Contents
Pulp Mill Assessment Act 2007
Directions Hearing - 22 February 2007
Appointment of new Panel Members
Commission determinations arising out of the Directions Hearing
Directions arising out of the Directions Hearing
Submissions arising out of the Directions Hearing
Directions Hearing - 25 October 2006
Consultants' Reports and Public submissions
Environmental Emission Limit Guidelines
The Pulp Mill Assessment Bill 2007 passed both Houses of Parliament on 17 April 2007, and the Pulp Mill Assessment Act 2007 (No. 4 of 2007) was given the Royal Assent on 30 April 2007.
Section 2 of the Act provides that the Act commences on the day on which it is given the Royal Assent.
The Act provides for a consultant to assess the proposal by Gunns Limited for the development and operation of a pulp mill in Northern Tasmania, and for the revocation of the State Policies and Projects (Project of State Significance) Order 2004 (No. 111 of 2004).
As a result of the Act receiving Royal Assent, the project ceases to be a project of State significance, and the Commission has no further involvement in the project.
A Directions Hearing was held on 22 February 2007 to facilitate and clarify those steps which are necessary to ensure the completion of the assessment process. The hearing was recorded and a transcript is available.
The Commission ordered that Direction 3, published on 1 December 2006, be amended as follows:
3. The proponent is to serve copies of the Supplementary Information on each of the parties who appeared at the Directions Hearing (or their respective legal representatives)
within 7 days of the date on which it provides the Supplementary Information to the Commissionimmediately upon the Commission advising that the Supplementary Information has been assessed and passed as appropriate for public exhibition.
Following the resignations of Mr Julian Green, as Chairman and panel member of the Commission's Pulp Mill Assessment Panel, and panel member Dr Warwick Raverty of Ensis (CSIRO), the Commission has reconstituted the assessment panel.
On 5 February 2007 the Commission announced that it had appointed retired State Supreme Court Judge Christopher Wright QC and New Zealand scientist, André Hamman, to fill vacancies on the Pulp Mill Assessment Panel.
The Commission has considered the submissions made on behalf of the Tasmanian and Australian Greens (The Greens) and The Wilderness Society Inc following the Directions Hearing, which was held on 25 October 2006.
The Commission determines that:
1. In relation to the submission by the Tasmanian and Australian Greens seeking an order that requires the proponent to provide TAPM input data and economic information, IT IS DETERMINED that:
(a) By consent, the proponent is to produce the TAPM files developed by the CSIRO and the measured wind data used to adjust the TAPM meteorological simulations.
(b) The proponent is not required to produce information on emissions from other Bell Bay industries provided to it by a third party that is the subject of a confidential agreement but the Commission reserves the right to obtain information and documents directly from those third parties, if required, pursuant to section 14 of the Resource Planning and Development Commission Act 1997.
(c) At this stage of the assessment the proponent is not required to produce economic information that is of a confidential nature but the proponent should be prepared to present its case for confidentiality to the Commission at the hearing if necessary. The Commission reserves the right to obtain information and documents from the proponent, if required, pursuant to section 14 of the Resource Planning and Development Commission Act 1997.
2. In relation to the submission by the Tasmanian and Australian Greens seeking an order requiring the Tasmanian Government to produce a report relating to the stability of Tasmania’s Heavy Truck Fleet, IT IS DETERMINED that the submission has been superceded by the recent release of the report by the Tasmanian Government.
3. In relation to the application by the Tasmanian and Australian Greens that Dr Warwick Raverty disqualify himself from the assessment panel on the basis of apprehended bias, this, in the first instance, is a decision for Dr Raverty.
4. In relation to the submission by The Wilderness Society Inc that the Final Scope Guidelines for the Draft Integrated Impact Statement (the guidelines) are inadequate with respect to impacts on native forests –
IT IS DETERMINED that:
(i) the guidelines are adequate in that the proponent is required to address not only the social, economic and community impacts but also the environmental impacts relating to the supply of pulpwood to the proposed mill;
(ii) the issues raised in the submission go not to the adequacy of the guidelines, but to the issue of how the proponent has addressed the guidelines in respect of this particular matter. What information the proponent provides in response to the broad requirement of the guidelines is a matter for the proponent and is a matter to be assessed during the hearing process;
(iii) the guidelines do not require the detail that The Wilderness Society Inc submission proposes;
(iv) the guidelines are not exclusionary and do not operate to curtail the Commission’s statutory function, which is to make an integrated assessment of the proposed pulp mill, including pulpwood supply; and
(v) the submission of The Wilderness Society Inc is therefore rejected.
Following the Directions Hearing, held in Launceston on 25 October 2006, the Commission drafted directions and invited comment from the parties appearing at the Directions Hearing. The directions have been finalised and are hereby issued as follows:
1. On or before 15 December 2006, the proponent is to either:
(a) Provide the Commission with
(i) the additional information referred to in the Commission’s letter to Gunns Limited dated 2 October 2006, and
(ii) such further or other information as it desires the Commission to consider, and
(iii) a document that summarises the information contained in the documents referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) hereof and that integrates and assimilates that information with the Draft IIS so as to ensure internal consistency and to clearly indicate how that information adds to, amends or otherwise varies the contents of the Draft IIS
(together called “The Supplementary Information”)
or,
(b) Alternatively, advise the Commission in writing when it will provide the Supplementary Information to the Commission.
2. Upon receipt of the Supplementary Information the Commission will consider that information and determine an appropriate period of public exhibition and will thereafter place public notices in Tasmanian newspapers advising:
(a) The place or places at which the Supplementary Information can be viewed and,
(b) The duration of the period of public exhibition as determined by the Commission.
3. The proponent is to serve copies of the Supplementary Information on each of the parties who appeared at the Directions Hearing (or their respective legal representatives) within 7 days of the date on which it provides the Supplementary Information to the Commission.
Note: A further Directions Hearing will be held [on a date to be fixed] but following the expiration of the period of public exhibition of the Supplementary Information.
At the Directions Hearing legal representatives for the Tasmanian and Australian Greens and the Wilderness Society were given the opportunity to make written submissions in relation to specific issues raised.
RPDC 2.11.06.doc (44kb)
Submission to RPDC 3.11.06_2.doc (88kb)
Amended set of Final Scope Guidelines.doc (94kb)
RFA (84kb)
RFA attachment 1 (152kb)
RFA attachment 2 (95kb)
RFA 2005 variation (199 kb)
Bekessy Report (843kb)
Mooney Report (4.38mb)
The Greens - Constitution of Panel (111kb)
The Greens - Further Info from Gunns (602kb)
The Greens Info from Tas Govt (48kb)
Parties appearing at the Directions Hearing were invited to comment on the submissions made by the Wilderness Society Inc and the Tasmanian and Australian Greens.
Responses have been received from:
A Directions Hearing was held on 25 October 2006 to assist the Commission prepare for a public hearing into the Gunns proposal. The hearing was recorded and a transcript is available.
Matters considered at the Directions Hearing included:
The Commission has received the following peer review reports on the Draft IIS from its independent advisers:
Beca AMEC Limited - Peer Review Report
Beca AMEC Limited - Appendix A
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
Beca AMEC Limited - Review of Toxicological Appendices
UniQuest Pty Ltd - Part A - Review of Volume 17 of the Gunns' Report
UniQuest Pty Ltd - Part B - Review of Volume 10 of the Gunns' Report
Disclaimer
These peer review reports have been prepared at the request of the Commission to assist in the assessment of Gunns’ Draft Integrated Impact Statement (IIS). The Commission does not endorse the content, comment or conclusions expressed in any of the peer review reports.
A total of 780 submissions, including pro forma submissions, have been received by the Commission in response to its public invitation to lodge a written submission on the Gunns Limited Draft Integrated Impact Statement (IIS).
In accordance with the requirements of section 12 of the Resource Planning and Development Commission Act 1997 written submissions are available to the public.
Disclaimer
Please note that the Commission does not take responsibility for the language used in any of the submissions.
On 19 November 2003 the then Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment, the Hon. Bryan Green, directed the Commission to review the Australian Government's 1995 Environmental Guidelines for New Bleached Eucalypt Kraft Pulp Mills and developed new environmental emission limit guidelines.
In August 2004 the Commission submitted its final report on the development of environmental emission limit guidelines for any new bleached eucalypt kraft pulp mill in Tasmania, to the Minister for Environment and Planning.
On 26 October 2004 the Tasmanian Premier, the Hon. Paul Lennon, announced that the Tasmanian Government has approved the set of emission limit guidelines recommended by the Commission.
Similarly the Australian Government has advised that the emission limit guidelines are acceptable as guidelines for emission limits for any proposal for a bleached eucalypt pulp mill to be examined under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
