What is Timber Communities Australia?

from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Timber_Communities_Australia

"Since its inception in 1987, TCA has been positioned as the voice of the little people caught between the conservation movement, governments and the large woodchip companies. It purports to be the authentic voice of those who are merely seeking to make a living and keep their jobs, to feed their families. Its advertisements feature stereotypes of the hard-working family--craftspeople, bee keepers, people in truck-stop cafes and children in the bush with their grandparents. Its web page says it is a grassroots organisation which `exists to encourage the sensible, balanced multiple use of our forests for the benefit of all Australians'", he said.

"In fact, it is the brainchild and mouthpiece of NAFI, the National Association of Forest Industries, headquartered in Canberra, the lobby group of Australia's logging and woodchip corporations. NAFI and Timber Communities Australia share a common headquarters in Canberra and a common executive director, Kate Carnell," he said.

"Timber Communities Australia is, in fact, an astroturf organisation, to use its own public relations jargon -- fake grassroots," he said. [1]

that a person sends an e-mail does not mean s/he has an empty head or is unappraised of the issues. people (in my understanding) subscribe to 'get up' because they wish to take positive action in relation to issues affecting australia, the world, the community and ultimately themselves. joining 'get up' signifies that the person has thought about issues that are important and that s/he believes require political action. 'writing off' people who send e-mails simply because their mode of communication is via e-mail is not particularly thoughtful. discernment teaches us that we need to explore the nature of the website/source from which the e-mails eminate, the nature of the membership or readership, and the content of the e-mails rather than saying 'e-mail writer - must be a mindless communicant'. surely?

I agree wholeheartedly with the previous two writers. Mr Ashbarry contends that, "Despite the 31,000 or so form emails and the opinion of three “experts”, the Tasmanian pulp will meet the vision of the Tasmanian Government". There would be very few of my fellow residents in Northern Tasmania, and in particularly those in the Tamar Valley, who would be reassured by that comment.

I was one of the contributors to the Get Up submissions to Minister Turnbull, however like many others, I have no doubt, I wrote my own comments. The major concern I expressed in those comments was that governments have a very poor record in respect of enforcing guidelines such as those developed (by the Tasmanian Government and Gunns)for the proposed pulp mill. One only has to reflect upon the assurances that were given when B Double vehicles were introduced into Tasmania 'onto main roads'. In the face of pressure by the major transport companies we now encounter those vehicles throughout Tasmania, even on roads such as the Esk Highway, a substandard road but a significant tourist route.

So the fact we will have 'guidelines' to police the pulp mill offers no solace to me.

"Timber Communities Australia is, in fact, an astroturf organisation, to use its own public relations jargon -- fake grassroots," Bob Brown said.

Bob certainly know a few things about grass roots...

So 25,773 standard emails came from Get up, all saying word for word the same thing. Shouldn't they only count as 1 submission, or maybe Minister Turnbull could review one of 25,773 standard emails, form an answer and then assume it addresses all of those submissions.

"One only has to reflect upon the assurances that were given when B Double vehicles were introduced into Tasmania 'onto main roads'. In the face of pressure by the major transport companies we now encounter those vehicles throughout Tasmania,"
Did they assure you that you would never encounter a B Double??

Touche, Ian D,

Have a look at the Western Australian government's performance on environmental "guidelines."

These "guidelines," with the blessing of the Department of Environment, are breached 24/7 whilst people continue to be force-fed hazardous chemicals from industrial pollution.

Then you have other citizens, a result of Alcoa's pollution, being offered a pittance and forced from their own homes to seek a healthier environment elsewhere for their families.

Despite written community appeals, complete with scientific and documented evidence from emissions' reports, the Department, captured by pollutant industries, acts as a defence for the pollutant industry.

Enforcement of the EPA Act is a myth and self-regulation is alive and well!

Billie boy
Sorry to say but it looks like your research is a fair bit wanting in the facts department. Following a quick read of the Timber Communities web site www.tca.org.au it is very clear that Mrs Jill Lewis is their CEO and then following a bit more checking I can confirm she has been for the past 5 years, before that Mr Chris Althaus was their CEO and before that Mrs Robyn Loydell.

But what was even more interesting was what my research threw up regarding the web site you used to justify your of the mark comments. The author of your incorrect references regarding Timber Communities is no other than Mr Bob Burton ex Tas Wilderness Society campaign director. So guess Billie boy you will also ague that what else would you expect from the TWS

Having grown up about 16km from a pulp and paper mill and now living in Tasmania in the area where it is proposed to build a state of the art mill, I am at a loss as to what the problems are.. I knew of the intention to build this plant prior to electing to live where I am and I am looking to buy the property I am in and fully support the construction of the pulp mill.. Tasmania needs the employment and the wilderness society need to get ovet their arrogance and realise that this will not have any major effect on the surrounding area as they are trying to claim. Watching the ABC presentation, I was impressed with the professionalism shown by the supporters of the project and absolutely speachless at the arrogance shown by the wilderness group representative. As for the Victorian lady who is "building a house in hillwood" you must have known about the possibility of the pulp mill being built when you purchased the land and I would recommend that if you are planning to relocate to Tasmania and do not want to live near this type of industry, then look somewhere else. As for the proposal to relocate to the location south of Bernie, the infrastructure to build this project is already available in the Bell Bay industrial strip and the finished product and raw materials can be brought in and dispatched without any significant increase in inconvenience to the area. Please people, we are in the 21st centuary and the technology is a lot better now than it was when the pulp mill near my home town was built (well over 50 years ago) and the conditions that will be imposed for the operation of this plant will be in accordance with 21st centuary thinking so I cannot see why a project like this that can inject so much into the state should not go ahead.

Skubeedoo, your post is futile. You are just casting pearls before swine. Their complete ignorance of things scientific prevents anything from entering their tiny intellects.

I have yet to discern what their actual opposition is based upon. It is certainly not based on anything scientific.

For instance,
"In contrast the Commonwealth Department of Environment states that dioxins are in fact present in our every day environment and do not pose a health risk at background levels. The Australian health standard “Tolerable Monthly Intake” is 70pg TEQ/kg body weight."

Dioxin is a naturally occurring product of the decay of leaf matter. It is a bit hard to find any of the environment in which it is not present. The problem is that modern analytical methods have reduced the limits of detectability of such toxic substances below the limit of absurdity, so that these cretins have a panic whenever anyone finds any at all.

It is a pity that science is such a difficult subject for those with limited brain function, illogical emotional arguments are all they have left.

David

The analysis of the effluent does not address the issues of dioxin concentrations in the sediment. While I realise that some people don't consider the greens a reliable source of accurate information they do provide a good summary of the issue. http://tas.greens.org.au/News/view_MR.php?ActionID=2324

To back that up though I'll quote a report from the Federal Government's National Dioxin Program.
http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/publications/chemicals/dioxins/report-12/pubs/report-12.pdf
(see page 118+)

"This study
measured dioxin concentrations in aquatic sediment, but no water samples were
collected for measurement of dioxins in water. Dioxins have very low water solubility
and therefore dioxin concentrations in Australian water are expected to be very low and
are unlikely to contribute significantly to the overall intake of dioxins."

and

"...since aquatic biota may be exposed to contaminated sediment, there is
potential for human dietary exposure to aquatic organisms such as fish and shellfish,
which may bioaccumulate dioxins..."

Given that the mill will be dumping dioxin's in a consistent location, the low solubility of dioxins could mean poor dilution or even a build up in the sediment where the effluent is dispersed. The fact that you don't address the sediment issue means that your analysis fails to show the mill won't cause environmental harm. If (as the greens allege) the Gunns Mill assessment does not consider this, then it too misses a critical point in the analysis.

A further two points I think need to be made:

1) "Best Practice" doesn't imply good enough. Best Practice genocide isn't exactly acceptable.

2) The term "guidelines" implies that they aren't enforced. To actually matter in the context of a profit making corporation, they have to be "regulations" backed by the force of law with active government enforcement. Guidelines can all to readily be ignored in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

If the effluent from the proposed pulp mill is as clean as you would have us believe, why don't we have a proposal for a 'closed loop' system, where the where the effluent outfall from the mill is fed back in as the mill's water supply? This would massively reduce the mill's water use, and remove two of the major objections to the mill - ie effluent and water use.

Kalophon hits the jackpot with an excellent technical question for -

Mr Ashbarry: Why is this marvellous pulp mill not recycling 99.9 % of the process water

"Dioxin is a naturally occurring product of the decay of leaf matter."

VK3AAU, May we have a reference please?

Errr...I say, VK, why did you omit to advise that dioxins/furans are also formed in industrial processes, manufacturing, waste burning etc, chlorinated public water schemes etc?

These processes are responsible for the greater proportion of ambient levels of PCDD/Furans.

I do hope you check first before you buy your fish. One wouldn't want to be eating fish from the Sydney Harbour or the Botany Bay area (and beyond) which is highly contaminated with dioxins. This disgrace is again, a result of regulators' sycophantic alliance with industry!

After all scientists knew of the dangers of dioxins some fifty years prior to industry dumping dioxin contaminated effluent into Sydney's waterways!

A note on 'Astroturfing' ...

Alan Ashbarry is a real person, I have met him.

Timber Communities Australia (TCA) is a real organisation.

They invited me to speak at a conference in Tassie a couple of years ago.

It was one of the best conference I have ever attended. There were lots of guys there - including from Western Australian - who had been forced out of the industry as a consequence of environmental campaigning and the closure of mills.

A highlight for me at the conference was Jarrod Moore. He sang the best songs. He has an album out called "Men of Timber".

Anyway, there is nothing fake about TCA - Timber Communities Australia. It is an organisation of very real people - including at least one good singer - passionate about forests and timber.

Then again I live in a timber house and I work off a wooden desk.

re:
" ... Malcolm Turnbull announced that he received over 30,000 submissions on the pulp mill: most would have expected well informed comment, yet according to activist web sites the majority were form emails (PDF 313KB). A total of 31,323 submissions came from just two web sites: 25,773 standard emails from the activist web site Get up; and 5,550 submitted from the Wilderness Society."

Alan offers exact figures for two sources of submissions, but gives estimates rounded to the nearest thousand to describe the total. Say he rounded down, on the convention that naything less than 31,499 was about 31,000. How many more submissions were there than 31,323? Even an extra two dozen is a pretty good response, I would say.

A lack of an exact total suggests to me there's something that Alan Ashbarry doesn't want to admit, or else maybe something that his researcher didn't think was strategic to include.

also the notion that submissions via *get up* were 'standard' is nonsense. mine was one of the 33,000 odd (or whatever the number is/was) and it certainly wasn't 'standard'. nor was that of one of the previous contributors to this discussion. the two of us will not be alone! even if we were, the contention is immediately shown up for what it is - a misrepresentation of the submissions made via *get up*. sad to say, this typical of the way some of those (at least) who promote degradation of the environment conduct their arguments.

also the notion that submissions via *get up* were 'standard' is nonsense. mine was one of the 33,000 odd (or whatever the number is/was) and it certainly wasn't 'standard'. nor was that of one of the previous contributors to this discussion (as that contributor affirmed). the two of us will not be alone! even if we were, the contention that *get up* submissions were 'standard' is immediately shown up for what it is - a misrepresentation of the submissions made via *get up*. sad to say, this typical of the way some of those (at least) who promote degradation of the environment conduct their arguments.

The science argument--which Gunns are using--and have left to the
dishonest Chief-Scientist to "rule upon"
[ie "dont monitor or test GE cotton--its safe
and essential"--and consequently our nation's best mind] --is actually wrong in fact.

Rather than spend half a year reading the literature--and believing such an exercise "gives one an understanding"--
we should instead understand FULLY that ALL MANUFACTURED SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS
are radio-mimetic--ie they act radiationally.
[Americo Mosca,Albert Schatz,Professor John Goffman--discover of uranium; and numerous others].

So-called clean dioxin or German best-practice is therefore ABSURD.

Emissions under any system-- are Geneva Convention illegal.

No wonder we have commercial-confidentiality regards new chemicals.
[even a lab-assistant could detect abnormality]...

More highly selective and therefore highly mischievous 'cut' and 'paste' high school essay writing from Alan Ashbarry which for those of us who are familiar with the work of the TCA have become all too accustomed. Ashbarry addresses issues of dioxins and odour with all the the authority of someone who actually has worked and studied the field for decades. But he hasnt. As for his gutless attack on Dr. Raverty (whom Mr Ashbarry seems very reluctant to name), well Mr Asbarry is the third TCA member after Barry Chipman and Jill Lewis to unsuccessfully attempt to frame Raverty and cast aspersions on Dr. Raverty,s motives for turning 'whistleblower' on the Gunns pulp mill proposal and the their dismal behaviour alongside their parliamentary represenatives the Tasmanian government. Indeed on the odour control point Ashbarrys mischievous TCA colleague Jill Lewis on the recent ABC difference of opininon program was caught out by Raverty when she attempted to suggest that the comments on the ENSIS sight re future possibilities for odour control were in relation to Gunns mill. This totally destroys her credibility as well as Mr Ashbarry,s who insists like his predeccessors Chipman and Lewis in attempting to frame Raverty as dishonest. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/differenceofopinion/content/2007/s2029117.htm
It has also been addressed here
http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=70&m=14180&ps=20&dm=1&pd=3
and most specifically here
http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=70&m=14100&ps=20&dm=1&pd=3

While we discussing the merits or other wise of Dr Raverty it is interesting to read what the CSIRO has to sayt about pulp mill odour

The following is from their Q&A re 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 has another very interesting answer to a much spruiked alarmist claim about ECF.

Again from their Q&A

Q7: 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

Getting the facts straight eh?

According to Miotti, author of the mill guidelines, the proposal failed to meet 13 of the guidelines and the flaws couldn't be corrected through permit conditions.

In addition, Gunns was 'critically non-compliant' with the RPDC.

There were mistakes of 1390 x magnitude in dioxin calculations.

Bass Strait described in IIS as an 'area with comparitively minimal marine aquatic life' despite that it forms a major fishing ground.

Where has Mr Ashbarry been during all of this?

Alan says “All its needs now is a decision based on science, not politics, and removal of sovereign risk, that is Government risk, before this year’s Federal Election”. I say what’s needed is a good look at the practice.

Lets be blunt, this focus on dioxins is a Furphy. Malcolm won’t find dioxin as there is too much water wasted in the proposed ECF process. What is most at risk is the resource and all that comes right back to the nature the RFA. Both Libs and Labs have a lot of catching up to do on this one.

A premature decision by the current Minister for the Environment and Water resources will be a headache for the incoming government either way. I reckon it would be cheaper for the Australian taxpayer to consider subsidizing 300 ‘new mill jobs’ value adding in a chair factory using only pulpwood after this federal election.

Native forest pulp wood as I know it contains good timber. We once owned a sea side cottage built in the early days with local timber. It was still covered with bull nosed weather boards above the water line that were like the frame as hard as iron. Agriculture had caused increased flooding and sand dune subsidence. I guessed most of it was blue gum by the original wonky timber cut a century before.

Today our leading furniture outlets feature solid dining suites built with the chunky timber left rough for that same stressed look. We can even have a few knots in every board. I know it’s not everybody’s cup of tea but we can do more than make paper with every tree growing on the block.

Cropping rates on public and private forest areas for pulpwood consumption after the signing of an RFA aren’t being discussed in the media as they were. The incoming government has a primary responsibility to look at the question of advanced deforestation as we all go down the sustainability path. This cleanest pulp mill in the world could become a white elephant

At least they are not wasting paper...Kevin07!

good god. it's obvious ashbarry is simply a company hack. does anybody honestly believe he's gonna give "the facts"? the notion is laughable.

Well bushbasher pretty sure you will be pleased to learn that the CSIRO supports the facts that you find so hard to accept. The following is a direct paste from their web site Q&A regarding the Bell Bay mill.

If it is built, the mill will take woodchips that are currently exported with a value around $150 per bone dry tonne into 500 kilograms of bleached kraft pulp valued at around $350. This addition of value to the fibre will enable the mill owners to create many new jobs and to reduce the current trade deficit from imported pulp and paper products of around $2 billion per annum.

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.

Mr Ashbarry naturally (given his position as a pro-mill spin doctor) likes to enlist whatever psychological means are available to make the dioxins seem insignificant. So he regurgitates once more the old comparison of the "grain of salt in 24 Olympic swimming pools". This comes from Gunns Ltd's "Response to Submissions", appendix A, page 14 of 53.

It just happens to be wrong. The correct figure is 2.4 swimming pools. It doesn't require a PhD in maths to see this - they just took 10pg/L to be 10 to the minus 12 g/L, but of course it's 10 to the minus 11.

The figure doesn't matter a lot in itself, because we are not talking about salt (or pools)! But maybe it's indicative of Gunns sloppy maths. Makes one wonder what else is out by a factor of 10.

"If it is built, the mill will take woodchips that are currently exported with a value around $150 per bone dry tonne into 500 kilograms of bleached kraft pulp valued at around $350. This addition of value to the fibre will enable the mill owners to create many new jobs and to reduce the current trade deficit from imported pulp and paper products of around $2 billion per annum."

Not to mention the massive greenhouse gas (nasties ;) savings from cutting down on all the transport of those woodchips to other countries.

"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."

Much better than burning fossil fuels....its renewable!

"It doesn't require a PhD in maths to see this - they just took 10pg/L to be 10 to the minus 12 g/L, but of course it's 10 to the minus 11."
Maybe you should get one...10pg/L is 10 to the minus 12 g/L or 1 to the minus 11.

Whee ew! What about those 128 scientists saying that the mill hasn't been properly evaluated then Alan? More green whacko's?

Rod up the road:
Billie claimed Timber Communities Australia shared quarters with the National Association of Forest Industries. Government websites show both organisations’ addresses as: 24 Napier Close, Deakin ACT 2600.

More tellingly, they share the same post office box:
PO Box 289 Deakin West ACT 2600

This tends to support Billie more than it supports you.

Also, Billie said that TCA and NAFI share a common executive director – Kate Carnell. You answered by listing the TCA’s last three CEOs. Were you mistaking a CEO for an executive director?

Billie, you say, got his information from Bob Burton, ex TWS. Would it be reasonable to conclude then that we should rely on Bob, rather than you, for accurate information

gee, timberjack. any other scientists in the news you might like to quote re gunns? did you learn your cherry-picking from ashbarry?

Sorry to say it Mr Tasman and Billie boy but your research is still very much wanting in the facts department. A quick look at the web sites of Timber Communities and NAFI clearly show they have different postal address and phone numbers, not the same as you suggest.

As to the street address for each, cant see what the problem is there, are you saying office buildings can only have one tenant, I haven’t been to Napier in Canberra but again following a few calls and a white pages search its pretty clear that this street is home to a major office complex with multi tenants, just a couple I’m told include the Australian Rural Leadership Program and the Australian Life Savers Association.

Regarding the Timber Communities CEO, Executive Director thing my research comes up with that there has only ever been three national leaders (CEO or Executive Director) and those being present Mrs. Jill Lewis before her Mr. Chris Althaus and their founding leader Mrs. Robyn Loydell.

There is a big positive in all this to, now I have spent a bit of time finding out about Timber Communities, and I like very much what I’ve found, Productive conservation to me is a very worth while goal, with which I now attend to seek becoming a member of Timber Communities. I would encourage any one with an interest in productive conservation to do the same.

So a big thanks to you both.

Dear Rod up the road
sorry to have troubled you. You are right about the different postal addresses - I confused Box 239 with Box 289. But I'm still confused about executive director versus CEO and Chris Althaus looks like he was in both the TCA and NAFI. I would appreciate it if you could clear this up for me. Thanks ...

Rod: “productive conservation” is a wooly concept. Mate; you have quite a bit of work to do yet.

At Blockheads Inc I also find “we cannot afford to loose a single job” – and there is a picture of granddad with grand kids and some solid HOME MADE furniture.

http://www.tca.org.au/abouttca/TCA%202007-2008%20National%20Program.pdf

Lets say the solid log truck and front end loader won’t count for much while the majority of solid furniture offered in the super furniture shops round town is “MADE IN” can you guess where? CHINA

Check out www.superfurn.com and a few other big distributors near you for the more traditional “ASH” styles as anything sold in a box at say the marts is unlikely to be solid in the long run.

My advice is all members of both the TCA and NAFI is get cracking with a few hand tools on the rough stuff like “pulpwood” before it hits the chipper chute then peddle across to Harvey Norman where “stressed” timber furniture is now a feature.

Over at Myers a decent looking solid chair goes for a good $250 plus. A chunky dining setting starts at $1500, not bad for a hobby over a weekend if you aren’t bothered with campaigning for a pulp mill.

My hobby was restoring old hand tools but I can’t buy a decent wooden handle. Hickory from the US is too expensive so I guess it’s all about finding that little bit of stressed wood in the first place as we go down the chute.

My granddad was a whittler. “Possum” chairs in his day were as common as the WW1 veterans who hobbled home via Launceston.

http://www.woodreview.com.au/competitions/remade/winners/remade24.html

Somebody tell Jill at HQ, jobs are only what you make them.

Tasman

No problems and I acknowledge your wiliness to admit an error when made.

Following a chat I’ve just had I’m now full bottle on the info you are looking for about CEO’s and exective director’

My information is TCA has never had a exective director titled position but did have a National Director titled position which was changed a couple of years ago to the title of CEO.

What I can now confirm is TCA was previously called FPS, Forest Protection Society and upon its formation, in 1986 Robyn Loydell (a founding member and wife of a tree faller) headed the group as its full time National Director till her retirement around 1997, The position was advertised with the FPS board appointing Chris Althaus (forester) as the new National Director. I understand Chris did work for NAFI as a forestry adviser before becoming the new full time FPS head.

I’m also told that during Chris Althaus’s term the organisation changed its title to Timber Communities Australia. Upon Chris’s retirement the TCA board appointed Jill Lewis as National Director, Jill was another founding member and from a small sawmilling family.

Then two years ago the TCA board changed the orgainisations top position title to CEO with Jill Lewis now CEO TCA.

Also looks like the TCA orgainisation has continued to grow at a pretty good rate since 1986 with now a large branch structure through out the nation and it does appear that their voice is respected by both sides of politics. I also learned today that both federal leaders addressed their national conference earlier this year in WA.

The more I look into their goal of productive conservation the more I like about it so thanks again for heading me towards TCA..

There has been a claim the article ignored a report from Miotti Consulting that was a peer review report of the Sweco report for the independent members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, with particular evidence of non compliance. Lead author Roberto Miotti had formerly worked for Beca AMEC and was part of the team that advised the RPDC and Tasmanian Government on the 2004 emission guidelines.

The report was presented to the Legislative council, who also received a detailed briefing, within 48 hours of its tabling the Tasmanian Government provided detailed advice on the issues raised, many of which had already been covered by Sweco and the permit conditions. (see Hansard 30 August Mr Parkinson MLC).

A major concern of the report was the integrated chemical plant that is no longer part of the project, as it is not yet AMT for pulp.

The report was considered and debated, after which the Parliament voted to approve the project.

There are some relevant sections of the report applicable to this article including another way to represent the concentration level in the treated effluent. The report (p56) describes ppq or pg/l as parts per quadrillion (10-15) as the time scale equivalent of 1 second vs 31,707,790 years.

Miotti also concludes that the limits for dioxin are likely to be met. He refers to the Wesley Vale and the fact that “it missed by only one year the development of ECF technology which resolved the dioxin issue”

Miotti did disagree on odour limits being met and based this assumption on his appendix F - Odour complains from Visy Pulp and Paper. But would the use of these statistics be described as a ‘cowardly attack’ on Dr Raverty; as Ensis claimed (http://www.ffp.csiro.au/downloads/onwood/ensisLINK1.pdf ) that a team led by Dr Raverty had addressed the issue of odour resulting from the Visy process.

The report is yet another demonstration of the thorough assessment undertaken. Yet it does not detract from the fact that a modern ECF kraft pulp mill can meet stringent standards that safeguard human health, the environment and other industries within the area

Bushbasher more than happy to gather some more CSIRO facts for you, this lot is about TCF and ECF and guess you will know that these are the facts that the Greens didn’t want made public, they claimed Dr Raverty was bias because these facts was on his employers web site.

A2: The last research that CSIRO undertook on bleaching of eucalypt kraft pulps using ozone in a totally chlorine free (TCF) process was very detailed and it was conducted in the early to mid 1990’s as part of the research aimed at preparing the “Environmental Guidelines for New Bleached Eucalypt Kraft Pulp Mills, published by the Commonwealth Government in 1995.

Since that time CSIRO has been actively monitoring developments in TCF processes worldwide. A very large amount of research has been undertaken in laboratories internationally, comparing TCF bleaching using ozone with elemental chlorine free (ECF) bleaching using chlorine dioxide. These studies have shown that ECF bleaching produces much lower levels of organochlorine by-products than older bleaching methods that use elemental chlorine.

When ecotoxicological studies are done on effluents from ECF and TCF bleaching following proper biological treatment (including microanalysis for the “dioxins”, PCDF and PCDD), both types of effluent show very low levels of toxicity that is removed by adequate dilution in the sea. These findings have been reviewed by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) who, in 2003, published the statement:
“The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) considers the ECF and TCF bleaching methods to be equivalent with respect to their potential formation of PCDD and PCDF.”

Both ECF bleaching and TCF bleaching of kraft pulps are considered to be Accepted Modern Technology in the European Union and in North America

timberjack, it's not about your facts, it's about your carefully selected appeal to authority.

TJ, cinders: If this last ditched article and subsequent TCA responses to questions contains your only access to relevant pulp mill info then you employer Gunns has a huge problem and so does Tasmania.

No one there it seems has enough background experience to get this thing running to the external expectations as outlined in the original proposal. Tasmania must not accept this thing as a giant experiment. Gunns must get a fully detailed plant operating manual long before this mill is fully commissioned. No government will bail any of you out of a mess.

Initial specifications may not be appropriate. First step is getting an operating manual for all the proposed sections from the nearest equivalent. Next step is to detail the loops and instruments then find practical chemical engineers experienced plant troubleshooting to assist the plant developers on site. Run every stage manually to prove design criteria. Each circuit needs some level of redundancy available. Catch mistakes early.

Much will be different to the laboratory testing on various stages of pulp batches. Bring experienced operators in with the builders to ensure short cuts in design, fabrication and installation don’t hurt the final team. Some members of contractor groups should cross transitional company barriers. Knowledge must flow freely both ways.

Sorry bushbasher but they are way out of their collective depth

re Timberjack:
"Both ECF bleaching and TCF bleaching of kraft pulps are considered to be Accepted Modern Technology in the European Union and in North America"

Perhaps you would care to check whether nuclear electricity is certified as "Accepted Modern Technology" in the European Union and North America.

Then you can decide whether you want to live nearby and downwind of one of these units. Plainly smells from a pulp mill aren't as concerning as radioactive gaseous effluents from a fission reactor, but it seems that the proponents of both types of development have some convincing of local residents to get on with - - -

Taz
there is absolutely nothing last ditch about these articles, except for the stubborness of the media to not present both sides of the argument. They seem only interested in publishing outrageous and insulting comments like your last post.

for the record check the witness statements on the Supplementary information supplied by the Developer to look at the expertise that has designed and will commission this pulp mill. All operators will be fully trained and all procedures documented.

Why don't you compare your CV with that of Kari Tuominen who has a Master's degree in pulping technology from the Helsinki University and has spent 15 years designing modern pulp mills. What's your relevant experience in modern ECF Kraft mills, Taz or that of some of the more vocal critics?
For the record my employer is Timber Communities Australia and its members.

Taz

As it appears that you find it a bit hard to come to terms with the facts presented by the CSIRO,so just for a change here is a sample of what the World Bank has to say about pulp mills.

Wastewater
Pulp and paper manufacturing activities may generate wastewater discharges at a rate of 10-250 cubic meters per metric ton (m3/t) of air dry pulp (ADP2).

Prior to treatment pulp mill effluents are high in total suspended solids (TSS; mainly from cooking and pulping process screening, washing, and bleaching stages as well as from debarking residue, chemical recovery inorganics and fillers); biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD; mainly from wet debarking; screening, washing, and bleaching); chemical oxygen demand (COD) and dissolved organic compounds (mainly from wet debarking cooking/pulping,screening, washing, bleaching, and chemical recovery plant liquor spills) which may include PCDD (poly chlorinated dibenzodioxins) and PCDF (poly chlorinated dibenzofurans),
2 Air dry pulp refers to pulp that is 90% dry.

commonly referred to as 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.

Sorry captain, I was thinking you really were looking at becoming master on the Titanic. Now don’t you worry about my CV, project people generally only hired me for what they could use in my toolbox. It could be as simple as piece of string.

TJ: Your problem is nobody down your way has an operating manual yet. All anybody can refer too is a power point presentation that is updated when the goal posts are shifted. The public and media as cinders says is all over the place looking for something solid.

You don’t help them one bit with stuff from the World Bank “Pulp and paper manufacturing activities may generate wastewater discharges at a rate of 10-250 cubic meters per metric ton (m3/t) of air dry pulp (ADP2)”. Wild comparisons in scale like 10-250 cm / whatever is not a peer review of this project.

But what’s clearly missing as the Titanic sails is the independent umpire on stewardship. Who wants that job? I bet it’s not Malcolm Turnbull, he should wash his hands after adjusting the width of goal posts once again.

Watch out for penalties! Foul play out in the field won’t depend on crowd noise. Balls out of bounds will be confiscated by other courts. It leaves me wondering who cops the kicking inside if normal play stops.

“All its needs now is a decision based on science, not politics, and removal of sovereign risk, that is Government risk, before this year’s Federal Election” - posted again on behalf of the Cinderella State Admiralty.

Folks need to ask themselves, has there ever been another situation quite like this before a Federal Election?

In 1990 the ALP based their election strategy on Green preferences, a strategy put in place by its Environment Minister from NSW. There were two key elements to this election victory gained ‘at any cost’, the first the Environment Minister being able to delay a decision on the Wesley Vale Pulp Mill in Tasmania based on green protests, despite the support of the Union movement and being able to meet Environmental guidelines.

The second plank was over turning the Helsham inquiry which recommended that only 8 per cent of 283,000ha of forest studied be listed as World Heritage.

The Greens, as usual, wanted the lot. Former Hawke Finance Minister, Peter Walsh later recounted that Environment Minister Richardson observed that the Helsham inquiry needed to be "fixed up". Helsham's report was sidelined and the 8 per cent was boosted (by non-public and non-accountable processes) to 70 per cent.

It now looks like both major parties want to do a “Richo’ in a desperate bid to gain Government at this election. Both parties seem hell bent on using the Tasmanian forests and the industry as an election issue as they scramble for green preferences in marginal seats in NSW, Victoria and Queensland. But at what cost?

The most likely outcome of pandering to the greens will be handing them the balance of power in the Senate. They will have the whip hand regardless whether Kevin Rudd or John Howard wins. The new government will be forced to adopt the radical policies of the greens if they want to keep their election promises.

Already we have seen the ETU (and perhaps the building wing of the CFMEU) fund this minor party that wants to destroy forest industry jobs. What about the NSW ALP; have they done a sleazy back room deal to reelect Greens Kerry Nettle on preferences.

Yes Taz, we’ve seen this all before, in Tasmania it was called the Green-Labor Accord that has since been called the “Tasmanian Green Disease”. This like a future Senate controlled by the greens, was a disaster on economic, environmental and social grounds

Taz

Boy I do think you need to take a BEX and have a good lay down your argument is getting a bit wobbly.

But befor you take you leave I will leave you with some good facts about water use by the pulp mill.

The mill will require a volume of 26 GL per year of water, extracted from via a pip line from Lake Trevallyn.

This 26 GL represents approximately 1% of the average yearly flow into the Tamar Estuary.

In a dry month,the pulp mill requirement would represent an estimated 3 to 4% of the flow into the Tamar estuary.

Environmental flows in Cataract Gorge will be maintained at all times. Similarly, drinking water supply requirements for Esk Water will take precedence over supply to the pulp mill.

The Trevallyn power station has a maximum power generating capacity of 83.6 MW.

This equates to about 2,500 Giga litres of water a year, almost all the 2600 GL that flows into this dam from the South Esk river and irrigation system. Prior to being used in the power station 28 GL is diverted into two water treatment plants serving the West Tamar and the South Esk schemes and for riparian water to maintain environmental flows to the Cataract Gorge.

Riparian Water for the environment of the Gorge is released at 0.43 m3/s or 13Gl per year

The Pulp mill will buy at commercial rates 26 GL each year from the power station’s water that would be generating about 0.83 MW of power and then flowing out to sea.

The mill will generate about 90 MW of excess renewable power to be made available to the power grid.

Hydro Tasmania has publicly stated that the minimum price to be paid by pulp mill for the water is $24 per mega litre. This compares to the $12.50 paid by irrigators that draw water from Lake Trevallyn. The developer will be required to pay an asset facility fee and provide all additional infrastructure.

Now off you go and have lay down (don't forget the BEX)

TJ; There is still time yet. We can have you back in the bush cutting green wooden droppers for farm fences out of pulpwood before Howard calls on the GG for this election. I reckon he needs the time to think.

Cinders knows; when I drive down the federal highway I can look both ways. AD’s in the Senate were renowned for their negotiations. Where I vote there is an interesting choice this time and I’ve been busy Last week I wrote this piece to a blog manager –

‘Gunns pulp mill proposal has the ability to unseat the Liberal Government Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Malcolm Turnbull and crush his ALP shadow Peter Garret.

“Dr Peacock's report is due within days” ABC. I reckon Malcolm is beyond guessing but Peter is still sweating.

The electorate as a whole is currently more worried about bricks and mortar than pulpwood. Malcolm and Peter may well be sidelined by the majority in the final rush to secure futures.

However, from experience a handful of other quirky marginal seats will determine the shape of our new government. Many of those 16 or more odd seats will remain polarized over forestry and the environment. Malcolm Turnbull’s decision either way will be a big headache for the incoming government.

Swinging voters usually look at health or education issues. This time they may recall our Chief Scientist was an advocate for GM’. Dr Peacock said that people like himself had "probably failed miserably" in recent years to help the public gain a better understanding of gene technology” ABC.

Let’s also say our wine will never be the same after the election because it all depends on the science.

CHEERS

Taz

Nar never liked cuttin droppers to much work for not much return and every one wants them steel ones now days. Any way all ways knew that you couldn't beat a good racked stack of 6x2's to pay the bills.

Best possible value adding is the go; just like the pulp mill for example did you know that detailed economic modelling by Monash University has concluded that the mill would yield substantial positive benefits to Tasmania, and Australia as a whole, through greater economic activity and employment.

It also found that Tasmania’s gross state product (GSP) would be $6.7 billion higher in net present value terms over the project life, with over 1600 additional jobs sustained on average while the mill operates.

This is all backed up by that fact that continued value adding of our regrowth forest and tree plantation resource is consistent with Australian Government policy including the Regional Forest Agreement, 2020 vision that has a goal of reducing our balance of trade deficit. Did you know that Australia’s balance of trade deficit in forest and wood products is approximately $2 billion per annum?

Monash also found that the proposed Bell Bay pulp mill has the potential to reduce this balance of trade deficit by $400 to $450 million each year (20 to 25%).

Our farmers also see great social benefit.

The Tasmanian Farmers & Graziers Association estimate that 40% of commercial wood production is on private land and much of that from commercial farming enterprises. Roger Swain President of the TFGA said “Putting it simply, the pulp mill will strengthen the enterprises for many, many farmers.” (Media Release 6August 2007)

Best possible value adding is the go says TJ

“Forests are a reservoir of biological diversity and are functioning ecosystems. They provide protection for soils and water resources, and are increasingly being recognised for their potential as carbon sinks through their ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere. They are the foundation for a broad range of cultural and spiritual experiences for diverse groups of people and a major tourist attraction for Australians and overseas visitors, providing for a vast array of recreational and educational activities” Year Book 2006.

TJ avoids this bit “The hardwood mills are generally small scale and scattered” My contention is large scale “pulpwood” concessions have seriously damaged this traditional value adding industry and its jobs. Perhaps the TCA was blinded by the reflection from REFLEX and other fine finished dried pulps.

Too easy hey. Besides that, Where is Gunns long range paper machine proposal combined effluent recycling, domestic market R & D and potential partners downstream in a variety of solid products? Royalties, for pulpwood versus tall timber from native forest is an issue well lost in the wash. Bales of ECF pulp are not much good in fences, benches or tabletops.

Best return for your investment TJ may be a whole new bunch whittlers, chair makers and toymakers. Imported cutting boards made from blocks are the go.

Check out Aldi but be quick. Sorry about Myers.

How many of you have read the peacock report on the Pulp Mill?
Peacock states clearly that: “The likely consequence is that fine particulate matter and attached contaminates such as Dioxins will not accumulate near the outfall, but will instead ultimately accumulate in deposition zones with low bottom stress, either in deeper water offshore or in sheltered bays and estuaries inshore”.
He also states, “The department has not identified any likely significant impacts on the marine environment in Commonwealth waters from the proposed mill. HOWEVER, there are indications that levels of pollutants that may accumulate in Tasmanian waters may be of concern”.

This so called scientific report and its recommendations e.g. hydrodynamic modelling, only address Commonwealth waters which are five kilometres offshore; it does not address any Tasmanian concerns at all.
Does anyone apart from the “Laborial Party” really think its ok to protect commonwealth waters while Tasmanians are left to wallow in the poisons from this mill and its associated industries?

TAP “Tasmanians Against the Pulp Mill” are running a Voters Block Campaign from their web-site which I have asked Get Up to take Australia wide.

Please help us overturn this horrendous decision to let the Pulp Mill go ahead.
Make your voice heard, Sign up for the Voters Block and vote NO on the poll on http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/default.asp.

These alarmist statements about the fate of the treated effluent are based upon a submission by a Dr Godfrey on behalf of the surfriders.org. The Chief scientist expert panel interviewed Dr Godfrey and a reviewer of his report from consultant BMT WBM. These statements are based on Dr Godfrey’s interpretation of a photo of Nye Beach Oregon, USA that is claimed to show pollution from a pulp mill. See http://www.tca.org.au/Home%20Page%20Documents/Effluent_Dispersal_and_Content.pdf

However there appears to be no attempt by the consultant to verify the accuracy of this photo montage, yet Dr Godfrey’s conclusions and theories have been accepted.

The expert panel’s statement appears to ignore the results of the investigation by the Oregon Department of Environment Quality into the claims based on this photo that ribbons of polluted water will hit the beach.

The DEQ investigation including dye testing and modelling showed that the potential mechanism put forward by Dr Godfrey was in fact not possible.

The Newport Media reported this investigation as:

“DEQ officials said they had no evidence the discharge endangers human health or marine life, and determined that while winds might push the effluent toward shore, "the dilution will be so great that pollutants will be well below water quality criteria prior to reaching the surf zone.“ DEQ found no risk to people swimming at Nye Beach.”

Dr Godfrey failed to state in his report that there was also a sewerage outfall located at the beach.

If the expert panel was aware of these reports (for further details check Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is available from http://www.deq.state.or.us/wr/LocalProjects/GPToledo/WQeval.pdf) they should have rejected these claims and there would be no need for the public to be alarmed