FINAL VERDICT
It is fairly obvious that the information supplied by Gunns Ltd in their early information sheets had a tendency to be rather vague in certain key areas. Also some statements were obviously spin - designed to make you think one thing whilst actually saying something else. Some residents labelled it GUMP (Gunns Useless Mill Propaganda)! In the NTD study tour report it says that Mr Ireland hopes Gunns Ltd will be a bit more forthcoming in their IIS. Here is a summary of the main points from information available at present.
* The statement that the proposed pulp mill will be the most environmentally friendly in the World
is wrong. There are many examples of pulp mills around the World that are superior in this respect
but those types of mills are not the most effective economically for Gunns Ltd. Not only that but
statements from ex-RPDC panel member Dr. Warwick Raferty would indicate that Stendal in Germany,
a Kraft mill similar to Gunns' project, is superior in many respects.
* Looking at all the evidence it appears likely that this mill will smell from time to time and that
Gunns statement that the mill will not smell at all is wrong. Just how badly and how far it will
spread we will not find out until it is built - by then it will be too late.
* The IIS has not proved that atmospheric emissions will be dispersed and vital key information is
missing. Only PM10, Nitrous oxide and sulphur oxides have been assessed. PM2.5 should have been assessed
and, of course fugitive odours. The lack of health effects is also not proved due to lack of information. The IIS has
completely ignored the fog and smog question asked by the RPDC.
* The effluent studies in the IIS are also deficient in several areas including failure to assess
the effect of bioaccumulation, failure to check the long term effects of Chlorates, and failure to take
into account many species likely to be affected including Sharks and Fairy Penguins.On Gunns Ltd
submission to the federal minister it admits that damage to the environment may occur and looking at
what has happened at other sites around the World would seem to confirm this.
* This huge mill will be visible in all directions for many kms and this will degrade the lower third
of what is a beautiful and largely unspoilt estuary.
* There will definitely be a lot more noise especially during construction. Not only that light emissions
during construction have not been assessed by the IIS and are likely to be be intrusive to local residents.
* Local residents and pulp mill workers will have to live with the small but ever present risk of being
poisoned by a disastrous accident.
* The statement in Gunns literature that log traffic would only increase a little is deceptive. The
traffic will almost double from present levels and there will be perhaps 100 other trucks a day as well.
* Water supplied from the Trevallyn dam may be in short supply during a drought. The Meander
dam built at public expense may be required to top the water up so that the mill
could keep operating. Even with that, the mill might be forced to close in a severe drought with the
dramatic economic scenario that this would cause.
* Tasmania does not have enough plantations to feed this mill and those that are there are affected by pests
and need spraying all the time. The wood is not FSC so it will be difficult to sell the pulp.
* Tasmania's unique wildlife and wonderful scenery will be impacted in various ways by the increased
forestry activity that this mill will encourage.
* There is also no doubt on the evidence so far presented that Gunns Ltd has chosen the site for economic
reasons rather than environmental. The IIS admits that Hampshire is preferable on many of the most
important environmental topics but has failed to weight these topics as asked to do so by the RPDC.
Dr. Warwick Raverty, ex-RPDC, has called this site as atrocious, the worst in Tasmania, because of
already polluted air, the inversion layer and the large population. He said that the emission guidelines
were written on the assumption that the mill would be built in a remote location.
Not only that but the recent bushfire has shown this site to be fire-prone as it is the second fire
there in a decade. The RPDC has written to Gunns asking them to move it to Hampshire but they have
refused.
* The economic outlook for the mill is risky. Even Gunns Ltd CEO John Gay said it's 'on the edge' and
that was before it went all-plantation and the dollar rose up to its present exalted level. A
combination of adverse economic factors could result in the mill having to be subsidised. A major
economic shock during construction could bankrupt Gunns Ltd.
* The economic assessment lists all the benefits but fails to mention the possible losses to the state
from the pulp mill such as reduced tourism, loss of rural employment, loss of clean green image,
fishing industry losses, wine route losses, etc.
* The integrity of the whole approval process has now been called into question with the resignation
of RPDC chairman Julian Green. Mr. Green claimed in his resignation letter, leaked to the Examiner,
that the Pulpmill Taskforce had undermined the integrity of the process and that the State Government
had failed to stop this in spite of repeated warnings.
Gunns draft IIS is full of mistakes, contradictions and omissions. In some parts it is very detailed but in others it gets
rather vague and omits vital information. The peer reviews have been critical and the RPDC have rejected it.
Gunns, with the help of Premier Paul Lennon, sidestepped the assessment and now wonder why the public have rejected it and them.
The question is: In view of what has happenned so far, do we want this company operating what will be a huge chemical factory in an enclosed
valley with a population of 100,000?
