A response to comments 43 and 46, on: In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is King
Yes, Ms Mills I did make a mistake in claiming the quantity of chlorine Gunns proposed to store at Long Reach and one that, as you say I quickly retracted.
As I explained at the time, the context in which I made the mistake was on 26th March 2007 – mere days after Jester and Lester had released 1100 pages of wordy, poorly organised, non-cross referenced ‘Additional Information’ some 3 months late.
This document, prepared and compiled by Jester and Lester in conjuction with DOZENS of $5,000 per day Finnish pulp mill ‘experts’, $6,000 per day Australian legal advisers and sundry environmental experts was subsequently described by Christopher Wright (via Simon Cooper) as ‘critically deficient’.
When I compare this document with the document I requested and that Gunns barrister, Mr Gobbo, promised to deliver at the October 2006 RPDC Directions Hearing – namely that Gunns would be given an electronic copy or the 120 pages of questions raised by the RPDC’s international experts, Beca AMEC, and that they would insert directly below each question their answer in simple, easy to follow language, what do I find?
I find Gunns TOTALLY FAILING to provide what the RPDC asked for and what Mr Gobbo PROMISED, with Lester sitting directly behind him at the Directions Hearing and briefing him verbally before responding AS I AND OTHER ASSESSMENT PANEL MEMBERS WATCHED.
(Perhaps Linz can provide a link to the transcript of the Directions hearing so that all may read and judge for themselves Lindsay is searching but may need help).
What emerged in March 2007 Ms Mills was not only critically deficient, it was in my view a PIGS’ BREAKFAST. Had I been one of the $7,000 per day Finnish experts, or Jester or Lester, I would have been far more embarrassed at serving up the swill in that document than the embarrassment at making one single mistake.
I can recall NO OTHERS, but as a single, pro bono expert without the (former) resources of your employer I may be wrong – perhaps you can detail other errors I have made. One of them was NOT, as you assert in #46 my assertion that the mill will cause white out on the East Tamar Highway. Where has this assertion ‘been disproven’ Ms Mills – chapter and verse please Ms Mills?
The Bowater Mill was MUCH further from the Interstate Highway where the tragic traffic deaths occurred than is Gunns proposed pulp dryer from the East Tamar Highway. By my calculations, that pulp dryer will emit (at 1.1 million tonnes of dried pulp per annum) some 131 tonnes of water vapour every hour of every cold winter’s night and morning – this water vapour, in the absence of ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY in Gunns IIS will NOT go up the main stack but will be emitted near the level of the East Tamar Highway.
Please tell me were that water vapour is going Ms Mills and tell the residents why it won’t cause white out conditions on the Highway as parents are taking their kids to school. There are many thousands of people waiting for your answer, or that of your employer. And while you are at it, why not ask your friend Tiimo to provide further details of his ‘fully welded’ foul gas pipelines that emit no fugitive odour. Why wasn’t that mentioned in Gunn’s IIS? Foul Gas mixed with air in a wide range of concentrations is explosive Ms Mills and foul gas lines in every case I have worked on have ‘rupture disks’ in order to prevent the pipes blowing lethal shards of steel shrapnel everywhere in the event of the mix entering the explosive range.
Will Gunns foul gas pipeline have bursting discs?
Yes?
No?
Why isn’t this mentioned in the IIS? Bursting discs often crack without breaking, allowing concentrated ‘stink’ to flow into the air around the mill for weeks before they are discovered. Unless of course each disc is monitored for integrity with alarms – that’s possible 100 monitors and alarms Ms Mills. Why wasn’t this topic covered in the IIS when Jester and Lester were specifically quizzed on the topic by the RPDC Assessment Panel.
No Ms Mills the hundreds of significant mistakes (and deliberate obfuscation and failure to provide vital information to the RPDC make my single error pale into insignificance.
Embarrassing for you isn’t it? I mean working for a company that has lost all of its former goodwill and 95% of its investors’ money, plus the trust of most of the people in Tasmania (not to mention the international financial community.
If the proposed mill is as clean and green as you claim, why did Sodra, arguably the cleanest and greenest of Sweden’s pulp producers decide not to invest in the Project? Possibly because they sent a representative all the way from Stockholm to Melbourne to hear my view of the deficiencies in the project. And of course they would not just have relied on my opinion; after all I can make mistakes. They would have asked a lot of other experts experts outside of Poyryr, who stand to make a cool $100 million if the mill is ever constructed.
The word that I received through industry contacts was that Sodra didn’t want its fine environmental and community records being tarnished by being associated with Gunns’ project.
Embarrassing isn’t it Ms Mills?
Two final questions that your employer steadfastly failed to answer to the RPDC and the public:
1. What was the TOTAL VOLUME of wood that Gunns planned to harvest in Tasmania in 2011 to support the Mill AND its chip exports?
2. What were the estimated capital and operating costs of a 1.1 million tonne per annum mill constructed at Hampshire and the comparative figures for Long Reach?
You see it is extremely embarrassing for a company to claim to be a professional project manager and operator without answering these fundamental questions.
The people who write and post on TT in opposition to your employer’s proposal are not ‘sheep’ as you claim.
Doubtless many in Gunns, under Jester and Lester, thought of the Tamar community as a placid flock who could be ‘herded’ down the risky pulp mill track.
History has proved them very wrong. It takes courage, resilience and intellect to fight a large arrogant, greedy company and its political hirelings. Even if you don’t agree with them, these people deserve your respect not derision.
Go away and do your homework Ms Mills.
(Dr) Warwick Raverty
Clayton South, VIC
• A response to queries raised in comments below by Garry Stannus and Barnaby Drake:
Garry in answer to some of the concerns raised by your post (#9) and to be fair to Gunns (two wrongs don’t make a right (and neither do the number of wrongs committed by Gunns against the Tasmanian community!)) and to set the public record straight, the reason that my March 2006 concerns over the storage of large quantities of chlorine were allayed by Les Baker at that time is that chlorine dioxide gas dissolved in chilled water and the relatively small amount mixed with air above the solution are much easier to contain in the event of a mishap than is chlorine gas.
Chlorine gas is generated and stored under pressure as a liquid in some (but not all) pulp mills using the Integrated Dioxide Process (IDP) that Gunns originally proposed to use in their 2006 IIS. Readers will recall that Gunns were coerced into changing to RPDC compliant bleaching processes in 2007 by the adverse comments in the Sweco Pic Report. The RPDC had rejected the IDP in 2004 for exactly the same reasons as Sweco Pic.
In mills where chlorine is generated on-site and pressurised for storage there is certainly a risk that the pressurised container(s) could be ruptured by a passing vehicle. In such an accident, the liquid chlorine would boil spontaneously and rapidly under atmospheric pressure, generating thousands of cubic metres of deadly gas that is much denser than air and which floats along the ground at head height as described by many World War 1 veterans. For example, 50 tonnes of liquid chlorine contained in a modest-sized tank of 40 cubic metre capacity would vaporise to form nearly 17,000 cubic metres of chlorine gas. If a catastrophic breach of a tank like this were to occur, you would have the terrible scenario about which I was concerned on 26th March 2006 – the trenches of the Western Front in 1915 revisited – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_gas_in_World_War_I .
Chlorine dioxide, the material that is part of one of the two RPDC compliant bleaching processes, is a very different material to chlorine. As you have already discovered, chlorine dioxide explodes spontaneously in concentrations above 10% in air (or nitrogen) and so it CANNOT be compressed to form a liquid in the same way that chlorine can. Despite having properties that are probably quite alarming to most non-scientists, EXPERIENCED pulp producers make some 75% of the world’s bleached kraft pulp using this material safely without incident by generating it on-site. To do this, the chemicals sodium chlorate (a white crystalline solid that can be stored safely as long as it is kept away from combustible materials – this is standard practice), sulfuric acid (a hazardous liquid that can be handled safely by trained personnel) and either methanol, or hydrogen peroxide solution in water (both also hazardous liquids that can be handled safely by well-trained people) are mixed in a purpose-built chlorine dioxide generation vessel. The chlorine dioxide gas that bubbles out of this mixture is swept out of the generation vessel by a strong stream of air such that the concentration is normally kept well below 10% in the air stream. The mixture of chlorine dioxide in air is subsequently absorbed in chilled water that is conveyed continuously into the pulp inside a ‘bleaching tower’. The solution in chilled water is not stored because the chlorine dioxide starts decomposing (mainly into chlorine gas and oxygen) almost immediately and experienced pulp producers do their very best to avoid this wastage of chlorine dioxide – one of the most expensive chemicals used in a pulp mill.
With regard to the term ‘EXPERIENCED pulp producers’, it is a deplorable fact of Australian Law (Federal and State) that not only do bodies corporate have the same rights as people (comment #7), but no environmental or planning act of which I am aware requires proponents to demonstrate to the relevant Authority that they have sufficient skills to build and operate a hazardous chemical facility. This was a major failing of the RPDC Act in my personal view. At no time were Assessors of Gunns’ proposal empowered to ask the question: ‘Do you, Gunns, have the necessary experience to operate a facility of this size and complexity?’ – followed immediately by the request: ‘You are currently operators (in 2005) of wood chip mills, saw mills, forest plantations, vineyards and retail outlets – convince us as Assessors that you can acquire the necessary skills and experience to run a giant complex chemical processing facility before we proceed further.’ These questions could simply not be asked under the RPDC Act. Such a serious omission doubtless arises from the fact that both bodies corporate and bodies personal are considered to be ‘innocent’ until proven guilty under Australian Law. Such a presumption in the case of any proponent of large hazardous facility seems to me to be cavalier to put it mildly! It certainly is not one that is granted to proponents who wish to build gambling casinos – so why should it be granted to people who have the potential to wreck the environment?
Some may argue that the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Management Plan under the Commonwealth EPBC Act does constitute provision of evidence of necessary skills. I would counter that all the provision of an EIMP to the Minister for the Environment demonstrates is access to relevant consultants and (only just possibly) some knowledge of the THEORY of running a hazardous chemical facility. As anyone who drives a car will know, the difference between knowledge of theory and possession of practical skills are poles apart. But I digress………back to the simple explanation of what Gunns seem to be proposing, an explanation that Gunns themselves strangely don’t ever seem to have offered ordinary Tasmanians in a coherent, easily understood form.
Rather than buying sodium chlorate in bags as a solid compound, Gunns propose to make their own by electrolysing strong sodium chloride solution (brine). This on-site production produces a solution of sodium chlorate in water, which I suspect is the purpose of one of the storage tanks Garry has highlighted. This solution would then be dosed continuously into the chlorine dioxide generation vessel together with the other chemicals. The important point about the five liquids mentioned above is that they can all be handled safely by experienced personnel. All modern pulp mills are designed with extensive concrete bunds around tanks and a drainage system under the tanks that feeds into a spill containment system. This is the essential difference between handling hazardous liquids and hazardous gases – liquids can be contained if a catastrophic breach of a tank occurs, gases cannot. That said, if a massive earthquake of the type experienced in Japan and NZ earlier this year occurred in Tasmania or offshore, then bunds and spill containment systems would be almost useless. I recall in 2007 geologist, Dr Owen Ingles alerting me to the fact that the Tamar Valley lies on a geological fault line (witness the Beaconsfield Mine disaster) and that fact certainly warrants more serious consideration in 2011 in the light of events in February and March. For me, it is yet one more reason why giant kraft pulp mills should not be sited in densely populated areas – they are hazardous chemical facilities.
So I hope the above goes some way to explaining my comments on typingisnotactivism.com and why the RPDC, on the advice of international experts, sanctioned use of chlorine dioxide IN APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS, such as Hampshire.
For the record, in mid-2007, following the poll that showed a majority of Tasmanians would accept a 100% plantation fed, Totally Chlorine Free kraft pulp mill that met the RPDC Guidelines at Hampshire, I changed my view about chlorine dioxide. This change of view is something that scientists must do routinely when new evidence comes to light – even evidence of a social nature, rather than physical evidence based on scientific experiment. I no longer support use of chlorine dioxide in a pulp mill in Tasmania because it is a matter of international perception (rather than scientific fact) that chlorine dioxide usage is not in keeping with the ‘clean, green’ image by which Tasmanian businesses seek to gain an advantage in global markets. The mere mention of the word ‘chlorine’ also worries many people. In my view, if a majority of any community say they are not happy with something, and there is an alternative with which they are happy and which is economically viable, then that alternative should be used. Sodra have certainly shown over the last 10 years in their Swedish Mills that TCF bleaching of kraft pulps is economically viable.
This brings me to another point raised in #8 – ‘light bleaching’, or more correctly ‘ECF Light bleaching’ processes that have been developed since the RPDC was abolished. Mr Drake is quite correct to raise this as an issue. The difference between the two ‘RPDC compliant’ bleaching processes and ECF Light processes is not the use of hydrogen peroxide. Virtually all modern pulp bleaching processes, both chlorine dioxide using (ECF) and TCF, use this chemical (safely!). ECF Light processes are ‘half way houses’ between ECF and TCF where some of the chlorine dioxide is replaced by a chlorine-free chemical, such as ozone (used at Maryvale in Gippsland), or additional hydrogen peroxide as proposed in April this year by Gunns (http://www.epa.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=26270). While many pulp mill experts EXPECT that fully treated effluent from ECF Light bleaching of eucalypt kraft pulp will have a similarly low environmental impact to equivalent effluents from ECF and TCF bleaching, I am not aware of any reputable scientific evidence that substantiates this expectation. Admittedly, having left the pulp industry, I no longer have access to the most recent scientific literature on environmental impacts of new processes like ECF Light. What I can say is that the Tasmanian EPA, and the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment should be demanding scientific evidence from Gunns that their proposed change to this new process will not cause increased environmental impact. In the absence of refereed scientific testing of ECF Light effluents, to say that organochlorine levels will reduce by 40%, therefore the process in ‘better’ is just simplistic nonsense. It is well known that the reason that TCF effluents are not markedly ‘better’ than ECF effluents is because the organochlorine pollutants produced during ECF bleaching are replaced by resin acid pollutants (ones that act as endocrine disrupters in marine invertebrates) when softwoods, like pine, are subjected to TCF bleaching. In my view, what happens to all the hexenuronic acids and polyphenols in eucalypts (as well as the natural toxins identified in run-off from Eucalyptus nitens plantations by Dr Bleaney) during ECF Light bleaching needs to be established by independent experts before this change is approved. I do wonder whether the Tasmanian EPA has the necessary expertise. A more independent and well-resourced body like the former RPDC certainly would have. And as for international perception, I am almost certain that ECF Light has no better ‘clean, green’ credentials than ECF to buyers of Tasmanian produce and tourists visiting Tasmania. Go figure!
(Dr) Warwick Raverty
Clayton South, VIC
• And,
Response to a letter from a friend …
Thanks for this article John,
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100100161/no-wonder-these-kids-think-stealing-trainers-is-ok-everyone-makes-excuses-for-them/
All the factors that Katherine Birbalsingh laments about modern Britain are precisely why I chose to become an activist against Gunns’ pulp mill proposal. I know zip about teaching underprivileged kids, so can’t contribute to that topic. I do know a lot about large kraft pulp mills and the misery they create for people unfortunate enough to live even 20 km away, let alone next door. I also know a lot about the failures of Labour and Liberal politicians in Tasmania, so I chose to speak out and have done so for 5 years now. My latest salvos on the topic can be found here:
http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/in-the-land-of-the-blind-the-one-eyed-man-is-king/
http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/weblog/article/all-they-like-sheep-have-gone-astray-/
The comments from people in the Tamar Valley in response to these articles are personally heart warming and make all the stress of threatened SLAPP suits and verbal and physical assaults from Gunns’ and CFMEU thugs worthwhile. In January 2007 when I first spoke out, it looked like a David v Goliath contest with all of the cards in Goliath’s hands. I was warned by Julian Green – a senior Tas public servant (Secretary of Department level) – a man of good intent, but very little courage, ‘Don’t speak out, your words will be just blown away like a fart in a hurricane!’ However, just look at Gunns now, four and a half years later, teetering on the brink of receivership and the pariah of the ASX – all because a few thousand people in the Tamar Valley were prepared to join Peter Cundall, Bob McMahon, Dave Groves and me and keep farting for as many years as it took.
I chose to ignore Julian Green’s advice because, as Katherine Birbalsingh says, I was one of the increasingly few lucky people who had parents and grandparents who gave me a moral compass. I thought, Dad and Grandad fought in two world wars to keep Australia ‘the lucky country’ – Gunns are not the Japanese Army, the least I can do is shoulder the responsibility and fight them with words instead of bullets. I would add that the temptation to say, ‘No I can’t say anything, I am bound to make no comment by the Resource Planning and Development Act’ when the first journalist phoned me was very strong indeed. Our society strongly encourages compliance with ‘the system’ – ‘the state’ in Katherine Birbalsingh’s words – keep your head down and don’t make waves – let some other bugger take the flack! The result is our nonsensical ‘politically correct’ education system, the Nannny State laws that we all endure but do nothing about (other than grumble ineffectively) and gutless self serving politicians who get elected because so few people actually join political parties and go along each month (or write letters) to harass and harangue our local representatives into getting some cojones and actually working for their local electorate. Personally, I think our two party system is so f**ked that we need a third party to have any real effect – maybe a section of Getup will eventually create a political ‘voice for reason’ – I sincerely hope so.
That’s why I support Getup (and Avaas.org on an international level): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvpc2fKAh68
and
The other major reason that I chose to speak out was that many residents of the Tamar Valley had been farting against the Gunns State Government of Tasmania for years before me, including retired ABCTV presenter Peter Cundall, now well over 80. Peter Cundall should be an inspiration to all retirees – he has even allowed himself to be arrested at a protest over laws that he and the majority of Tasmanians consider unjust. Thousands of Tasmanians of similar age plus younger folk, including students have given their energy to resisting Goliath.
One of the few ‘good things’ about the seven years of struggle in the Tamar is that it has generated a ‘far bigger society’ in northern Tasmania. It has taken a lot of work by thousands of people and worn many out emotionally, but that is what building a ‘bigger society’ involves. Our ‘big state’ system is entrenched and many powerful fat piggies have their snouts in the trough. They won’t be moved away from the trough without a lot of effort and emotional stress on the part of many people of goodwill. It is even more true today over 200 years after Edmund Burke first made the statement, “All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” 150 years later, Dr Martin Luther King added, “There are just laws and unjust laws. I would agree with St Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all….. One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly….. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.”
We retired people do have the time to ‘get involved’ in politics – unlike the younger generations who are trying to juggle kids, careers, cars and mortgages, or housing rental. So I send this message to all your retired friends not to blow my own trumpet, but to give one concrete example of how one person can make a difference by joining other people of goodwill and daring to speak out. It may start as a few single farts against the hurricane of selfish politicians, greedy industrialists, biased newspaper editors and powerful lobbyists, but a few well placed farts do give others courage to loosen their sphincters and soon the farts of hundreds will grow to thousands and tens of thousands of people of goodwill that will reverse the hurricane from the selfish piggies. Retirement can be a time of enjoying pursuits long forced into the background by pressures of career and family, but it can also lead to feelings of being ‘no longer relevant’ to society. Each retiree thinking about what really pisses them off the most about modern society and choosing to do something about it can restore that person’s relevance and will give them a new energy and purpose in life as well as leaving a legacy that will leave the world a better place when they finally join St Peter’s Country Club in the sky.
So, don’t become a ‘grumpy old man’, or ‘a grumpy old woman’ – all of you have 60 years or more of ‘wise gas’ in your bowels, I suggest you start letting it out – it will improve the global climate for the better!
best wishes,
Warwick
