|
The planned construction of a pulp
mill at Long Reach in Northern Tasmania could have serious
implications for coastal communities and recreational surfers,
Surfrider Foundation Australia (SFA) Northern Tasmania said
today.
In its submission to the Resource
Planning and Development Commission (RPDC), SFA Northern Tasmania
highlights significant deficiencies in the Gunns Draft Integrated
Impact Statement (IIS).
Written and prepared by local, national and international
experts in the fields of marine biology, oceanography and
pulp mill engineering, the SFA Northern Tasmania submission
questions why the pulp mill proponent undertook no scientific
assessments of the "direct human health impact"
on surfers or other recreational users in the coastal area
surrounding its planned ocean outfall. Other key failings
identified include the lack of scientific detail on chronic
toxicity issues affecting local marine life over the 30- 50
year life of the pulp mill, as well as the potential impact
of visual pollution on local beaches from buoyant, wind-driven
industrial waste.
Surfrider Northern Tasmania president Peter Whish-Wilson
says, “Surfers in Tasmania have grown up surfing in one of
the world’s most pristine oceans. We appreciate and enjoy
our unspoiled coastal assets and are justifiably alarmed by
any prospect of one corporation’s industrial pollution ruining
local beaches and surfing amenities".
“Of course, it’s not just we recreational surfers who are
deeply troubled by the Draft IIS as it stands. There is genuine
and growing concern amongst the local community in Tasmania,
which is why more than 700 submissions were made to the RPDC.
“Known surfing breaks are less than
five kilometres directly downwind from the planned outfall
location and the public beaches of Beechford and Bell Buoy
are less than eight kilometres. Coastal recreational
users, the local population, and indeed all Tasmanians deserve
to know unequivocally what impact the proposed mill effluent
will have on not only our health, but also on the well-being
and amenity of our unique, wild coastline,” Mr Whish-Wilson
said.
The SFA submission includes a comprehensive
oceanographical assessment of the Draft IIS hydrodynamic report
which questions why the proponent did not examine the possibility
the mill effluent’s “suspended solids and bacteria” will travel
from its ocean outfall to local beaches.
“Our oceanographer’s report suggests considerable uncertainty
in how this effluent’s solids will disperse and travel, and
we have found powerful evidence, well documented overseas
and outlined in a case study in our submission, that reflects
these uncertainties and the potential impacts such modern
pulp mill wastes can have on recreational activities and human
health effects”.
Analysis of the GHD Hydrodynamic
Modelling Report of the Gunns IIS (V18 A63) points to significant
limitations in both the modelling of the marine outfall
and the field observations used to both calibrate and verify
the model. Indeed, some of these limitations are stated
in the report - and identified as "not a component of the scope". The GHD
Report for Gunns admits that, in terms of investigating
oceanographic processes which would push the outfall's
effluent plume against the coast, the work done in the Hydrodynamic
Modelling Report was not "conservative."
SFA Northern Tasmania submits such crucial caveats
should be front and centre in the executive summaries of both
the Hydrodynamic Modelling Report and the IIS as a whole.
These significant limitations of the Gunns IIS lay somewhere buried
in the depths of its 7000+ pages. These limitations,
along with many others not acknowledged in the Gunns IIS,
cast serious doubt on the interpretation of the Hydrodynamic
Modelling Report (V18 A63) and also the assumptions of the Toxikos
Human Health Risk Assessment (V10 A22). The Human
Health Risk Assessment did not consider direct human contact
with the effluent. It states, "The only plausible way the
general public could be exposed to substances in the effluent
is through consumption of biota that may have accumulated
substances from the effluent.” SFA Northern
Tasmania believes this is a serious deficiency in the Draft
IIS that must be addressed.
The Surfrider submission also contains
a report from the internationally recognised Australian Maritime
College (AMC) Search, which focuses on the Gunns Ltd studies
of the local marine environment where the ocean outfall will
occur.
Mr Whish-Wilson said, “Our analysis tells us that pulp mill
effluents can have subtle but important long term effects
on marine life, yet none of this has been adequately addressed
by Gunns Ltd.”
Local surfers have asked the RPDC to ensure these concerns
are addressed during the assessment. If the Long Reach mill
is approved, SFA Northern Tasmania strongly supports the implementation
of a plan which allows local stakeholders - including surfers
- to be considered and involved in any monitoring program
for marine, human health and aesthetic issues. Such a plan,
and any guidelines for non-compliance, have not yet been disclosed
by Gunns Ltd or the Tasmanian Government.
“It is meaningless to local surfers
and other users of the Tasmanian coast to hear Gunns Ltd or
the State Government say this projects industrial waste contains
no harmful concentrations of toxic chemicals or other substances,
without any transparent public plan to monitor this project’s
marine discharges, and provide clear penalties for non compliance
with set guidelines,” Mr Whish-Wilson said.
Launceston
Saturday, 14 October
Contact:
Peter Whish-Wilson 0410 754 728, pwhish-w@bigpond.net.au
|
Back
