The Experts’ Conclusion

Dr Stuart Godfrey, Dr Warwick Raverty, Dr Andrew Wadsley

The three authors of these comments and recomendations are experienced scientists familiar with different aspects of the dispersion of pulpmill effluent – the chemistry and toxicity of the effluent material, plus the hydro-dynamics of the receiving waters. It is our collective opinion, that both for the sake of Bass Strait fisheries and endangered species and to avoid a truly awful precedent for environmental management throughout Australia, the Minister has no real option except to refuse a permit for the proposed Gunns Pulp Mill.

What they say: MR

(Also: All about the Chief Scientist)
Press Release – Drs Godfrey, Raverty and Wadsley – 3 September 2007
PRESS RELEASE – Pulp Mill Assessment
3 September 2007
Dr Stuart Godfrey, Dr Warwick Raverty and Dr Andrew Wadsley

‘Malcolm Turnbull should reject Gunns’ application to site its 1.1 million tonne pulp mill at Bell Bay if a decision is really needed in October’, said scientist and engineer, Dr Andrew Wadsley in Hobart today.

Wadsley was joined by two other experienced scientists, Dr Stuart Godfrey and Dr Warwick Raverty. The three are expert in different aspects of the dispersion of pulp mill effluent – the chemistry and toxicity of the effluent material, plus the hydrodynamics of the receiving waters. Dr. Raverty said, ‘Recent decisions of the Tasmanian Parliament have very literally been illadvised, because their sidelining of the RPDC process removed their only source of independent, integrated, scientific advice on the Pulp Mill project. We have put in a detailed submission to the Minister and we are keen to have our information and conclusions thoroughly tested by the Chief Scientist’s panel.’

The scientist’s submission is publicly available at www.cleantamar.com.au It is the opinion of the three experts that Federal Minister for Environment and Water Resources, Malcolm Turnbull, has no real option except to refuse a permit for the proposed Gunns Pulp Mill until such time as the panel to be selected by the Chief Scientist, Dr Jim Peacock can undertake a scientifically rigorous analysis of the likely dispersal of effluent from the mill.‘The Tasmanian Government’s SWECO PIC report highlighted the inadequacy of Gunns’ hydrodynamic modelling of currents in Bass Strait, which I find contains two serious errors”, said Dr. Godfrey. ‘However, discussions with Raverty and Wadsley showed me that sedimentation of dioxins seriously compound the problems. Better modelling is likely to show that fisheries and endangered species in Bass Strait, the shoreline and the Tamar are all at serious risk from the proposed Mill. Unfortunately, remedying the mistakes in Gunns’ modelling will take much longer than the 6 weeks currently proposed by the Minister for the review. Under these circumstances, premature approval of the Mill would set a truly awful precedent for environmental management
throughout Australia’.

Raverty added, ‘Once built, this mill will last 100 years or longer. It cannot be moved if serious problems are found. No approval should be given until the environmental safety of the Tamar and Bass Strait can be guaranteed according to the best computer predictions that science will allow. That is the only course associated with acceptable levels of risk.’ Wadsley’s assessment shows that limits for emissions of dioxins will need to be tightened by 85%. He states, ‘The Minister has proposed to set a “trigger” value for dioxin concentrations in the sediment of 850 picograms of toxic equivalents of TCDD dioxin per kilogram in Commonwealth marine waters that is actually 224 times higher than measured background levels. TCDD, contained in the mill effluent, is one of the most highly toxic chemicals known.’

Scandinavian experience, resulting from comparable increases in dioxins during 1960-1985, shows significant biological impoverishment of many areas of the Baltic Sea. Because dioxins take many decades to biodegrade, this impoverishment continues to this day. All 47 Swedish mills now generate only 20% more dioxin than Gunns mill alone would be permitted, under the Minister’s proposed allowance of 0.08 grams TEQ/year. While a similar limit still technically applies to Swedish and Canadian mills, it has been superseded by reliance on observations of the health of so-called “sentinel species”, species that are known to be particularly sensitive to pollutants, in order to determine the safe level of dioxins. This technique has forced mills to reduce their dioxin outflows by a factor of about 10 compared to their technical guidelines.

However, it is too late for Sweden to repair the damage done to the Baltic and to large lakes. Similar histories relate to San Francisco Bay, British Columbia and the north American Great Lakes. The panel of experts the Minister plans to convene can quickly confirm these statements by consultation with the Swedish National EPA, the US EPA and Environment Canada.

The three Australian scientists emphasised that they believed Malcolm Turnbull had so far acted with complete integrity in an exceedingly difficult situation. Wadsley added, ‘The Federal Department of Environment and Water Resources – unlike the Tasmanian Government, who have had years to explore all facets of this issue – could not have been expected to be aware of the technical details we are presenting now.

Our strong message is that Malcolm Turnbull should reject Gunns’ application to site the Mill at Bell Bay if a decision is really needed in October. The only scientifically justifiable alternative is for him to allow Dr Peacock and his panel as much time as they need to conduct the most rigorous assessment that is possible with current science’. Otherwise the ‘clean, green’ image that Tasmania and Australia are trying to promote with food exports and tourism will be gone for ever’.

Godfrey is a retired CSIRO Chief Scientist with 38 years experience in oceanography. Raverty is an organic chemist with 27 years experience working in the pulp and paper industry. He now works for Ensis, a CSIRO joint venture with New Zealand’s Scion research institute. Wadsley has 32 years experience in petroleum engineering and is an adjunct Associate Professor at Curtin University. All three scientists emphasised that they were expressing only their collective scientific opinions and not the official views of any organisation.

Dr Stuart Godfrey
Dr Warwick Raverty
Dr Andrew Wadsley
3 September 2007