Thank you to the 665 people who made Submissions Rejecting Lynas Rare Earths Radioactive Waste Unsafe Permanent Disposal Facility (PDF)

 

Image: The Water Leached Purification residue (WLP) toxic radioactive waste pile at Lynas Advanced Materials Plant 2021. Source: Save Malaysia! Stop Lynas!

Malaysians should not be left to face the danger, health and environmental risk and hazards; and the long-term inconvenience and costs of housing a mega radioactive waste dump of toxic materials brought in by Australian Rare Earth miner Lynas.

STOP LYNAS! 665 Submissions Rejecting Lynas Rare Earth Radioactive Waste Unsafe Permanent Disposal Facility

Urusetia EIA
Bahagian Penilaian, Jabatan Alam Sekitar Malaysia

Attn: Director General, Department of Environment (DoE)

CC: Y.Brs. Hasmadi bin Hassan, Director General, Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB); En. Mohd Rahimi Bin Dollah and En Muhammad Hazwan Bin Hasan Basri

Dear YBrs. Encik Wan Abdul Latiff bin Wan Jaffar

 

SUBMISSION
Reject Lynas Rare Earths Radioactive Waste Unsafe Permanent Disposal Facility (PDF)
GEBENG, MUKIM SUNGAI KARANG, KUANTAN, MALAYSIA

 

I write with great concern that the current PDF proposed by Lynas Rare Earth (Lynas) is located in a flood and fire prone low-lying environmentally sensitive coastal wet tropical peat land. Tropical peatland is a vital carbon sink, water reservoir ecosystem that supports unique species of plants and animals on top of providing a wide range of functions.[1]

Radioactive Waste Dump is Unsafe in a Low-lying Peat Mangrove

The Balok peat mangrove is very much a part of the local landscape which supports the fishery, recreational and tourism industries. It needs to be repaired and protected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to tackle climate change and for its many other functions for the community – especially for younger and future generations.[2]

In advanced countries like the USA and Australia, radioactive waste dump proposals for remote and isolated dry or semi-arid desert region have been rejected on scientific grounds because it is unsafe. Excavating the Balok peatland metres deep to create a mega radioactive waste dump is destabilising and destructive of a vital landscape, releasing massive quantity of carbon dioxide and methane. It directly undermines and contradicts Pahang Regent, HRH Tengku Hassanal Ibrahim Alam Shah’s support and the Pahang state Government’s plan for the Blueprint for Conservation and Sustainability at COP26.[3]

Malaysia MUST Reject Lynas’ Toxic Radioactive Waste

Lynas’ water leach purification (WLP) waste is a radioactive waste belonging to the company. In 2012, Lynas has legally committed to removing this waste from Malaysia. The Government has widely publicised and assured Malaysians of its removal but has since reneged on this promise. This is the subject of a recent judicial review appeal that is pending hearing at the Federal Court.

In the first place, the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant (LAMP) has operated in Gebeng/Kuantan against strong public objection over its poor handling of toxic radioactive waste and pollution. Its public consultation has been selective and controlled despite the known long-term hazards of rare earth (RE) toxic waste and pollution.[4]

What justification can Lynas offer for Malaysians to accept its huge quantity of radioactive waste, when the radioactive materials and toxic heavy metals have originated from its mine in Mt Weld, and the company has profited from the lax regulatory environment and enjoyed a generous 12-year tax break?

Bad Reputation for Malaysia for Setting a Low Standard for Radioactive Waste Management

Approving Lynas’ Sungai Karang PDF proposal will cast a negative image of Malaysia as a case of bad practice for the world’s largest below-standard radioactive waste dump in a peat swamp, creating a costly mega toxic legacy to burden younger and future generations of Malaysians.

I therefore implore Jabatan Alam Sekitar (JAS/Department of Environment) to reject the environmental impact assessment (EIA) submitted by Lynas for its radioactive waste dump for the Sungai Karang district in Kuantan.

Specific Objection Grounds

Additionally, I would like to draw your attention to the following grounds of my objection:

1. In Australia,

(a) Western Australian (WA) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved Lynas’ proposed Kalgoorlie RE processing plant ON CONDITION that it transports and returns both the hazardous and radioactive wastes to its Mt Weld mine site for disposal in accordance with WA regulations and guidelines for low-level radioactive waste[5], AWAY from populated centres in a remote and isolated area

(b) the radioactivity of the Ranger uranium mine waste in Northern Territory is about 5.8 Bq/g, lower than Lynas’ WLP waste at 7Bq/g. It is currently undergoing rehabilitation where the radionuclides in the tailings must be isolated from the environment through a disposal design life of at least 10,000 years.[6]

The design of the proposed Sungai Karang PDF does not meet any of the above criteria.

2. Lynas and the Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) of Malaysia have compromised public and environmental safety and protection by incorrectly classifying the WLP waste as a very low-level radioactive waste (VLLW) when it should be a low-level radioactive waste (LLW). According to the IAEA: LLW is “Waste that is above clearance levels, but with limited amounts of long-lived radionuclides.”[7]

The WA Government has recently confirmed that the WLP waste is a LLW: “Facilities for storage of low-level radioactive waste already exist at the Mt Weld mine and the mine is located in an isolated area. The by-products will return from (sic) where the ore was mined away from any residential populations.”[8]

The incorrect and below-standard classification in Malaysia will result in poor management, increased maintenance costs, hazards and radiation exposures that will negatively impact public health and the environment for Malaysia in the long run.

3. Gebeng Industrial Estate (GIE) is earmarked for chemical industrial complexes, not as a radioactive waste dump site. Locating the PDF so close to plants containing tanks of flammable, combustible, and corrosive chemicals as well as fuel is not safe, and least of all scientifically logical.

4. The total amount of Water Leach Purification (WLP) waste destined for the PDF is huge: > 1 million cubic metres or 1.6 million tonnes in wet weight – enough to fill 21,226×40-ft containers, if lined up back-to-back, will stretch to 260km, or equivalent to the road distance from Kuantan to the capital city Kuala Lumpur.

5. The WLP waste is contaminated with 1953ppm of thorium-232 (Th-232) and 28ppm of uranium-238 (U-238),[5] both have half-life in the billions of years.** While these radionuclides are present in our environment naturally, radionuclides found in industrial waste have been processed and are known to be sources of cell mutating and cancer-causing ionising radiation.[10]

6. There is no safe dose of exposure to ionising radiation. Internationally, the permitted levels and sources of radiation exposure for workers and the public have steadily dropped as detailed cancer and genetic impact studies revealed links with low doses of ionising radiation.[11]

7. The WLP waste is about 60 times more (with 3 times more thorium mass) than the radioactive waste generated by Asian Rare Earth in Bukit Merah,[12] yet the budget for the PDF is paltry for a mere 20-year design life[13] in comparison with the US$100 million spent in disposing of the ARE waste in the 10,000-year design life engineered facility at the Kledang Hill.

8. The EIA has not carried out a detailed mass balance analysis of different elements in the WLP waste. A range of toxic elements were disclosed in Lynas 2011 Safety Case Analysis of the WLP waste in 2011, including zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), arsenic (As) and cerium (Ce). The toxic elements and radionuclides in the WLP waste in its acidic iron phosphate medium can leach, mobilise, and concentrate to pollute the surrounding environment over time when the PDF is no longer able to contain the waste. The integrity of the PDF is unlikely to remain intact beyond 20 years.

9. The EIA revealed that the final effluent discharge will still contain radioactive Thorium-232, Uranium-238, toxic heavy metals and chemicals. This is in violation of the Water Services Industry Act (WSIA)[14] which specifically prohibits the contamination of potable water with radioactive and/or toxic substances. The EIA has not considered that the Balok peatland may be geohydrologically linked to the extensive riverine system which feed into the water supply of the City of Kuantan, or the mangrove forest ecosystem.

10. The modelling used in the EIA is unrealistically optimistic. It has not taken into consideration the long-term (in the tens, hundreds, or thousands of years) changes from environmental degradation or climate change-induced extreme weather events which have been scientifically forecast to severely impact and change the coastal landscape[15] and the PDF is only 3km from the South China Sea.

11. The combined health and environmental effects of both hazardous and radioactive materials, both of which would bioaccumulate in living cells and vital organs, could be exponentially worse than each on their own.[16] Recent research studies have found RE to be harmful to humans in different ways[17] and can hamper brain functions when exposed to young children among others.[18]

12. According to the 2018 Government Executive Review of the LAMP,[19] groundwater from Lynas’ own monitoring stations has shown serious contamination by some toxic elements. At least 50 households across 9 villages are dependent on groundwater for their daily consumption and uses within 5km from the LAMP. No follow-up has been done to ensure that their water supply is safe.

13. There has not been any health baseline data or detailed monitoring of residents’ health conditions in a transparent and scientifically rigorous manner despite the known health effects of RE industry pollution, clearly indicating the limitation of regulatory and law enforcement capabilities in Malaysia.

14. DoE’s tolerance of the groundwater and the Balok River contamination against Malaysia’s own laws such as its own Environmental Quality Act and WSIA further adds to public distrust. To date, the full monitoring data from the LAMP has yet to be released for public scrutiny against IAEA’s 2011 recommendation.[20] This does not help boost public confidence that DoE has carried out its mandated duty of care in the national and public interests.

15. There was no public tender to select the most appropriate company with the necessary experience, track record and qualifications to undertake the PDF project. Instead, a newly formed company with strong political connections and influence, with no prior experience in radiation safety and protection or toxic waste management has been awarded the construction contract.[21]

16. The proposal to construct a mega radioactive/toxic waste PDF is of national significance, and yet it has not been referred to the National Physical Planning Council (NPPC) [22]  for consideration. Sungai Karang district is a peri-urban population growth area for Pahang close to the border of Terengganu in proximity to dense residential estates, popular tourist destinations including the Club Med along the coast, and fishing locations in the South China Sea.

I acknowledge that rare earth minerals are critical for renewable energy and the green economy. However, consumers are increasingly expecting their supply chains to be clean, just and fair. This does not hold true for either the Lynas processing plant or its proposed radioactive dump.

Radioactive waste is NOT safe for people, NOT safe for communities, and NOT safe for the environment.

Malaysians should not be left to face the danger, health and environmental risk and hazards; and the long-term inconvenience and costs of housing a mega radioactive waste dump of toxic materials brought in by Lynas.

 

ENDNOTES
[1] https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00599518/file/PEER_stage2_10.1111%252Fj.1365-2486.2010.02279.x.pdf: global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon pool; https://www.wur.nl/upload_mm/a/f/4/013a2161-9803-47a7-9585-a5e85072d7b9_RestorationBook5.pdf#page=94 Peat-water Interrelationships in a Tropical Peatland Ecosystem; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692688/pdf/11605630.pdf Interdependence of Peat and Vegetation in a Tropical Peat Swamp Forest
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hamdan-Omar-3/publication/303840563_Assessing_rate_of_deforestation_and_changes_of_carbon_stock_on_mangroves_in_Pahang_Malaysia/links/5757915108ae04a1b6b69499/Assessing-rate-of-deforestation-and-changes-of-carbon-stock-on-mangroves-in-Pahang-Malaysia.pdf
[3] https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2021/11/05/pahang-govt-approves-proposed-green-border-initiative
[4] https://www.phaa.net.au/documents/item/2829 Public Health Association of Australia policy position on Rare Earth Elements, September 2021
[5] Western Australia Environmental Protection Agency, Kalgoorlie Rare Earths Processing Facility, Lynas Kalgoorlie Pty Ltd, Report 1712, October 2021
[6] Data updated from Mudd, GM (2014) *The Future of Yellowcake: A Global Assessment of Uranium Resources and Mining*. Science of the Total Environment, Volume 472, p. 590-607 referenced in the submission to DoE on the PDF Proposal for the Bukit Ketam EIA, March 2021
[7] https://www.pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1419_web.pdf Classification of Radioactive Waste, p.5
[8] Western Australia Environmental Protection Agency, Kalgoorlie Rare Earths Processing Facility, Lynas Kalgoorlie Pty Ltd, Report 1712, p. October 2021
[9] https://www.osti.gov/biblio/22266092-thorium-uranium-rare-earth-elements-content-lanthanide-concentrate-lc-water-leach-purification-wlp-residue-lynas-advanced-materials-plant-lamp independently analysed content of Th-232 and U-238 in Lynas’ lanthanide concentrate and WLP waste by UKM.
[10] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218130/ human cancer risk estimates related to ingestion of thorium radionuclides and: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ionizing-radiation-health-effects-and-protective-measures
[11] https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/security-scanners/en/l-3/2-radiation-protection.htm
[12] https://www.geosyntec.com/projects/item/6015-decommissioning-and-disposal-of-former-rare-earth-processing-facility
[13] Section 8.5.1 “..the HDPE layer is generally guaranteed for about 25 years;”
[14] Part X, 121 (1) a to c and (2) (a) & (b) General Offences and penalties: Offence of contamination of Water
[15] Ehsan, S. et. al., Current and potential impacts of sea level rise in the coastal areas of Malaysia, IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 228 (2019) & Tornado hit Gebeng in August 2021 https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=291569902326638
[16] https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TRS442_web.pdf *Remediation of Sites with Mixed Contamination of Radioactive And other Hazardous Materials*, and: https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/6/4/65/htm Heavy Metal Mixture Exposure and Effects in Developing Nations: An Update, 2018
[17] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-52421-0_1
[18] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15098471/ : various research findings on the health effects of rare earth
[19] Malaysian Government’s Executive Review Committee on the Lynas Rare Earth Plant (ERC), December 2018, p.79-81
[20] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/lynas-report2011.pdf Report of the International Review Mission on LAMP, p. 5&6, 2011
[21] https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/596998 Pahang Regent Tengku Hassanal Ibrahim Alam Shah has regained his stake in Gading Senggara Sdn Bhd (GSSB)
[22] https://www.planmalaysia.gov.my/index.php/en/help/14-umum/70-national-physical-planning-division
BERTINDAK SEKARANG | TOLAK KEMUDAHAN PEMBUANGAN KEKAL (PDF) SISA RADIOAKTIF LYNAS RARE EARTHS yang tidak selamat

Urusetia EIA
Bahagian Penilaian, Jabatan Alam Sekitar Malaysia

Attn: Director General, Department of Environment (DoE)

CC: Y.Brs. Hasmadi bin Hassan, Director General, Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB); En. Mohd Rahimi Bin Dollah and En Muhammad Hazwan Bin Hasan Basri

Dear YBrs. Encik Wan Abdul Latiff bin Wan Jaffar

PENYERAHAN
Tolak Kemudahan Pelupusan Kekal (PDF) Sisa Radioaktif Lynas Rare Earths yang Tidak Selamat
GEBENG, MUKIM SUNGAI KARANG, KUANTAN, MALAYSIA

Saya menulis dengan penuh kebimbangan bahawa PDF semasa yang dicadangkan oleh Lynas Rare Earth (Lynas) terletak di kawasan tanah gambut tropika basah yang terdedah kepada banjir dan kebakaran yang sensitif terhadap alam sekitar. Tanah gambut tropika ialah sinki karbon penting, ekosistem takungan air yang menyokong spesies tumbuhan dan haiwan yang unik selain menyediakan pelbagai fungsi.[1]

Pembuangan Sisa Radioaktif Tidak Selamat di Hutan Bakau Gambut Rendah

Bakau gambut Balok merupakan sebahagian daripada landskap tempatan yang menyokong industri perikanan, rekreasi dan pelancongan. Ia perlu dibaiki dan dilindungi untuk mengurangkan pelepasan gas rumah hijau untuk menangani perubahan iklim dan untuk banyak fungsi lain untuk masyarakat – terutamanya untuk generasi muda dan akan datang.[2]

Di negara maju seperti Amerika Syarikat dan Australia, cadangan pembuangan sisa radioaktif untuk kawasan padang pasir kering atau separa gersang yang terpencil telah ditolak atas alasan saintifik kerana ia tidak selamat. Menggali tanah gambut Balok sedalam beberapa meter untuk mencipta tempat pembuangan sisa radioaktif mega menggugat kestabilan dan memusnahkan landskap penting, membebaskan kuantiti karbon dioksida dan metana yang besar. Ia secara langsung menjejaskan dan bercanggah dengan sokongan Pemangku Raja Pahang, KDYMM Tengku Hassanal Ibrahim Alam Shah dan rancangan Kerajaan negeri Pahang untuk Rangka Tindakan Pemuliharaan dan Kelestarian pada COP26.[3]

Malaysia WAJIB Menolak Sisa Radioaktif Toksik Lynas

Sisa penulenan larut lesap air (WLP) Lynas adalah sisa radioaktif kepunyaan syarikat. Pada tahun 2012, Lynas telah komited secara sah untuk mengeluarkan sisa ini dari Malaysia. Kerajaan telah mengumumkan secara meluas dan memberi jaminan kepada rakyat Malaysia tentang penyingkirannya tetapi sejak itu telah mengingkari janji ini. Ini adalah subjek rayuan semakan kehakiman baru-baru ini yang sedang menunggu perbicaraan di Mahkamah Persekutuan.

Pertama sekali, Loji Bahan Termaju Lynas (LAMP) telah beroperasi di Gebeng/Kuantan walaupun terdapat bantahan keras orang ramai terhadap pengendalian sisa radioaktif toksik yang lemah dan pencemaran. Perundingan awamnya telah terpilih dan dikawal walaupun diketahui bahaya jangka panjang sisa toksik dan pencemaran nadir bumi (RE).

Apakah justifikasi yang boleh Lynas tawarkan kepada rakyat Malaysia untuk menerima kuantiti besar sisa radioaktifnya, apabila bahan radioaktif dan logam berat toksik itu berasal dari lombongnya di Mt Weld, dan syarikat itu telah mendapat keuntungan daripada persekitaran kawal selia yang longgar dan menikmati pelepasan cukai selama tempoh 12 tahun?

Reputasi Buruk untuk Malaysia kerana Menetapkan Standard Rendah untuk Pengurusan Sisa Radioaktif

Meluluskan cadangan PDF Sungai Karang Lynas akan memberikan imej negatif terhadap Malaysia sebagai kes amalan buruk bagi pembuangan sisa radioaktif di bawah standard terbesar di dunia di paya gambut, mewujudkan warisan toksik mega yang mahal untuk membebankan generasi muda dan generasi akan datang rakyat Malaysia.

Oleh itu, saya mohon Jabatan Alam Sekitar (JAS/Jabatan Alam Sekitar) menolak penilaian kesan alam sekitar (EIA) yang dikemukakan oleh Lynas untuk pembuangan sisa radioaktifnya untuk daerah Sungai Karang di Kuantan.

Alasan Bantahan Khusus

Selain itu, saya ingin menarik perhatian anda kepada alasan bantahan saya berikut:

1. Di Australia,

(a) Agensi Perlindungan Alam Sekitar (EPA) Australia Barat (WA) telah meluluskan cadangan kilang pemprosesan Kalgoorlie RE Lynas DENGAN SYARAT ia mengangkut dan memulangkan kedua-dua sisa berbahaya dan radioaktif ke tapak lombong Mt Weld untuk pelupusan mengikut peraturan dan garis panduan WA untuk sisa radioaktif tahap rendah[5], JAUH dari pusat berpenduduk di kawasan terpencil

(b) keradioaktifan sisa lombong uranium Ranger di Northern Territory ialah kira-kira 5.8 Bq /g, lebih rendah daripada sisa WLP Lynas pada 7Bq/g. Ia sedang menjalani pemulihan di mana radionuklida dalam tailing mesti diasingkan daripada alam sekitar melalui jangka hayat reka bentuk pelupusan sekurang-kurangnya 10,000 tahun.[6 ]

Reka bentuk PDF Sungai Karang yang dicadangkan tidak memenuhi mana-mana kriteria di atas.

2. Lynas dan Lembaga Perlesenan Tenaga Atom (AELB) Malaysia telah menjejaskan keselamatan dan perlindungan awam dan alam sekitar dengan mengklasifikasikan sisa WLP secara salah sebagai sisa radioaktif tahap sangat rendah (VLLW) sedangkan ia sepatutnya merupakan sisa radioaktif tahap rendah. (LLW). Menurut IAEA: LLW ialah “Sisa yang melebihi paras pelepasan, tetapi dengan jumlah radionuklid tahan lama yang terhad.”[7] Kerajaan WA baru-baru ini mengesahkan bahawa sisa WLP ialah LLW: “Kemudahan untuk penyimpanan rendah- sisa radioaktif tahap sudah wujud di lombong Mt Weld dan lombong tersebut terletak di kawasan terpencil. Hasil sampingan akan kembali dari (sic) di mana bijih dilombong jauh dari mana-mana populasi kediaman.”[8] Pengelasan yang salah dan di bawah standard di Malaysia akan mengakibatkan pengurusan yang lemah, peningkatan kos penyelenggaraan, bahaya dan pendedahan sinaran yang akan memberi kesan negatif kepada kesihatan awam dan alam sekitar untuk Malaysia dalam jangka masa panjang.

3. Gebeng Industrial Estate (GIE) diperuntukkan sebagai kompleks industri kimia, dan bukan sebagai tapak pelupusan sisa radioaktif. Meletakkan PDF berikut begitu dekat dengan loji yang mengandungi tangki bahan kimia mudah terbakar, dan menghakis serta bahan api adalah tidak selamat, dan paling tidak logik dari segi saintifik.

4. Jumlah sisa Water Leach Purification (WLP) yang ditujukan untuk PDF adalah besar: > 1 juta meter padu atau 1.6 juta tan berat basah – cukup untuk mengisi 21,226 kontena 40-kaki, jika dibariskan belakang ke belakang, akan menjangkau hingga 260 km, atau bersamaan dengan jarak jalan dari Kuantan ke ibu kota Kuala Lumpur.

5. Sisa WLP tercemar dengan 1953ppm torium-232 (Th-232) dan 28ppm uranium-238 (U-238),[5] keduanya mempunyai separuh hayat dalam berbilion tahun.  Walaupun radionuklid ini terdapat dalam persekitaran kita secara semula jadi, radionuklida yang terdapat dalam sisa industri telah diproses dan diketahui sebagai sumber mutasi sel dan sinaran mengion yang menyebabkan kanser.[10]

6. Tiada dos pendedahan yang selamat kepada sinaran mengion. Di peringkat antarabangsa, paras dan sumber pendedahan sinaran yang dibenarkan untuk pekerja dan orang ramai telah menurun secara berterusan apabila kajian kanser dan kesan genetik terperinci mendedahkan kaitan dengan dos sinaran mengion yang rendah .[11]

7. Sisa WLP adalah kira-kira 60 kali lebih banyak (dengan 3 kali lebih jisim torium) daripada sisa radioaktif yang dihasilkan oleh Asian Rare Earth di Bukit Merah,[12] namun bajet untuk PDF adalah kecil dan direka untuk bertahan selama hanya 20 tahun hayat [13] berbanding dengan AS$100 juta yang dibelanjakan untuk melupuskan sisa ARE dalam kemudahan dan reka bentuk hayat bertahan selama 10,000 tahun di Bukit Kledang.

8. EIA tidak menjalankan analisis keseimbangan jisim terperinci bagi unsur-unsur berbeza dalam sisa WLP. Pelbagai unsur toksik telah didedahkan dalam Analisis Kes Keselamatan Lynas 2011 bagi sisa WLP pada tahun 2011, termasuk zink (Zn) , kadmium (Cd), nikel (Ni), plumbum (Pb), merkuri (Hg), arsenik (As) dan serium (Ce). Unsur-unsur toksik dan radionuklid dalam sisa WLP dalam medium fosfat besi berasidnya boleh larut lesap, bergerak dan menumpukan untuk mencemarkan alam sekitar dari semasa ke semasa apabila PDF tidak lagi dapat mengandungi sisa. Integriti PDF tidak mungkin kekal utuh melebihi 20 tahun.

9. EIA mendedahkan bahawa pelepasan efluen akhir masih akan mengandungi radioaktif Thorium-232, Uranium-238, logam berat toksik dan bahan kimia. Ini melanggar Akta Industri Perkhidmatan Air (WSIA)[14] yang khususnya melarang pencemaran air yang boleh diminum dengan bahan radioaktif dan/atau toksik. EIA tidak menganggap bahawa tanah gambut Balok mungkin dikaitkan secara geohidrologi dengan sistem sungai yang meluas yang menyumbang kepada bekalan air Bandar Kuantan, atau ekosistem hutan bakau.

10. Pemodelan yang digunakan dalam EIA adalah optimistik secara tidak realistik. Ia tidak mengambil kira perubahan jangka panjang (dalam puluhan, ratusan atau ribuan tahun) daripada kemerosotan alam sekitar atau kejadian cuaca ekstrem yang disebabkan oleh perubahan iklim yang telah diramalkan secara saintifik akan memberi kesan teruk dan mengubah landskap pantai[15] dan PDF hanya 3km dari Laut China Selatan.

11. Kesan kesihatan dan alam sekitar gabungan kedua-dua bahan berbahaya dan radioaktif, yang kedua-duanya akan terkumpul secara bio dalam sel hidup dan organ penting, boleh menjadi lebih teruk daripada setiap bahan dengan sendirinya.[16] Kajian penyelidikan terkini telah menemui RE berbahaya kepada manusia dengan cara yang berbeza[17] dan boleh menjejaskan fungsi otak apabila terdedah kepada kanak-kanak kecil antara lain.[18]

12. Menurut Kajian Eksekutif Kerajaan 2018 terhadap LAMP,[19] air bawah tanah dari stesen pemantauan Lynas sendiri telah menunjukkan pencemaran serius oleh beberapa unsur toksik. Sekurang-kurangnya 50 isi rumah di 9 kampung bergantung kepada air bawah tanah untuk kegunaan harian dan kegunaan mereka dalam jarak 5km dari LAMP. Tiada susulan dibuat bagi memastikan bekalan air mereka selamat.

13. Tiada sebarang data asas kesihatan atau pemantauan terperinci keadaan kesihatan penduduk secara telus dan rapi dari segi saintifik walaupun terdapat kesan kesihatan yang diketahui akibat pencemaran industri TBB, dengan jelas menunjukkan had keupayaan pengawalseliaan dan penguatkuasaan undang-undang dalam Malaysia.

14. Toleransi DoE terhadap pencemaran air bawah tanah dan Sungai Balok terhadap undang-undang Malaysia sendiri seperti Akta Kualiti Alam Sekitarnya sendiri dan WSIA menambahkan lagi ketidakpercayaan orang ramai. Sehingga kini, data pemantauan penuh daripada LAMP masih belum dikeluarkan untuk penelitian awam terhadap syor IAEA 2011.[20] Ini tidak membantu meningkatkan keyakinan orang ramai bahawa DoE telah menjalankan tugas penjagaan yang dimandatkan untuk kepentingan negara dan awam.

15. Tiada tender awam untuk memilih syarikat yang paling sesuai dengan pengalaman, rekod prestasi dan kelayakan yang diperlukan untuk menjalankan projek PDF. Sebaliknya, sebuah syarikat yang baru ditubuhkan dengan hubungan dan pengaruh politik yang kukuh, tanpa pengalaman terdahulu dalam keselamatan sinaran and perlindungan atau pengurusan sisa toksik telah diberikan kontrak pembinaan.[21]

16. Cadangan untuk membina PDF sisa radioaktif/toksik mega adalah mempunyai kepentingan nasional, namun ia belum dirujuk kepada Majlis Perancang Fizikal Negara (MPN) [22] untuk pertimbangan. daerah Sungai Karang adalah kawasan pertumbuhan penduduk pinggir bandar bagi Pahang berhampiran dengan sempadan Terengganu berdekatan dengan kawasan perumahan yang padat, destinasi pelancongan popular termasuk Club Med di sepanjang pantai, dan lokasi memancing di Laut China Selatan.

Saya mengakui bahawa mineral nadir bumi adalah penting untuk tenaga boleh diperbaharui dan ekonomi hijau. Walau bagaimanapun, pengguna semakin mengharapkan rantaian bekalan mereka bersih, adil dan saksama. Ini tidak berlaku sama ada untuk loji pemprosesan Lynas atau cadangan pembuangan radioaktifnya.

Sisa radioaktif TIDAK selamat untuk manusia, TIDAK selamat untuk komuniti, dan TIDAK selamat untuk alam sekitar.

Rakyat Malaysia tidak seharusnya dibiarkan menghadapi bahaya, risiko kesihatan dan alam sekitar; dan kesulitan jangka panjang dan kos menempatkan tempat pembuangan sisa radioaktif mega bahan toksik yang dibawa masuk oleh Lynas.

 

_______

[1] https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00599518/file/PEER_stage2_10.1111%252Fj.1365-2486.2010.02279.x.pdf: global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon pool; https://www.wur.nl/upload_mm/a/f/4/013a2161-9803-47a7-9585-a5e85072d7b9_RestorationBook5.pdf#page=94 Peat-water Interrelationships in a Tropical Peatland Ecosystem; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692688/pdf/11605630.pdf Interdependence of Peat and Vegetation in a Tropical Peat Swamp Forest
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hamdan-Omar-3/publication/303840563_Assessing_rate_of_deforestation_and_changes_of_carbon_stock_on_mangroves_in_Pahang_Malaysia/links/5757915108ae04a1b6b69499/Assessing-rate-of-deforestation-and-changes-of-carbon-stock-on-mangroves-in-Pahang-Malaysia.pdf
[3] https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2021/11/05/pahang-govt-approves-proposed-green-border-initiative
[4] https://www.phaa.net.au/documents/item/2829 Public Health Association of Australia policy position on Rare Earth Elements, September 2021
[5] Western Australia Environmental Protection Agency, Kalgoorlie Rare Earths Processing Facility, Lynas Kalgoorlie Pty Ltd, Report 1712, October 2021
[6] Data updated from Mudd, GM (2014) *The Future of Yellowcake: A Global Assessment of Uranium Resources and Mining*. Science of the Total Environment, Volume 472, p. 590-607 referenced in the submission to DoE on the PDF Proposal for the Bukit Ketam EIA, March 2021
[7] https://www.pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1419_web.pdf Classification of Radioactive Waste, p.5
[8] Western Australia Environmental Protection Agency, Kalgoorlie Rare Earths Processing Facility, Lynas Kalgoorlie Pty Ltd, Report 1712, p. October 2021
[9] https://www.osti.gov/biblio/22266092-thorium-uranium-rare-earth-elements-content-lanthanide-concentrate-lc-water-leach-purification-wlp-residue-lynas-advanced-materials-plant-lamp independently analysed content of Th-232 and U-238 in Lynas’ lanthanide concentrate and WLP waste by UKM.
[10] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218130/ human cancer risk estimates related to ingestion of thorium radionuclides and: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ionizing-radiation-health-effects-and-protective-measures
[11] https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/security-scanners/en/l-3/2-radiation-protection.htm
[12] https://www.geosyntec.com/projects/item/6015-decommissioning-and-disposal-of-former-rare-earth-processing-facility
[13] Section 8.5.1 “..the HDPE layer is generally guaranteed for about 25 years;”
[14] Part X, 121 (1) a to c and (2) (a) & (b) General Offences and penalties: Offence of contamination of Water
[15] Ehsan, S. et. al., Current and potential impacts of sea level rise in the coastal areas of Malaysia, IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 228 (2019) & Tornado hit Gebeng in August 2021 https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=291569902326638
[16] https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TRS442_web.pdf *Remediation of Sites with Mixed Contamination of Radioactive And other Hazardous Materials*, and: https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/6/4/65/htm Heavy Metal Mixture Exposure and Effects in Developing Nations: An Update, 2018
[17] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-52421-0_1
[18] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15098471/ : various research findings on the health effects of rare earth
[19] Malaysian Government’s Executive Review Committee on the Lynas Rare Earth Plant (ERC), December 2018, p.79-81
[20] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/lynas-report2011.pdf Report of the International Review Mission on LAMP, p. 5&6, 2011
[21] https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/596998 Pahang Regent Tengku Hassanal Ibrahim Alam Shah has regained his stake in Gading Senggara Sdn Bhd (GSSB)
[22] https://www.planmalaysia.gov.my/index.php/en/help/14-umum/70-national-physical-planning-division
阻止莱纳斯 | 拒绝位于马来西亚彭亨州关丹县双溪卡浪副县格宾莱纳斯稀土辐射废料的永久储存槽(PDF)

Attn: Director General, Department of Environment (DoE)

CC: Y.Brs. Hasmadi bin Hassan, Director General, Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB); En. Mohd Rahimi Bin Dollah and En Muhammad Hazwan Bin Hasan Basri

敬至： YBrs. Encik Wan Abdul Latiff bin Wan Jaffar

提呈 拒绝位于马来西亚彭亨州关丹县双溪卡浪副县格宾莱纳斯稀土辐射废料的永久储存槽(PDF)

 

我本人，因为非常担心莱纳斯(LYNAS)稀土场所建议增设永久储存槽的地点才致函予 您。该地段属于低洼环境，加上是沿海热带沼泽地所以易于发生水灾和火灾。热带沼 泽地是一个重要的碳水槽，也是一个自然水槽生态系统为植物和动物提供多方面的功 能 i。 巴洛沼泽红树林是一个相当大面积的本地景观，扶持当地的渔业，娱乐和旅游业。

为 了减少温室气体排放，解决气候变化和拥有着其他社区功能的红树林，我们有义务为 了年轻人和后代继续维护和保护现有的红树林 ii。 很多先进国家当中，美国和澳洲，科学已经证实在偏远和孤立的干旱或半干旱沙漠地 点存放放辐射废物的建议已经证实不安全。

开发巴洛沼泽地为了建设巨型的辐射废料 永久储存槽将逐渐破坏当地景观。该举动也无视彭亨州皇储, HRH Tengku Hassanal Ibrahim Alam Shah 和彭亨州政府支持联合国气候变化纲要公约第 26 次缔约方会议节约 和可持续发展蓝图的计划 iii .

莱纳斯的水沥滤化固体废料 (WLP) 废物属于该公司的辐射废料。在 2012 年, 莱纳斯在 法律约束之下承诺致力把该废料移出马来西亚。我国政府也广泛宣传并保证该废料的 移除，不过至今莱纳斯并没有遵守诺言。这也是近期司法检讨上诉的主要课题，现在 仍然还在等待联邦法庭开审。

首先，莱纳斯厂已经在关丹格宾工业区运营并遭遇公众强力反对其公司没有妥当处理 辐射废料和环境污染的问题。尽管稀土(RE) 提炼出辐射废料和污染将会带来长期危害， 其公众咨询一直都是选择性举办和被控制的 iv。

莱纳斯该如何说服马来西亚人去接收其大量辐射废料，当该辐射废料和有毒的重金属 都是来自于西澳的韦尔德山，甚至该公司也从我国松懈的环境监管获益还获得长达 12 年的免税？

如果批准莱纳斯在双溪卡浪 (Sungai Karang) 建设永久储存槽，这将会为我国带来非常 负面的形象。我国允许世界上最大和低标准辐射废料永久储存槽建设在沼泽地的案例， 并创造一个极其昂贵的大型毒性遗物予年轻人和未来几代的马来西亚人去承担。

因此，我恳请环境局拒绝莱纳斯提交有关在关丹县双溪卡浪计划增设辐射废料存槽的 环境评估报告。

此外，我列下反对的理由希望获得您的关注：

1. 在澳洲，

a. 西澳（WA）环境保护局 (EPA) 有条件的批准莱纳斯卡谷力(Kalgoorlie)稀土的 加工厂，其条件是辐射和有害废料的运输和往返韦尔德山需要根据西澳辐射废 料的规则和指南 v，需要远离人口密集的地方，在远处和孤立的地区。

b. 位于北部地区 Ranger 铀矿辐射废料的辐射含量是约每克 5.8 贝可(Bq), 低于莱纳 斯水沥滤化固体废料 （WLP）的 每克约 7 贝可。该地点目前虽已经正在复原当 中，其中尾矿中的放射性核素必须透过处置设计与环境中分离，只少 1 万年 vi。 建议在双溪卡浪增设的永久储存槽的设计并没有符合以上任何的条件。

2. 莱纳斯和马来西亚原子能执照局罔顾大众利益和环境安全以及保护，错误的将水沥 滤化固体废料归类为一个极低级别的放射性废料 (VLLW) 而应该是低级放射性废料 (LLW)。根据原子能机构， LLW 即在间隙水平上方，但拥有着有限的长寿放射性 核素 vii。”

西澳政府最近也证实，水沥滤化固体废料(WLP)属于低级放射性废料 (LLW) : “储存低级放射性废料(LLW)的储存设施已经增设在 MT Weld 矿场，而却该 矿场是位于偏远和孤立地区。该副产品将会被转送回去远离人群的矿场 viii。” 马来 西亚错误和低于标准的归类将会影响管理，维修成本增加，危险和辐射暴露。长远 来说，这将会为马来西亚的公共卫生和环境产生负面的影响。

3. 格宾工业区 (GIE) 专门用于化学工业综合体，而不是放射性废料的垃圾场。至少在 科学逻辑，增设永久储存槽如此接近有易燃，可燃和腐蚀性化学物品，加上其他燃 料是非常不安全的。

4. 水沥滤化固体废料在永久储存槽的废料是注定很庞大：>100 万立方米或 160 万吨的 重量足以填补 21,226 x 40 英尺的集装箱。如果让这些集装箱排列起来，这将长达 260 公里或等同于从关丹到吉隆坡的公路距离。

5. 水沥滤化固体废料已被 1953ppm 的钍-232（Th-232）和 28ppm 的铀-238（U-238） 污染 ix，两者都有数十亿年的半衰期。 虽然这些放射性核素已经自然存在于我们的 环境中，但经过加工的在工业废物中发现的放射性核素，将会导致细胞突变和癌症 x。

6. 如果暴露在辐射中，是没有安全的剂量。在国际上，工人和公众暴露在辐射的水平 和来源正在平稳的下降因为研究揭露了低剂量的电离辐射会导致癌症和遗传影响 xi。

7. 如果与红泥山（Bukit Merah） 的亚洲稀土厂相比，莱纳斯的水沥滤化固体废料是亚 洲稀土厂的 60 倍 （钍料是 3 倍）xii 。不过增设永久储存槽的预算只能建设一个 20 年寿命的储存槽，相比在 Keldang Hill 增设价值 1000 万美元的储存槽为了储存拥有 10,000 年寿命稀土废料，该预算是微不足道的。

8. 环境评估报告尚未对水沥滤化固体废料中的不同元素经行详细的质量平衡分析。在 2011 年，莱纳斯安全案件分析 2011 年中发现一系列的毒元素，这包含锌（Zn）， 镉（Cd），镍（Ni），铅（Pb），汞（Hg），砷（AS） 和铈（CE）。水沥滤化固 体废料中其酸性磷酸盐介质中的有毒元素和放射性核素可以浸出，移动和浓缩，并 随着永久储存槽不再能够遏制废物的情况下而污染周围环境。计划建设的永久储存 槽是不太可能在 20 年后保持完整。

9. 环境评估报告披露，最终排放的污水将含有放射性钍-232，铀-238，有着毒重金属 和化学品。 这直接违反了水供服务工业法令（WSIA）xiii，，该法令特别禁止饮用水 被辐射废料和/或有毒物质污染。环境评估报告尚未考虑到巴洛沼泽地与广泛河流系 统为社区提供水源或红树林生态系统的关联性。

10. 环境局使用的建模是非常不切实际和太乐观。这报告并没有考虑到长期（数十， 数百，数千年）从环境或气候变化引起的极端天气事件而影响和改变沿海景观 xiv 进行科学测验，况且永久储存槽距离南海只是 3 公里。

11. 危险和辐射废料对健康和环境影响是可以非常糟糕的，两者都会在活细胞和重 要器官中经行生物积累。xv 最近研究发现，稀土可对人类有不同层面的危害 xvi ，如 暴露在年有孩童中将会妨碍头脑功能。xvii

12. 根据 2018 年政府对于莱纳斯厂的行政审查中 xviii，莱纳斯的监测站发现地下水 因为一些毒元素已经造成严重污染。至少有 9 个村落的 50 户人家是依靠着地下水为 日常用途，用地下水的居民甚至都是在莱纳斯范围的 5 公里内。当局并没有跟进也 没有保证如何确保他们供水的安全性。

13. 尽管稀土业污染影响着健康，至今并没有透明和严谨的科学研究提供任何的健 康基线数据或详细检测居民健康状况。这也突显我国在监管和执法能力的局限。

14. 在环境素质法令和水供服务工业法令下，环境局对地下水和巴洛河的污染的容 忍已经导致民众对该局失去信心。迄今为止，莱纳斯仍然还没有遵从原子能执照局 的指示公布全面的监测数据于公众审查 xix。此举无助于提高公众对环境局的信心或 相信当局有在执行任务中保护国家和公共的利益。

15. 执行以及建设永久储存槽的承包商并没有根据经验，工作历史记录或资格而进 行公开招标。反而，一个具有强大政治关系和影响力的新公司，在没有辐射安全保 护或毒废料管理经验被赋予施工合同。xx

16. 构建大型放有毒废物的永久储存槽的影响非常大，但此计划尚未提交于国家实 体规划委员(NPPC) xxi供审议。双溪卡浪副县是位于市区旁以及人口增长的地区，并 与丁加奴州人口密集的住宅边界，甚至还有旅游胜地如 Club Med 和南中国海的钓 鱼热点。 我认可稀土矿物对可再生能源和绿色经济至关重要。不过，越来越多的消费者期许他 们的供应链接是清洁，公平和公正的。这对于莱纳斯厂或其生产的废料都无法达标。 辐射废料对人们不安全，对社区不安全，更对环境不安全。 马来西亚人不应该因为此计划，而需要面对环境和健康的风险和危害，以及莱纳斯辐 射废料带来的长期不变和成本。

 

_______

[1] https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00599518/file/PEER_stage2_10.1111%252Fj.1365-2486.2010.02279.x.pdf: global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon pool; https://www.wur.nl/upload_mm/a/f/4/013a2161-9803-47a7-9585-a5e85072d7b9_RestorationBook5.pdf#page=94 Peat-water Interrelationships in a Tropical Peatland Ecosystem; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692688/pdf/11605630.pdf Interdependence of Peat and Vegetation in a Tropical Peat Swamp Forest
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hamdan-Omar-3/publication/303840563_Assessing_rate_of_deforestation_and_changes_of_carbon_stock_on_mangroves_in_Pahang_Malaysia/links/5757915108ae04a1b6b69499/Assessing-rate-of-deforestation-and-changes-of-carbon-stock-on-mangroves-in-Pahang-Malaysia.pdf
[3] https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2021/11/05/pahang-govt-approves-proposed-green-border-initiative
[4] https://www.phaa.net.au/documents/item/2829 Public Health Association of Australia policy position on Rare Earth Elements, September 2021
[5] Western Australia Environmental Protection Agency, Kalgoorlie Rare Earths Processing Facility, Lynas Kalgoorlie Pty Ltd, Report 1712, October 2021
[6] Data updated from Mudd, GM (2014) *The Future of Yellowcake: A Global Assessment of Uranium Resources and Mining*. Science of the Total Environment, Volume 472, p. 590-607 referenced in the submission to DoE on the PDF Proposal for the Bukit Ketam EIA, March 2021
[7] https://www.pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1419_web.pdf Classification of Radioactive Waste, p.5
[8] Western Australia Environmental Protection Agency, Kalgoorlie Rare Earths Processing Facility, Lynas Kalgoorlie Pty Ltd, Report 1712, p. October 2021
[9] https://www.osti.gov/biblio/22266092-thorium-uranium-rare-earth-elements-content-lanthanide-concentrate-lc-water-leach-purification-wlp-residue-lynas-advanced-materials-plant-lamp independently analysed content of Th-232 and U-238 in Lynas’ lanthanide concentrate and WLP waste by UKM.
[10] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218130/ human cancer risk estimates related to ingestion of thorium radionuclides and: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ionizing-radiation-health-effects-and-protective-measures
[11] https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/security-scanners/en/l-3/2-radiation-protection.htm
[12] https://www.geosyntec.com/projects/item/6015-decommissioning-and-disposal-of-former-rare-earth-processing-facility
[13] Section 8.5.1 “..the HDPE layer is generally guaranteed for about 25 years;”
[14] Part X, 121 (1) a to c and (2) (a) & (b) General Offences and penalties: Offence of contamination of Water
[15] Ehsan, S. et. al., Current and potential impacts of sea level rise in the coastal areas of Malaysia, IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 228 (2019) & Tornado hit Gebeng in August 2021 https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=291569902326638
[16] https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TRS442_web.pdf *Remediation of Sites with Mixed Contamination of Radioactive And other Hazardous Materials*, and: https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/6/4/65/htm Heavy Metal Mixture Exposure and Effects in Developing Nations: An Update, 2018
[17] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-52421-0_1
[18] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15098471/ : various research findings on the health effects of rare earth
[19] Malaysian Government’s Executive Review Committee on the Lynas Rare Earth Plant (ERC), December 2018, p.79-81
[20] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/lynas-report2011.pdf Report of the International Review Mission on LAMP, p. 5&6, 2011
[21] https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/596998 Pahang Regent Tengku Hassanal Ibrahim Alam Shah has regained his stake in Gading Senggara Sdn Bhd (GSSB)
[22] https://www.planmalaysia.gov.my/index.php/en/help/14-umum/70-national-physical-planning-division

Please donate to support efforts in Malaysia and through AidWatch to compel Lynas to uphold its legal undertakings to remove its radioactive waste from Malaysia and to dispose of in accordance with Australian regulation and standards.

Malaysians are taking Lynas and its Government to the court to enforce its law on Lynas. AidWatch is working alongside Malaysian civil society in providing technical and policy advice. AidWatch is continuing to explore legal avenues to hold Lynas accountable. Your donations are much needed to help us and the Malaysians to continue our uphill battle against Lynas' green extractivism and geopolitical powerplay.

For more info contact:
policy@aidwatch.org.au