Mill and risk assessment

Ken Partridge

In the context of the Pulp Mill and the rising community awareness of the risks involved it is imperative that proper risk procedures in accordance with AS 4360-2004 as an absolute minimum are required; it is a supreme irony that our Government moves with alacrity to cover its own back (as the project RFQ-BRR indicates) but is so cavalier when it comes to the community in its care!

I would also like to take this opportunity of including my question for the Councillors. I asked the General Manager, “.. why had the City not persisted with its excellent submission to the RPDC, following the breakdown in the process, by resubmitting it to the Gunns/Malcolm Turnball process as required by the subsequent legislation?” ; no clear response was received at the meeting.

This extract from the Estimates Hearing is illuminating …

Estimates June 20, 2007

Mr BOOTH – Minister, you would be aware that some of Tasmania’s most respected and well-established farming families in Tasmania are deeply concerned about the proposed pulp mill and particularly the risk to their chemical-free status which is so sought after by the Japanese clients in particular. The question is, given that the integrated chlorine dioxide plant technology that Gunns is experimenting with at Long Reach has never been used in a pulp mill anywhere in the world and has been categorically refuted as accepted modern technology by global experts, Becker Omac. What risk assessment or due diligence have you carried out on this highly risky technology and the damage to the Tamar Valley primary producers and the wider Tasmania brand in particular should a catastrophic chemical contamination incident occur?

Mr LLEWELLYN – I think your words there are emotional and very subjective and without substantiation.

Mr BOOTH – What, brand protection?

Mr LLEWELLYN – Not only that, it is a matter that you really should ask the Minister for Planning about because he has carriage of this particular matter.

Mr BOOTH – Yes, but what I am asking is in relation to the Tasmania Brand and the primary producers who rely on that with the potential for chemical contamination from that as a source for example, the effect that that might have in regard to the value of Tasmania’s primary industries sector, particularly those people who rely on Japanese markets who require chemical-free status. So the question is, what risk assessment have you done in regard to the potential damage to brand?

Mr LLEWELLYN – There has been some three years of risk assessment in establishing the guidelines that are substantial within the requirements for the Government to meet should a pulp mill application be proceeded with or be made. We have one, we have those guidelines, and we have independent assessment as to whether or not the pulp mill, as proposed, will meet those guidelines. If it meets the guidelines then your question is not relevant because we have already established that those guidelines will achieve those positive outcomes and will not inhibit the good name of Tasmania.

Mr BOOTH – But you assessment does not require it to meet the guidelines. Your new fast track is –

Mr LLEWELLYN – It is going to be assessed against those guidelines.

Mr BOOTH – That is different to meeting them, though and the question is still in regard to a risk assessment. Will you be able to table the work that you have done on risk assessment then? I do not believe that the generic guidelines for a pulp mill anywhere in Tasmania include a risk assessment for Brand Tasmania, for example. Where can you point me to that?

Mr LLEWELLYN – What I am saying is that, in the establishment of the guidelines, all these matters were taken into account in establishing the world’s best practice for developing pulp mills in Tasmania. That is what the independent consultants are assessing the current application against.

Mr BOOTH – Can you table –

CHAIR – Order.

Mr LLEWELLYN – If it meets that requirement then your question is of no relevance because the guidelines will have been met and the good name and safety and natural advantage, clean, green quality brand name of Tasmania will be maintained.

Mr BOOTH – But are you able to table that risk assessment because that is what I am asking about? A risk assessment or due diligence.

Mr LLEWELLYN – I did, there are almost three years of it and it is on the web site and everything else.

Mr BOOTH – I put it to you, there has not been a risk assessment in regard to the damage to Tasmania’s brand. There has been some form of assessment in regard to the potential for the pulp mill to operate or not operate, or exceed or not exceed the limits. But we are talking about an industry relying on a chemical-free status, requiring some sort of certainty, I suppose, like other industries and they want to know what risk assessment or due diligence you have carried out. What you have pointed to, I do not believe, answers the question but I am asking if you can table –

Mr LLEWELLYN – I believe that it does answer it and you can do assessment on assessment ad infinitum and that would suit you because we would never do anything.

Mr BOOTH – That is an absurd answer. The Greens have long been on the record for promoting our GE-free status, organic agriculture and all sorts of other things that have brought a lot of wealth to Tasmania. But I will move on from that. Obviously, I think the answer is clear. You have not done the risk assessment. You are not intending to and I can not respond to those constituents in any other way.