

Yet on Melbourne Radio the Wilderness Society has stated this morning that even if the Minister’s Conditions fully protect the marine environment they will continue to oppose the mill and campaign against the Government at the Federal Election.

They do so based on nonsense claims about the mills impact on Greenhouse gas. This is despite the fact the Pulp mill will save more Greenhouse that Turnbull’s innovative light bulbs.

The Tasmanian pulp mill will save between 1.1 to1.3 million tonnes of GHG each year, compared to the 800,000 tonnes of CO2 that replacing lightbulbs will save each year in its first four years. The mill will do so be converting woodchips already planned for export into pulp right here in Australia, saving over a million tonnes of GHG in shipping and saving another 400,000 tonnes in renewable energy created by biomass from the pulping operation, these saving being offset by a operational emission of about 150,000 tonnes.

The Wilderness activists refuse to believe these facts and rely instead on claims by Margaret Blakers. who is(was) a staff advisor and fundraiser to Senator Bob Brown, who fancifully claims that the emission from the value adding pulp mill will be equal to the annual GHG output of the whole of Tasmania.
Posted by cinders, Thursday, 4 October 2007 10:20:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy