The Dark Passage to Lynas

9 July, 2012

by Charles Santiago

Creative forms of protest against the Lynas plant have flooded cyberspace. Photo: winterwong

While we welcome the report of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Lynas, this is clearly a document which has only looked at ways to keep the Lynas Advance Material Plant in operation.

The key area – returning the radioactive waste to Western Australia – has not been looked at although it was one of the earliest pre-conditions to the government granting Lynas a Temporary Operating License.

Violating pre-requisite to the Temporary Operating License (TOL)

Over a ten-year period of the plant’s operation, the total volume of waste will amount to 2,766,600 cubic metres. Over a 20-year period, as Lynas continues to enjoy its tax break, the waste would presumably have doubled.

And it is highly inconceivable that there will be enough soil and technology available to “dilute” the wastes and remove its radiation level to natural ground level radiation. This is especially crucial as Lynas plans to store the wastes onside in the Residue Storage Facility (RSF).

The PSC recommendation has noted that some of the regulations imposed by the Malaysian government are better than international standards. But according to the Lynas document which is under review, the management of radioactive residue generated from the decommissioning activities of LAMP upon cessation of operations after 20 years are not within the scope of the Lynas Radioactive Waste Management Plan or RWMP but presented in a separate document titled “Decommissioning Plan (Environ 2011b). This is certainly not in tandem with international standards.

Malaysia is still in the midst of cleaning up after the Asian Rare Earth factory was decommissioned at the cost of USD100 million, the largest in the rare earth industry. The rare earth factory was set-up 30 years ago and we are yet to wipe out all traces of residue. Lynas will produce 20,000 tonne of radioactive material, ten times more than the Asian Rare earth.

The managing director for Lynas, Datuk Mashal Ahamd has said that a Permanent Disposal Facility (PDF) will be needed in a worst case scenario where it is unable to reprocess the waste into a commercial product.

“We have 17 years before we even need to identify where is the PDF,.we are working on commercial applications…Once we find all this, we can even forget a Residue Storage Facility,” he said.

Datuk Mashal must be reminded that we are not working on hypothesis or possibilities here because it involves the lives of tens of thousands of people.

Nuclear radiologist Peter Karamoskos of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons said that without exception, thorium reactors have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production, they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies. This was reported in The Guardian last June.

Why are we talking about a storage facility in Malaysia when it was made clear that one of the prerequisite to the Temporary Operating License or TOL is that the waste be shipped back to Western Australia.

The Australian government reiterated that it will not accept responsibility for any waste material produced by Lynas, although one of the five conditions attached to the recent approval of its temporary operating license is that it must take full responsibility for waste management from its plant including returning the waste to the source, if necessary.

In an official statement to Free Malaysia Today, the Western Australian Minister for Mines and Petroleum, Norman Moore, asserted that “Australia does not support the importation and storage of other countries’ radioactive waste”.

But in a media briefing, AELB director-general, Raja Abdul Aziz Raja Adnan, gave his assurance that the board would insist on a letter of undertaking from Lynas Australia that it would adhere to this condition.

So where is the consistency in the approach the government has taken in relations to Lynas? It is clear the UMNO-led government is doing everything possible to allow Lynas to start its operations.

MOSTI Minister rejected an appeal by local residents against Lynas’s temporary operating permit on June 15, while imposing extra conditions on the plant. The permit granted in February, subject to conditions, has been held up due to appeals by protesters to government and in court. Lynas Executive Chairman Nicholas Curtis said the plant has passed every review it has subjected to and looks forward to the issuance of the Temporary Operating License.

Without Lynas sending back its waste to be managed in Western Australia, these recommendations are null and void. If its not so, then clearly the government is facilitating the operations of Lynas, despite strong protests and going back on its own guidelines.

While I have repeatedly said this, let me say it again:

Why didn’t Lynas set-up the rare earth plant near its source of extraction in Western Australia as it would have saved a huge amount of money in shipping costs?
2. Why didn’t Lynas obtain an approval from the authorities in Western Australia to set-up the plant?
3. Could the authorities in Western Australia be concerned about the possible radiation leaks, health hazards, birth defects, lead poisoning and other complications?
4. Shouldn’t this in itself raise a red flag with the Malaysian authorities?
5. Is the RM700 million in foreign investment more important to the Malaysian government than the lives of its citizens?

Health over investment?

The PSC has outlined a guideline to look into health measures for the people, wording it to say that this was undertaken to arrest the fears of the public.

Severe birth defects, eight leukemia cases over five years in a community of 11,000, tears and anguish of the poor people from a largely shoe-making community – these are not news headlines. Neither is it the plot of a movie.

These are the consequences of carelessly allowing the Asian Rare Earth factory to be built in Bukit Merah, Perak in 1982. When Mitsubishi Chemical started operating its rare earth factory, the villagers complained of choking sensation, pungent smell, coughs and colds.

The community also saw a sharp rise in the cases of infant deaths, congenital disease, leukemia and lead poisoning. Thirty years later, it has not wiped out the memories and heartache of the villagers who lost their children and loved ones. Only the government is feigning ignorance.

According to the Consumer Association of Penang (CAP), the arbitrary classification of radioactive wastes radically differs from the latest International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) classification of radioactive wastes. It further says the Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) has arbitrarily set its own safety standards for radiation exposure, which is not in accordance with international standards.

The AELB standards would be used to exempt and clear Lynas’ radioactive wastes for reuse and recycle. The exposure to radioactive waste was one of the causes that led to high levels of lead poisoning and other severe health complications of the people in Bukit Merah.

The severe illnesses were detected years after the Asian Rare Earth factory had started its operations. Are we going to repeat this? And what does the panel propose in terms of monitoring the health of the people, screening for potential exposure to radiation, follow-ups, the team of experts who would be at the disposal of the public and also determine who gets screened and tested?

The crushing of ore also releases Radon, which can travel thousands of miles according to wind direction. Does this mean special arrangements would be put in place to monitor all Malaysians?

Without giving much thought to the process of monitoring the health of the people, ruling politicians have jumped on the bandwagon to parrot prime minister Najib’s assurance that the factory is safe.

MITI minister Mustapa Mohamed said its policy would be based on laws, policies and the decision of the AELB. It’s about time the learned minister acknowledges that the lives of millions of people cannot be based on procedures.

I challenge the panel to answer this question – Can everyone of you say, without any doubt, that the Lynas plant poses no health threat to the people? Can you vouch that we would not see another repeat of the health disaster which happened in Bukit Merah?

AELB vs IAEA

The IAEA General Safety Guide rates the clearance dose for individuals as 10 microsieverts  (uSv) or lease in a year. The guide also stated that “to take account of the occurrence of low probability events leading to higher radiation exposure, an additional criterion was used, namely the effective does due to such low probability events should not exceed 1mSv in a year…

This is in sharp contrast to the figure stated by Lynas in its Radiological Impact Assessment (RIA) report which states the highest possible does to be received by workers resulting from operation of the plant for the first 10 years are below 13mSv per year. If this is not an admission that the risk of exposure is 10 times more than that permitted under the IAEA regulation, I do not know what is.

Furthermore Radiology and environmental expert Prof Dr Ahmad Termizi Ramli said the general perception was that the high levels of radioactive waste would result in deaths.”The Lynas plant will only produce one millisieverts (mSv) per year as required by law compared with the existing 2.4mSv background radiation already present in the air. Why did the learned Prof not take into account the exposure to the workers in the Lynas plant?

Nuclear physicist Dr Abdul Rahman Omar said the thorium waste which will be produced by Lynas can be used as fuel to generate between RM2 trillion to RM4 trillion worth of electricity a year.

“One tonne of thorium can produce the same amount of energy of 10 million tonnes of coal; imagine the energy that can be harnessed from this,” he is reported to have told the PSC committee.

In a world increasingly aware of and affected by global warming, the news that 2010 was a record year for greenhouse gases levels was something of a blow. And although China, Japan, US and India are pursuing it, the concept of thorium as a source for green energy remains inconclusive. The National Nuclear Laboratory said that the claims for thorium are overstated.

Oliver Tickell, author of Kyoto2, says the fission materials produced from thorium are of a different spectrum to those from uranium-235, but ‘include many dangerous-to-health alpha and beta emitters’.

The dangers of Thorium

“Green Gathering” or Himpunan Hijau anti-Lynas rally held on 25th February in Kuantan

Rocks and soil contain natural radioactivity, which also dissolves into ground water. The occurrence of these ‘naturally occurring radioactive materials’ (NORM) varies throughout the world, and may be more or less likely given the types of rocks and minerals in a particular area. NORM contributes a part of the natural ‘background’ exposure from radiation.

When resources are extracted from the earth, the natural radioactive material comes with those resources. In processing the desired resource, the radioactive material is removed and becomes a waste. The radioactive wastes from extraction and processing are called ‘Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material’ (TENORM) because human activity has concentrated the radioactivity or increased the likelihood of exposure by making the radioactive material more accessible to human contact.

In other words, this natural radioactive material has been made dangerous because it was removed from the ground and concentrated by mechanical and chemical processes.

We need to be concerned about TENORM because:
•    It has the potential to cause elevated exposure to radiation.
•    People may not be aware of TENORM materials and need information about them.
•    Industries that generate these materials may need additional guidance to help manage and dispose of them in ways that protect people and the environment and are economically sound.

The most common naturally radioactive elements are uranium, thorium, and radium. Common sources of TENORM waste are mining and mineral processing, oil and gas production, and drinking water and wastewater treatment. The PSC report points out that Lynas is not a nuclear plant or a mining site. However, Lynas is going to extract rare earth from ore. The process of crushing the ore releases Throrium, which is radioactive. But adding a mechanical and chemical process to an existing radioactive material increases the potential risk of exposure.

The final smirk from Lynas

Its rather strange that Lynas enjoyed operating from its premises – getting its structures concretised and putting together its logistics – while the Parliamentary Select Committee was plugging away at its report. It really does not make any sense but rather gave an impression that the recommendations of the committee would have no bearings whatsoever to the plant. Lynas, it seems, almost knew it would not be shut down however damning is the information unearthed by the committee. This is precisely why the opposition felt it was a total waste of time to sit on the panel.

When Malaysia, disregarding once again the strong protests registered by the people, rejected a bid to cancel the Temporary Operating License for Lynas, its share advanced as much as 15 cents (Australian) to A$1.01, the biggest gain since May 28 this year.

But in doing so and allowing Lynas to start its operations, the government has nonchalantly dismissed the value of peoples’ lives which are at stake. -The Rocket

This article was written by on Monday, July 9, 2012 at 11:44 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 Comment

  • Educated Malaysian

    What a load of rubbish this article.

    This author has cherry picked facts and mashed them together incoherently.

    All of the questions you raised have been answered over and over again. Yet you choose to ignore them and ask the same questions. Why are you so ignorant?

    Why didn’t Lynas set-up the rare earth plant near its source of extraction in Western Australia as it would have saved a huge amount of money in shipping costs?

    There is no water available for the processing in WA, and it is cheaper to process in Malaysia. Your obviously ignorant because you fail to understand the operational costs, its not about shipping costs. Personell costs is the major consideration as is the tax free operational costs.

    2. Why didn’t Lynas obtain an approval from the authorities in Western Australia to set-up the plant?

    Lynas did get approval in WA, they also got approval in China, but were invited to setup operation in Malaysia. Based on economics and political uncertainty (in China) they chose Malaysia.

    3. Could the authorities in Western Australia be concerned about the possible radiation leaks, health hazards, birth defects, lead poisoning and other complications?

    WA is a mining state and they are aware of hazards and risks in all forms of mining. Lynas is not mining lead, what has this got to do with anything? What are “other complications”? Have you ever done a risk assessment before? Do you know what one is and how it is developed?

    4. Shouldn’t this in itself raise a red flag with the Malaysian authorities?

    No, it shouldnt, because there is nothing wrong with Lynas plant. It has similar risks to petroleum refining which is done in Kuantan already by Petronas. Why target Lynas without targetting Petronas or Siemens, or other toxic waste industries?

    5. Is the RM700 million in foreign investment more important to the Malaysian government than the lives of its citizens?

    Lives are important, and the LAMP has been proven to be designed safely. With development and investment this will improve the living standard of Malaysians and Malay society will be better off.

    Of course all of these answer have been given before but a select few simply chyoose to ignore.

    For example one of the SMSL charmen said… ‘Even if the LAMP is found to be safe we will not give up the fight’

    This is pure ignorance.

Leave a Reply


Other News

The story behind parliamentary written replies

23 July, 2014 0 Comments

By Lu Wei Hoong Early last month, PKR’s Bagan Serai MP N Surendran slammed the institution of Parliament as “a waste of money”, because recent events have shown that it merely acts as a “rubber stamp” for the government of the day. To members of the media who cover the ... Full Article →

Artist Zunar, relentless fighter against tyranny (Part 2)

23 July, 2014 0 Comments

(…continuation from part 1) Since 2009, we still haven’t seen other cartoonists who shine other than yourself. Why is that so? Ok. With regard to this, I can only provide the space and guidance for cartoonists, I wont be able to turn them into successful cartoonists. That is for themselves ... Full Article →

Thank you, veterans! Because of you, DAP prevails

2 April, 2014 0 Comments

On 2 March, Penang Chief Minister and DAP MP for Bagan Lim Guan Eng hosted a private dinner in honor of the Penang state DAP veterans. There are over 120 veterans in the state who have been party members for over 30 years. Of the number, about 70 turned up ... Full Article →

What’s wrong with the Terengganu crisis?

5 June, 2014 0 Comments

by Political Studies for Change (KPRU) Election fever has become a phenomenon in this equatorial country ever since the March 8 political tsunami, which has changed the political landscape, though the political transformation has not completed yet. To a certain extent, each legislature at federal and state level has put a different complexion on politics. The recent Terengganu political crisis and the storming of the Penang state assembly by UMNO members have to do with legislative politics. Legislative politics is different from election politics. From the parliament to legislature assembly in each state, the most frequent question that has been asked by people is about the attendance of members of elected representative, and as for some other incidents that have happened in legislature they have merely formed a part of their memory as people might find them obscure. Obscurity has become a byword for these pieces of memory due to the fact that people might not have the foggiest about these floating debris of memory. The most unforgettable legislative incident to the people goes to the seizure of power in the Perak state, and despite that, people did not necessarily follow on all the details and issues arising from the incident of seizing power in Perak state. This time - the Terengganu crisis is not only a political crisis, but also a ‘legislative crisis’. The lack of pressure from people in Terengganu lies in the insufficient knowledge about legislative which has saved Najib Razak’s shaky hold on power, as well as the dying Terengganu political and legislative crises from the jaws of death. The incident got serious. Media started to report extensively and non-UMNO members in BN also thought that it was a red flag. However, from the Prime Minister Najib’s statement announcing that the Sultan of Terengganu, Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin had consented to the resignation of Ahmad Said as well as the appointment of Ahmad Razif Abd Rahman as the new Terengganu Menteri Besar; to the dramatic twist of events where Ahmad Said and and two other UMNO state assemblymen quited the party and then later returned to the party, there appeared an unification in media reporting of the incident from the preparedness to deal with the incidents from different angles. As stability wins over anything else, water leaves behind no trails in its path. From Najib’s statement on 12th May 2014 to the new Menteri Besar Ahman Razif’s taking of oath of office before Sultan Mizan; and to the former Menteri Besar Ahmad Said’s announcement made at his official residence in Kemaman as to his decision to withdraw his resignation from UMNO, the whole process took shorter than two days. Nonetheless, all of the incidents that have occurred in the midst of the Terengganu crisis must not be dismissed out of hand, particularly when comes to the interpretation of matters involving legislative, which calls for some clarification and so that when similar event takes place in future, people in the particular state would no longer stay static in the face of the crisis. This Terengganu crisis, after Ahmad Said and two other UMNO state assemblymen quited the party, left Barisan Nasional with 14 state seats, against Pakatan Rakyat’s 15 in the assembly, giving an equation of 15:14:3, with 3 being the “independent reps”. On the same day, that is, 13th May, the Terengganu state legal advisor Datuk Azhar Abdul Hamid, when contacted by Bernama, has claimed that despite the fact that the number of BN assemblymen had dropped from 17 to 14, the state assembly Speaker was counted as a representative of the ruling state government, thereby giving an equation of 15:15:3. It was Wesak day, which is also a public holiday. After founding director of think tank Political Studies for Change (KPRU), Ooi Heng and his family offered prayers in a Buddhist temple and after he came across Azhar’s misleading statement, Ooi Heng shared his personal view on Facebook, taking the view that the Speaker shall have the casting vote only when the voting comes down to a tie. After talking to a journalist, Ooi Heng is even convinced that the real reason behind Terengganu state legal advisor making misleading statement was to buy some time for UMNO’s political power, so as to resolve the political and legislative crisis. The Federal Constitution has given exposition on legislative power, which includes both parliament and state assembly, and under which the Speaker’s voting right is also covered. The Federal Constitution is basically modeled on the Westminster parliamentary system. Schedule 8, Paragraph 10 (1B) of the Federal Constitution makes it clear that the Speaker of legislative assembly who is not an elected representative has no voting power. Whereas according to the Article 27 (1B) of the Constitution of Terengganu, non-member of the Assembly elected as Speaker has no voting right. Terengganu assembly speaker, Mohd Zubir Embong, is not an elected representative, as he was appointed as assembly speaker on 16th June 2013 after being defeated in the election for Kuala Terengganu parliamentary seat. Hence, the controversy over the question of whether the speaker’s vote can be counted shall not even arise. In fact, not only does the state assembly follow the Westminster legislative custom, but the parliament of Malaysia is also following the system. The Article 57 (1A) of the Federal Constitution clearly provides that any person elected as Speaker of the House of Representatives who is not a member of the House of Representatives has no voting right. Furthermore, according to the Standing Order 45(1), the speaker shall be entitled to give his deciding ballot only when the voting comes down to a tie where ayes are equal to noes. This deciding ballot can be known as the casting vote, or ‘undi pemutus’ in Malay. The aim of this article is to clear doubts on this legislative incident, and as far as the Speaker’s voting right is concerned, no critical comment is intended to be directed at the roles that both government and the opposition have played in this political power crisis. However, I am of the opinion that despite the misleading statement by the state legal advisor, government and opposition elites should still be held responsible politically for this legislative incident. It is indeed bizarre that both government and opposition have no idea about the legislative procedures in the Terengganu state assembly when most of the assembly members are from UMNO and PAS. In the two days within which the 3 UMNO state assemblymen became ‘independent reps’ (Less than 48 hours), Terengganu state assembly has actually been beset with crisis. While there was likely UMNO fall down in Terengganu, UMNO has nonetheless got themselves some time to stabilise their shaky hold on power. Apart from UMNO taking the lead in this incident, the fact that PAS was being indifferent to the misleading statement will go down in the history of legislative politics. History is bound to repeat when political elite’s political action has not been properly examined. -The Rocket * The views expressed in this article are the personal opinion of the columnist ... Full Article →