FINAL VERDICT

Back to main page

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. 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 (like Tumut and the mill proposed
  in S.Australia) 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 Raverty
  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. But the size of the mill
  would indicate it will spread as far as Launceston Airport. It took five years
  for Visy to get the odour at Tumut under control.
  
* The IIS has not proved that atmospheric emissions will be dispersed and vital key information is
  missing. 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 and failure to check the long term effects of chlorates. Some of the
  supplementary information goes further but the Sandery and CSIRO surveys are contradicted. Dr. Stuart
  Godfrey says that Gunns' IIS does not take into account ocean stratification and so is deficient.
  He says that pollution will be blown back on to the beaches and up the Tamar estuary.  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. Not only that but a huge cloud of steam will be
  sitting over the mill for much of the time.  
  
* 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. Accidents on local roads will be more likely because of white-outs
  caused by the water vapour.
    
* The statement in Gunns literature that log traffic would only increase a little is deceptive. The log 
  traffic will almost double from present levels and there will be perhaps 100 other trucks a day as well.
  The transport assessment by the George Town Council confirms this.
  
* Water supplied from the Trevallyn dam may be in short supply if the current drought continues. The Meander
  dam currently under construction 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.  
  
* The wood supply as explained in the IIS is short on detail and it's doubtful if there would be enough in a 
  worst case scenario. The statement that not an extra tree would be cut down as a result of this mill was
  deceptive as it would only apply if all woodchips available could be sold.
  
* 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 says it's 'on the edge'.  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 compromised. The admission that just before
  Gunns withdrew from the RPDC process they had heard that their additional information had serious
  omissions and discrepancies and that Parliament had voted without knowing this has, in many people's
  minds, contaminated the process fatally.The SWECO report uses the wrong guidelines and the ITS report
  out of date information.
  
  

Back to main page

Top