TMI: IAEA report subtly slaps AELB, concurs with rakyat’s concerns — by Eye Wide Wide

IAEA report subtly slaps AELB, concurs with rakyat’s concerns — by Eye Wide Wide

TMI, July 01, 2011

JULY 1 — Has anyone actually read the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Panel Report carefully? It is available here.

In general, the IAEA panel has given the Malaysian government a red face! Malu besar!
As a guide, here are some points.

Firstly, amidst all the brouhaha, many may miss out on the caveat on page one of the IAEA report on Lynas:

“[A]t the time of the review mission, Lynas had obtained a construction licence for the rare earths processing facility and about 40 per cent of the construction had been completed. For clarity, the review team emphasises that the project documentation made available to it for review was related to this licensing phase only. The review carried out by the review team is not intended nor considered to be sufficient for the next licensing phases. Accordingly, the review team understood that updated document will, in due course, be prepared by Lynas and submitted to the Malaysian Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) for its consideration in terms of the subsequent licensing phases.”

So, the IAEA Panel did not really give the green light to the Lynas project. Only the construction project that is 40 per cent complete was reviewed. Moreover, there are no rare earths and no radioactive wastes yet onsite, thus the IAEA Panel cannot find non-compliance with radioactive-related issues. Yet.

 Secondly, the IAEA Panel review report, in fact, agrees with the main concerns of the Rakyat. The IAEA Panel had “identified 10 issues for which it considered that improvements were necessary before the next licensing phases of the Lynas project. “

The top of the list is that:

The AELB should require Lynas to submit, before the start of operations, a plan setting out its intended approach to the long-term waste management, in particular management of the water leach purification (WLP) solids after closure of the plant, together with a safety case in support of such a plan.

Six points were laid out for the safety case mentioned, i.e. future land use, dose criterion for public protection, time frame for assessment, safety functions such as containment, isolation, retardation, methodology for scenarios including where the residue storage facility (RSF) at Lynas site becomes the disposal facility for the WLP solids, active/passive institutional controls. And RIA should be updated accordingly.

The second recommendation is that:

“The AELB should require Lynas to submit, before the start of the operations, a plan for managing the wastes from the decommissioning and dismantling of the plant at the end of its life. The RIA and decommissioning plan should be updated accordingly.”

These are similar to the main concerns put forth by many of the people but mainly ignored and sometimes ridiculed by Lynas, AELB, Department of Environment (DOE) and the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (Miti).

In fact, the AELB and DOE had previously approved the RIA and PEIA, respectively. Thus, the IAEA Panel recommendations actually concur with the Rakyat in instructing the AELB and other Government agencies to do their work professionally!

The other recommendations further slap the AELB and the Malaysian government, pointing out their incompetence, inter alia:

“6. For regulating the Lynas project, the Malaysian Government should ensure that the AELB has sufficient human, financial and technical resources, competence and independence.

“7. The AELB and the relevant Ministries should establish a programme for regularly and timely updating of the Regulations in accordance with the most recent international standards. In particular, regulations pertinent to NORM activities relevant to the proposed rare earths processing facility should be considered to be updated.”

Thus, the IAEA Panel had admonished the Malaysian authorities in a subtle way. The IAEA Panel actually highlights the incompetence of the AELB and the other ministries.

No wonder the Miti and Mosti ministers were not personally there to make the announcement of the IAEA report findings! Instead, they uncharacteristically sent in the ladies to the front line.

I will not go into other details for now. Why don’t you read the actual IAEA Panel report yourself and see how Miti has embarrassed Malaysia internationally?

Lastly, the IAEA Panel has, to a certain extent, sided with the rakyat’s concerns. Now the ball is in the court of the government to execute the serious recommendations, including updating the regulations and standards to international level.

Does the government really care?

* Eye Wide Wide reads The Malaysian Insider.

Lynas Project: IAEA mission makes 11 recommendations

IAEA mission makes 11 recommendations

Jun 30, 2011 1:56pm

Summary of the findings and recommendations of International Review Mission on the Radiation Safety Aspects of a Proposed Rare Earths Processing Facility

Main findings

The review team provides the following independent expert opinion, recommendations and suggestions for good practice:

Compliance with international radiation standards

The review team was not able to identify any non-compliance with international radiation safety standards.

However, the review team identified 10 issues for which it considered that improvements were necessary before the next licensing phases of the Lynas project. Those recommendations are listed below and discussed in more detail in the report.

The review team also added an 11th recommendation dealing with the manner in which recommendations 1–10 should be acted upon.

Recommendations

Where the review team considered that improvements were necessary, it made recommendations. The report presents and discusses the situations and bases for each of those recommendations separately. The following 11 important recommendations are made:

Technical recommendations

1. The AELB should require Lynas to submit, before the start of operations, a plan setting out its intended approach to the long term waste management, in particular management of the water leach purification (WLP) solids after closure of the plant, together with a safety case in support of such a plan. The safety case should address issues such as:

(a) Future land use (determined in consultation with stakeholders);

(b) The dose criterion for protection of the public;

(c) The time frame for the assessment;

(d) Safety functions (e.g. containment, isolation, retardation);

(e) The methodology for identification and selection of scenarios – this must include the scenario in which the residue storage facility at the Lynas site becomes the disposal facility for the WLP solids;

(f) Any necessary measures for active and/or passive institutional control.

As the safety case is developed, the radiological impact assessment (RIA) for the facility as a whole should be updated accordingly.

2. The AELB should require Lynas to submit, before the start of operations, a plan for managing the waste from the decommissioning and dismantling of the plant at the end of its life. The RIA and decommissioning plan should be updated accordingly.

3. The AELB should require that the results of exposure monitoring and environmental monitoring once the plant is in operation be used to obtain more reliable assessments of doses to workers and members of the public, and the RIA updated accordingly. The AELB should also require that dose reduction measures be implemented where appropriate in accordance with the international principle of optimization of radiation protection.

4. The AELB should develop criteria that will allow the flue gas desulphurization (FGD) and neutralization underflow (NUF) residues to be declared non-radioactive for the purposes of regulation, so that they can be removed from the site and, if necessary in terms of environmental regulation, controlled as scheduled waste.

5. The AELB should implement a mechanism for establishing a fund for covering the cost of the long term management of waste including decommissioning and remediation. The AELB should require Lynas to make the necessary financial provision. The financial provision should be regularly monitored and managed in a transparent manner.

6. For regulating the Lynas project, the Malaysian Government should ensure that the AELB has sufficient human, financial and technical resources, competence and independence.

7. The AELB and the relevant Ministries should establish a programme for regularly and timely updating the Regulations in accordance with the most recent international standards. In particular, regulations pertinent to NORM activities relevant to the proposed rare earths processing facility should be considered to be updated.

Public communications recommendations

8. The AELB should enhance the understanding, transparency and visibility of its regulatory actions in the eyes of the public, particularly those actions related to inspection and enforcement of the proposed rare earths processing facility.

9. The AELB should intensify its activities regarding public information and public involvement. In particular, it should:

(a) Develop and make available easily understandable information on radiation safety and on the various steps in the licensing and decision making processes;

(b) Inform and involve interested and affected parties of the regulatory requirements for the proposed rare earths processing facility and the programme for review, inspection and enforcement;

(c) Make available, on a routine basis, all information related to the radiation safety of the proposed rare earths processing facility (except for security, safeguards and commercially sensitive information) and ensure that the public knows how to gain access to this information.

10. Lynas, as the party responsible for the safety of the proposed rare earths processing facility, should be urged to intensify its communication with interested and affected parties in order to demonstrate how it will ensure the radiological safety of the public and the environment.

Follow-up recommendation

11. Based on recommendations 1–10 above, the Government of Malaysia should prepare an action plan that:

(a) Indicates how the above-mentioned recommendations are to be addressed;

(b) Sets out the corresponding time schedule for the actions;

(c) Is geared to the possibility of an IAEA-organized follow-up mission, which will review the fulfilment of recommendations 1–10 above in, say, one to two years' time, in line with other IAEA review missions.

malaysiakini: Lynas Project: Public safety and business: Getting the priorities right.... by Mustapa Mohamed

Public safety and business: Getting the priorities right

Mustapa Mohamed
Jun 20, 2011, 11:09am

 

COMMENT On June 4, the International Panel of Independent Experts appointed to review the Lynas project returned to Vienna to complete its work. The panel had been in Malaysia to study safety aspects of the proposed rare earth processing plant in Gebeng, Pahang, and will submit its report to the government at the end of the month.

This completes one phase of a decision-making process that has important implications for the government and the nation. Public safety will not be compromised by this People's First Government.

Let me explain.

The economic considerations

Lynas Corporation Ltd is an Australian company which was given a license in January 2008 to set up a manufacturing plant in Pahang. As a foreign investor, the company is no different from other foreign investors here. They come to our shores because they think they can earn a decent return on their investment, and because they believe they will be treated fairly according to established rules and regulations.

 

We welcome foreign investments because they help us to modernize and grow our economy. Not any investment, of course, but the right type of investment.

When we evaluate an investment proposal, we ask questions like: What benefits will it bring? Will there be spin-offs that can benefit other sectors of the economy? Will it create jobs? What kind of jobs? Will there be any transfer of technology or skills? And so on.

These are standard factors we take into account when evaluating a foreign investment proposal. A comprehensive due diligence exercise will be undertaken for this purpose, and a yes or no decision will be made depending on its findings.

Issues of governance

When the Lynas investment proposal was first submitted to the Government in 2006, however, it raised questions that went beyond the ambit of these economic considerations. Issues of public safety and health, and environment were also involved.

The government was well aware then that the rare earth industry was associated with health and safety issues, especially after the experience of the Asian Rare Earth (ARE) project in Perak in the early nineties. So it was pertinent to ask what impact will the Lynas project have on public health? How will it affect the environment and the livelihood of people living in its vicinity? Are these risks measurable, and within acceptable limits? Do we have the rules, regulations and institutional framework to monitor and manage these risks?

Critical to the government's decision was the fact that the authorities had by then learnt from the ARE experience and had a better understanding of how to manage radiological risks. By 2008, the rules and regulations governing such activities had been revised and brought up to international standards. A repeat of ARE was not possible under the new regulatory regime.

This explains why when Lynas was granted its manufacturing license, the company was specifically required to comply with the safety standards and good practices established by the Atomic Energy Licensing Board (the regulator for the Atomic Energy Licensing Act 1984) and the Department of Environment (regulator for the Environmental Quality Act 1974).

 

Among other things, these standards define the amount of radiation exposure that is considered dangerous to workers, the public and the environment. These standards apply to all phases of the Lynas project: construction, pre-operations, operations, transportation, waste management, decommissioning and remediation.

A key feature of the work procedure involved is the staged-approval process Lynas has to undergo. For example, the company must meet safety standards imposed at the construction phase before it can proceed to engage in pre-operations activities. And it cannot do the latter without first satisfying the AELB and DOE that the safety standards applicable in this next phase can be met.

This approval process therefore ensures that the safety standards imposed by the regulatory bodies cannot be bypassed, postponed or avoided. Monitoring is continuously carried to ensure that they are adhered to.

At this point in time, Lynas has not applied for nor has it received approval to proceed to the pre-operations stage.

Independent panel of international experts

The Lynas project was discussed at public briefings in Kuantan and in Parliament in 2009, but became a topic of more extensive debate only after the Fukushima incident on March 11 this year.

 

It soon became clear that some people living in the vicinity of the Lynas site believed the project would pose unacceptable health and safety risks to human life and the environment. In the view of some at least, the project should be terminated.

This despite assurances by AELB and DOE that Lynas had to date complied with all safety standards required of it.

While the government remained confident in the integrity of the decisions taken by the regulatory bodies, it felt it owed the public, and the people of Kuantan in particular, a duty to ensure that their health and safety would not be compromised. This was, and remains, the government's highest priority, and overrides all other considerations.

Accordingly, on April 22, I announced the government's decision to invite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to appoint an independent panel of international experts to study all safety issues related to the Lynas project.

The IAEA nominated a nine-member panel to do the job. The panel consisted of a leader and eight members. All are world-renowned experts on issues of radiological safety. Four members are from the IAEA itself, and the rest are from the Netherlands, Canada, India, United Kingdom and Italy. No one from Australia, China or Malaysia was invited to be a panel member to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest.

The panel began its work immediately and visited Malaysia from May 29 to June 4 to meet members of the public, representatives of Lynas, government officials and visit the Lynas site.

The government also made elaborate arrangements to ensure that anyone who wanted to make representations to the expert panel could do so either in person or in writing. Public announcements outlining these arrangements were made in all mainstream newspapers in Bahasa Malaysia, English, Chinese and Tamil

In the event, representatives from residents' associations, NGOs, community organizations, political parties and professional bodies did take advantage of the opportunity to meet the expert panel and make their submissions at meetings held in Kuantan and Putrajaya. Among the political parties participated in the sessions include UMNO, MCA, PKR, PAS and DAP. Of course, YB Fuziah Salleh, the MP of Kuantan, was invited and she used the opportunity to submit her case to the expert panel.

The panel has undertaken to submit its findings and recommendations to the government by the end of this month, and the government will make the report public.

Where do we go from here?

How will the Lynas issue be resolved?

The government's decision on the future of the project will be guided by a few fundamentals. First, the health and safety of the rakyat is the No. 1 priority. This overrides all other considerations, and any decision on Lynas will not be made at its expense.

Second, any decision taken will be based on facts, not emotion or political considerations. The IAEA-appointed expert panel will determine the facts in this case, and the government's decisions will be guided by its findings and recommendations.

Thirdly, the government continues to welcome constructive public discussion of this issue, and views it an important component of the democratic process. On its part, the government has sought to contribute to this process by making sure that anyone who wants to make a submission to the expert panel is able to do so either in person or in writing.

Fourthly, the government will continue to act transparently in its dealings with the public on this issue. All public information and reports related to the Lynas project are accessible through relevant web links.

These guidelines will ensure integrity in the government's decision-making and in the decisions that will finally have to be made.

There are about 10 days to go before the expert panel submits its report. Until then, it is appropriate that all parties refrain from making comments that may pre-judge the panel's findings.

I think investors will welcome the fact that this government makes its decisions based on facts and reason, and does not act arbitrarily.

This incident also highlights the need for investors to be responsible corporate citizens in their host country. They should adhere to standards of conduct and governance which are not in any way inferior to those practised in their home country. I think these are legitimate expectations, and no enlightened investor will have any quarrel with them.

MUSTAPA MOHAMED is international trade and industry minister.

malaysiakini: Lynas RIA: Public 'safe' from radiation... by Joseph Sipalan

Lynas RIA: Public 'safe' from radiation

Joseph Sipalan
malaysiakini, May 30, 2011, 4:50pm

Authorities today released a radiological impact assessment (RIA) on the Lynas Advanced Material Plant (Lamp), which declared the project as safe, just as an international review panel went through its second day of study into Lamp's safety aspects.

The RIA, put on a month-long public display today, together with the project's environmental impact assessment (EIA), says the plant's operations "would not cause undue radiological risk" to the public and its future workers.

The report - carried out by national nuclear agency Nuklear Malaysia - says the public will receive zero mili-siverts (mSv) of radiation from the plant, while workers will receive an average of 13 mSv of radiation annually for the first 10 years of the plant's operations.

 

What this means is that the people should not encounter any radiation other than that already present naturally in the environment surrounding the Lamp, while workers will face levels far below the danger threshold of 50 mSv per year.

"Based on the results of the (RIA), it is concluded that operation of the plant will not (cause) any radiological risk to the workers and members of the public living in the surrounding areas of the site beyond what is allowed by the regulatory authority," the report says.

The report highlights seven “exposure scenarios” where radiation contamination could potentially happen, but says there will be little to be worried about, even in a worst-case scenario.

The exposure scenarios cover shipment transfer at Kuantan Port, transport from the port to the plant, exposure from stockpiles, processing equipment, residue storage and discharge of gas and liquid effluents.

'Negligible exposure'

In the various exposure scenarios outlined in the report, the RIA says the collective dose of radiation will be negligible for workers – who will have far greater proximity to the raw material and waste products – and have even less of an effect on the public.

In one worst-case scenario, where a truck transporting raw materials between the Kuantan Port and the facility tips over, the report estimates that radiation exposure would be around 0.01 mSv per hour at a distance of one metre from the materials.

“If cleaning work requires a single person to spend five hours, the estimated total dose received is still very small, i.e. 0.05 mSv,” the report says.

The internationally accepted public exposure level is 1 mSv per year.

 

Factoring in Lynas' plan to use clay and plastic-lined temporary storage cells to store waste on-site and industry standard methods to treat waste water and gas emissions, Nuklear Malaysia is of the opinion that the waste produced will have little or no impact on public radiation exposure.

Radon and thoron contamination readings at about one kilometre from the plant will be “very low”, at 0.02 micro-Sv per year and two micro-Sv per year respectively, the report says.

The RIA also says the people will not suffer any increase in radiation exposure by drinking water or eating fish from the nearby Balok river system, despite plans to release treated waste water from the plant into the river.

An estimated 5.1 million litres of treated waste water will be released into Balok daily – enough water to fill more than two Olympic-sized swimming pools every day.

The plant will also release around 478,800 cubic metres of gas emissions into the atmosphere over a decade of operations, a sufficient volume to send at least 217 four-man hot air balloons soaring in the sky.

Nothing finalised yet

Though Nuklear Malaysia gives a relatively glowing assessment of the proposed Lynas plant, it emphasises at the end of its report that the report should be revised as and when more operational data become available.

It noted that this is to make sure the estimated doses obtained in the current assessment can be further refined and that “the conclusion derived from this assessment is indeed realistic and acceptable”.

The report points out that it is “very important” to use site-specific data to get a realistic estimate of radioactivity from the plant, but acknowledges that site-specific data is “not readily available” – leading to their decision to use “default values” obtained from generic data sets “recommended internationally and they have been designed to give conservative dose overestimate(s).”

 
Nuklear Malaysia recommends that the input data and information on the report be updated and finalised, “in particular, the radioactivity content of the lanthanide concentrate materials and WLP (water leach purification) residue and water discharges.”

Lynas panel revealed: Independent, you say?.... by SM Mohamed Idris

Lynas panel revealed: Independent, you say?

SM Mohamed Idris
May 30, 2011, 1:51pm

It was on May 14 that the Minister for the International Trade and Industry (MITI), Mustapha Mohammed announced the independent panel to review the proposed Lynas rare earth processing plant in Gebeng, Pahang.

Since the review involves environmental and public health and radiation safety issues, concerning a hazardous facility, it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the MITI.

We are thus puzzled why MITI was tasked with announcing the review panel members, bearing in mind that a preliminary environmental impact assessment was submitted to the Department of Environment (DOE) in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment in 2008.

We are also puzzled as to why an independent Malaysian authority was not responsible for the appointments of each of the nine members of the review panel. A more suitable and impartial body like the DOE should have helmed the selection process instead of the Atomic Energy Licensing Board which as it turns out delegated the entire responsibility to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The IAEA's main interest is to promote nuclear energy and its related activities worldwide. Whereas the DOE was set up to protect the environment and promote environmentally sustainable activities.

The public is told that the 'independent panel' members are experts in their respective disciplines but no information on the detailed competencies of each of the panel members is given. In any appointments to committees of such nature, it is standard requirement that individual CVs of members are provided.

However a search on the profile of each member of the 'independent panel' has confirmed our worst fears that they are not really as independent as they have been made out to be.

Five of the nine panel members are staff of the IAEA namely,

• Dr Tero Varjoranta (Finland), Director of the Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology, IAEA Department of Nuclear Energy. Dr Varjoranta is head of the review panel.

• Dr Magnus Vesterlind (Sweden), Head of the Waste and Environmental Section, IAEA.

• Dr Horst Monken Fernandes (Brazil), staff member of the Wastes Technology Section, Division of Nuclear Fuel Cell and Waste Management

• Ms Hanna Kajander (Finland), Communications Officer, IAEA

• Hiroko Ratcliffe (Austria), Administrative Assistant, IAEA

The five external experts are:

• Jan van der Steen (Netherlands).
  An engineer by training, he was the Manager of Radiation and Environment Session at NRG, Arnhem.
  NRG (Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group) is the nuclear service provider in the Netherlands. From its website NRG states: 'Our products and internationally renowned expertise are frequently called on by both governments and industries…
  Another aspect of our work is our durable focus on safety of nuclear reactors and attractive options for nuclear waste management, including recycling technologies. We are engaged in applied research enabling nuclear energy to become more sustainable. Examples include research into fourth generation nuclear energy systems, and nuclear fusion technology.'
  
  At NRG, we believe that nuclear technologies are essential for a sustainable society. And we are committed to devote all our energy to it.'
  
• Dr Leo M. Lowe (Canada)
  He has a doctorate in Nuclear Physics, and is Principal Consultant, Senior Health and Environmental Physicist, SENES Consultants Ltd. The company has worked with IAEA. 'SENES clients have included uranium mining companies, uranium refineries, fuel fabrication facilities, nuclear power plants operators, numerous industrial clients, industry associations and federal and international agencies and regulators.'
  
  'SENES provides a broad scope of services related to the management of low-level radioactive wastes. These include: the conceptual design and assessment of disposal facilities; assessment of impacts on contaminated environments; design of remedial measures for contaminated sites; and supervision of contaminated material removal.
  
• Dr PM Balagopala Pillai (India)
  He is a scientist at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC). He was Head, Health Physics Unit, Indian Rare Earths Ltd plants in South India. He has served as a consultant to the IAEA.
  
• Dr Dennis Wymer (UK)
  A mechanical engineer, he has worked for the IAEA from 1993 to 2009. Prior to this, he was involved in the South African mining industry. In a paper in 2001 representing the Chamber of Mines of South Africa, he presented environmental monitoring data for the radiological impact from the gold uranium mining industry and its wastes. These data were used to calculate doses for members of the public.
  
  His paper states: '[...] It is concluded from these results that the impact of gold mining operations on the environment is small, and will not cause any member of the public to receive a radiation dose more than about 10% of the public dose limit. Current rehabilitation measures for tailings are mainly limited to vegetation and reworking of slopes.
  
  It is unlikely that the costs of constructing radon barriers would ever be justified on the basis of the minimal dose reduction benefits that could be achieved. Some measures to control surface water pollution may continue to be necessary but, from present knowledge, contamination of ground water is unlikely to be of concern. [...]' (excerpt from the abstract)


• Mr Ulric Schwela (Finland)
  Currently Technical Promotion Officer at Tantalum-Niobium International Study Center, Metals & Mining Consultant and Contractor, Radioactive Materials Transport Adviser, Blackpool, United Kingdom. He has a degree (BSc) in Chemistry, and has worked with the IAEA on projects.

Despite its international composition, the members of the review panel are all linked to the nuclear industry. They are trained in the physical and engineering sciences and have no known expertise in public health, radiation safety, environment and socioeconomic issues.

What is even more troubling, the external experts are consultants working for nuclear companies which exist for commercial purposes. The job of a consultant is primarily to bring in projects and profits for the companies he/she works for. Thus they are all proponents of the nuclear industry.

In the context of radiation safety, public health and the environment, it is imperative to involve individuals who are independent of nuclear establishments and nuclear related industries.

In the interest of transparency, accountability and credibility, we urge the Malaysian government to form a comprehensive and integrated review panel.

This review panel should comprise real independent experts on public health, radiation safety, medicine, environment, law and the social sciences.


SM Mohamed Idris is president of Consumers Association of Penang and Sahabat Alam Malaysia