SAHABAT ALAM MALAYSIA & CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF PENANG

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) FOR THE PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT OF A PERMANENT DISPOSAL FACILITY (PDF) FOR THE
WATER LEACH PURIFICATION (WLP) RESIDUE ON LOT 31375, GEBENG
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE (GIE), MUKIM KARANG, KUANTAN, PAHANG
Comments submitted by
Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) and Consumers’ Association of Penang (CAP)
to the Department of Environment Putrajaya

26 November 2021
A. Introduction
Our view is that the EIA cannot be approved as is.
Based on our review and also consultation with experts, the quality of the EIA is far from
adequate and does not comply with the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (TCPA) and
cannot be approved as it exists, for the following reasons:
1. On the legal process: The proposed PDF facility has not followed the due legal process
in seeking the advice of the National Physical Planning Council (NPPC), as required
under Section 20B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976.

2. The classification of the WLP as Low Level Waste (LLW) in the Western Australia
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)’s report on Lynas’ Kalgoorlie Rare Earths
Processing Facility (October 2021) shows the application of a double standard by Lynas.
There appears to be a stricter standard for the waste classification in Australia and a
less strict standard in Malaysia.

3. Misinterpretation of IAEA report to classify WLP as VLLW.

4. The EIA report fails to take into account the climate change impact, in particular
relating to the increase in monsoon precipitation and risk of flooding.

5. Lack of a detailed study on building a Permanent Disposal Facility on a peat area

6. Risk of instability, subsidence and slope failure.

7. The HDPE layer and PDF design does not guarantee a “Permanent” Disposal Facility

8. There are serious shortcomings in the hydrogeological modelling.

9. Contradictory statements in the EIA over the use of groundwater by the nearby villagers

10. Missing information in the EIA.

11. The sampling of WLP RSF runoff should cover dry and wet season to provide a more
representative characterisation of the wastewater.

1
SAHABAT ALAM MALAYSIA & CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF PENANG

12. The need for a full disclosure of monitoring data.

13. The recommendation in the RIA risk defeating the purpose of building a “Permanent”
disposal facility (PDF) for the WLP residue.

14. Concern over the competency of Gading Senggara to manage one of the largest
Permanent Disposal Facility in the world.

15. The need for the EIA to provide more information on the decommissioning, post
closure and/or abandonment plan.

Further details in this regard are provided below. Part of the technical comments were
based on consultation with Dr. Gilles Wendling, a Senior Hydrogeologist from the
Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (E-LAW).
B. The details –

1. On the legal process: The proposed PDF facility has not followed the due legal
process in seeking the advice of the National Physical Planning Council (NPPC),
as required under Section 20B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976.
We note that the proposed project has received a letter from PLANMalaysia@Pahang (as
shown in Appendix A.19 of Volume 3) stating that this Project does not need to be tabled to
the National Physical Planning Council (NPPC) based on the meeting held on 24 June 2021 to
expedite the process in order for Lynas to meet AELB license condition no. 37.1 which states
that the PDF construction needs to be carried out by September 2021 (AELB License 2020-
2023 is shown in Appendix A10, while AELB approval letter on the delayed construction to
September 2021 is shown in Appendix A.17).

However, there is a legal issue with the Project not following due process and the extent to
which the approval from PLANMalaysia@Pahang is based on justifiable and sound reasons.

As specified in Section 20B of the Town and Country Planning Act as amended in 2017,

20B. (1) Without prejudice to Section 20A, it shall be the duty of every Federal Government
and State Government department or agency to seek advice from the Council on a development
proposal relating to-
(b) any construction of a major national infrastructure including-
(i) airports, seaports, inland ports, railway transportation networks, highways, power stations,
dams and toxic waste disposal sites.

The Council as mentioned in Section 20B means the National Physical Planning Council
(NPPC) established under Section 2A of the same Act.

First, a plain reading of section 20A suggests that the duty to seek the advice of the NPPC is
mandatory for the construction of a development proposal such as the Lynas PDF, which is not
only a toxic waste disposal site, but is a radioactive waste disposal facility. Hence, every
Federal Government and State Government department or agency must seek advice from the

2
SAHABAT ALAM MALAYSIA & CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF PENANG

NPPC, more so in a case like this, given the scale and time span involved for this proposed
project that could be the world’s largest surface radioactive waste disposal facility1.

Second, the meeting minutes of 24 June 2021 that has granted the approval for the project to
bypass the NPPC was based on the land use class “penghasilan bahan radioaktif, memproses
bahan buangan nuclear atau penghasilan komponen nuclear, memproses bahan buangan”
toksid serta sisa bahaya. Such uses do not specify that the land can be used to “dispose” off
radioactive waste, which is clearly different from the production and processing of radioactive
material.
Third, the need to expedite the process in order for Lynas to meet AELB license condition of
having the PDF constructed by September 2021 is not a reason to bypass the TCPA, as this is
not provided for a reason for any exemption. Further, the AELB approval (as shown in
Appendix A.17) to extend construction of PDF was referred to the previous proposed site at
Bukit Ketam and not the current proposed site in Gebeng. In any event, the time for the
construction has already expired and cannot be a material consideration for an exemption. It is
advisable to comply with the TCPA in this regard, to avoid any legal complications later.
SAM did raise this matter at the EIA Technical Review Committee meeting on 17 November
2021 and the EIA consultant has again reaffirmed that the proposed project complies with the
RTD Kuantan 2035 as it falls under C3: Heavy Industry- Lain-lain yang berkaitan (mengikut
kelulusan Pihak Berkuasa Negeri dan Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan). We note that this is also
reported on page 1-19 in the EIA report. However, there appears to be a discrepancy between
the land use class as detailed in both the meeting minutes and PLANMalaysia Pahang’s
approval letter (Appendix A.22 of Volume 3) and the claim of compliance in the EIA.
According to the meeting minutes:
3.15.1 (ii) Cadangan tapak baru ini terletak di dalam Kawasan perindustrian Gebeng
dengan zon guna tanah industri adalah selaras dengan zon guna tanah Rancangan
Tempatan Daerah Kuantan 2035 (Penggantian);
3.15.1 (iii) Rancangan Tempatan Daerah Kuantan 2035 (Penggantian) telah
mengklasifikasikan perincian guna tanah yang dibenarkan termasuklah penghasilan
bahan radioaktif, memproses bahan buangan nuclear atau penghasilan komponen
nuclear, memproses bahan buangan toksid serta sisa bahaya.
The meeting minutes note that the proposed project falls under land use class C3: Heavy
Industry - penghasilan bahan radioaktif, memproses bahan buangan nuclear atau penghasilan
komponen nuclear, memproses bahan buangan toksid serta sisa bahaya and not “Lain-lain
yang berkaitan (mengikut kelulusan Pihak Berkuasa Begeri dan Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan)”
as claimed by the consultant. Following our comment below in #11 on the recommendation in
the RIA, there is a serious concern on whether the PDF will be developed into a CondiSoil
processing plant, which will then make the proposed project in line with the future land use
class.

1
See our comment #14 on the potential for this PDF to be the world’s largest PDF surface radioactive waste
disposal facility

3
SAHABAT ALAM MALAYSIA & CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF PENANG

Fourth, the meeting (meeting minutes of 24 June 2021) that has granted the approval for the
project to bypass NPPC was based on the reason that the proposed project site is far from
sensitive receptors, with the nearest recorded at 2.2 km.
It is vital to note that the TCPA does not provide for any circumstance or ground for exemption
from the application of Section 20A.
3.15.1 (iv) Tapak baru ini terletak jauh daripada kawasan petempatan penduduk dan
kemudahan masyarakat dengan penempatan terdekat adalah di Kampung Gebeng
sejauh 2.2 kilometer
In addition, as we note from the EIA, the nearest sensitive receptor is Masjid AMSAS which
is located 1.96 km from the project site. Further, the biggest flaw in the EIA is the missing
information on the development of MCKIP 3, which is less than 0.2 km away from the project
site. MCKIP 3 caters for a logistic hub, light industries, residential and commercial
components. MCKIP management and investors were also not engaged in the EIA process.
MCKIP 1 and 2 cater for heavy and medium industries while MCKIP 3 caters for logistic hub,
light industries, residential and commercial components. The map of MCKIP and aerial view
of MCKIP 3 are shown in Appendix 1: Figure 1 and 2.
Given the above, the TCPA must be complied with the NPPC, cannot simply be by-passed
especially in a project like this which is a radioactive disposal facility which has long-term
risks with high environmental, social and health impacts on the surrounding area, as well as
the future land use and projected population growth in the area. For these reasons, the
consideration of the current site for the PDF should be deliberated thoroughly and not be
expedited or rushed through, including by-passing the NPPC.
Our submission in this regard is that any by-passing of the NPPC will be an illegal act, contrary
to the TCPA. The DG of the DOE should not countenance any illegality. The DG should be
promoting the compliance with the TCPA.

2. The classification of the WLP as Low Level Waste (LLW) in the Western Australia
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)’s report on Lynas’ Kalgoorlie Rare
Earths Processing Facility (October 2021) shows the application of a double
standard by Lynas. There appears to be a stricter standard for the waste
classification in Australia and a less strict standard in Malaysia.
Lynas will be relocating its LAMP processing plant from Malaysia to Western Australia (the
new plant is known as Kalgoorlie Rare Earths Processing Facility) and the Western Australia
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has just released an assessment report and
conditions of approval for the new Lynas’ Kalgoorlie Rare Earths Processing Facility in
October 2021.2
It is important to note that based on the report prepared by KASA Consulting in September
2020, “the main by-products generated at Lynas’ Kalgoorlie plant, namely Iron Phosphate (IP)
and gypsum are expected to be similar in characteristics to that generated at the Lynas plant

2
See the full Western Australia EPA’s report for Lynas’s Kalgoorlie Rare Earths Plant here:
https://www.epa.wa.gov.au/proposals/lynas-kalgoorlie-rare-earths-processing-facility

4
SAHABAT ALAM MALAYSIA & CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF PENANG

in Malaysia.”3 The Iron Phosphate (IP) in Kalgoorlie’s report is referred to as Water Leach
Purification (WLP) Residue in the EIA report in Malaysia.
According to the Australian EPA report, “The rare earth concentrate produced at the Mt Weld
mine contains a low level of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM). During the
processing of this concentrate the radionuclides are separated and bond with iron phosphate
(IP), which is the solid material produced after filtering of the primary leach solution.”4
The Australian EPA Report further note that on page 11,“Facilities for storage of low-level
radioactive waste already exist at the Mt Weld mine and the mine is located in an isolated area
away from any residential populations”5
So, while the EPA report has classified IP as Low Level Waste (LLW) in Australia, the EIA
for the PDF currently under review in Malaysia has, however, classified the WLP residue as a
Very Low Level Waste (VLLW). The differential treatment on the classification of waste in
Malaysia and Australia shows the application of a double standard by Lynas.
The classification of WLP is critical as it will determine the adequate design and safety of the
“permanent” disposal facility. According to the IAEA’s Classification of Radioactive Waste
General Safety Guide, there are differences between VLLW and LLW in terms of
disposal/management as shown in the table below.6
Very Low Level Waste (VLLW) Low Level Waste (LLW)
According to the IAEA’s Classification of According to the IAEA’s Classification of
radioactive waste on Page 10, radioactive waste on Page 5,

“Very low level waste (VLLW): Waste that
does not necessarily meet the criteria of EW
(Exempt Waste), but that does not need a
high level of containment and isolation
and, therefore, is suitable for disposal in
near surface landfill type facilities with
limited regulatory control. Such landfill
type facilities may also contain other
hazardous waste. Typical waste in this class
includes soil and rubble with low levels of
activity concentration. Concentrations of
longer lived radionuclides in VLLW are
generally very limited.”
“Low level waste (LLW): Waste that is above
clearance levels, but with limited “amounts of
long lived radionuclides. Such waste requires
robust isolation and containment for periods
of up to a few hundred years and is suitable
for disposal in engineered near surface
facilities. This class covers a very broad range
of waste. LLW may include short lived
radionuclides at higher levels of activity
concentration, and also long-lived
radionuclides, but only at relatively low levels
of activity concentration.”

3
KASA Consulting Report (September 2020), “Section 38 Referral – Supporting Document Lynas Kalgoorlie
Rare Earths Processing Facility, Page 26
https://www.epa.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/Referral_Documentation/Supporting%20information%20part%20
1.pdf
4
Western Australia Environmental Protection Authority (October 2021), Kalgoorlie Rare Earths Processing
Facility Report 1712, Page 10, https://www.epa.wa.gov.au/proposals/lynas-kalgoorlie-rare-earths-processing-
facility
5
Western Australia Environmental Protection Authority (October 2021), Kalgoorlie Rare Earths Processing
Facility Report 1712, Page 11, https://www.epa.wa.gov.au/proposals/lynas-kalgoorlie-rare-earths-processing-
facility
6
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (2009), Classification of Radioactive Waste: General Safety
Guide, Page 5, https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1419_web.pdf

5
SAHABAT ALAM MALAYSIA & CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF PENANG

Based on the Australian EPA report, Lynas was initially proposing a long-term ‘By-product
Storage Facility’ (BSF) at Yarri Road but the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and
Safety (DMIRS) and the Radiological Council of Western Australia have advised Lynas to
return the iron phosphate (IP) for disposal at suitably constructed engineered structures at
the proponent’s Mt Weld mine.7 Lynas Kalgoorlie has been advised to isolate, contain and
dispose of the IP (also referred to as WLP residue in the Malaysian EIA report) at suitably
constructed engineered structure at Mt Weld, in line with the IAEA’s Classification of Low
Level Waste.
There is very serious concern over the practice of double standard by Lynas, as the adequacy
of the PDF design is based on the classification of waste. Clearly, there appears to be a
stricter standard for the waste classification in Australia and a less strict standard in
Malaysia. This is totally unacceptable and must not be allowed.
It is also significant to note that in a background document for the Australian facility, in
reference to the iron phosphate storage facility, the chemicals of environmental concern are
stated as containing “low levels of TENORM radioactive material (Thorium, Uranium) and
heavy metals. TENORM is technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material,
i.e. is defined as, "Naturally occurring radioactive materials that have been concentrated or
exposed to the accessible environment as a result of human activities such as manufacturing,
mineral extraction, or water processing.”8

3. Misinterpretation of IAEA report to classify WLP as VLLW

Following our comment in #2, we wish to further highlight that the currently proposed design
of the PDF is based on a misclassification of the WLP as Very Low Level Waste (VLLW).
This issue has been brought up by various parties and experts in the past, including SAM in
our submission of written comments for the previous Bukit Ketam EIA.
In the EIA report on Page 1-14, it is stated that “At international level, the WLP residue is
classified as VLLW under the IAEA. This classification is defined in the IAEA Nuclear Energy
Series with the title “Policies and Strategies for Radioactive Waste Management”, No. NW-G-
1.1, 2009.”
The IAEA’s Policies and Strategies for Radioactive Waste Management, No. NW-G-1.1, 2009
report that was quoted by the EIA consultant has defined that “LLW contains higher activity
concentrations than VLLW but with a limit on the concentration of long lived radionuclides,
i.e. radionuclides with T1/2 > 30 years. It requires isolation from the biosphere for periods of
up to a few hundred years”.
In this case, the WLP residue that contain Thorium with a T1/2 of 14 billion years should not
be classified as VLLW.
Further, the EIA uses IAEA's 'Classification of Radioactive Waste' to classify WLP as a 'Very
Low Level Waste' (VLLW) and is shown in a graph (Figure 5.11 on Page 5-17).

7
Western Australia Environmental Protection Authority (October 2021), Kalgoorlie Rare Earths Processing
Facility Report 1712, Page 2 and 12, https://www.epa.wa.gov.au/proposals/lynas-kalgoorlie-rare-earths-
processing-facility
8
US EPA, Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORM),
https://www.epa.gov/radiation/technologically-enhanced-naturally-occurring-radioactive-materials-tenorm

6
SAHABAT ALAM MALAYSIA & CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF PENANG

Similar graphs can be found in both IAEA documents: IAEA GSG-1,2009 on Page 7 and IAEA
TECDOC 1712, 2013 on Page 43. However, the IAEA’s graphs do not contain specific figures
of activity content on the Y-axis.
We find that the graph (Figure 5.11) in the EIA report is indeed duplicated from a graph in
IAEA GSG-1, 2009 titled 'Illustrative example of the application of the waste classification
scheme...'. (emphasis added).
Thus, it is in fact an example of the use of the waste classification scheme discussed in the
document, and is not a standard proposed by the IAEA. Moreover, the examples of waste given
are not NORM or TENORM waste but decommissioned sealed radioactive sources. So, the
report seems to have mistaken and conflates an example for a real standard.
All in all, we have serious concerns with the misclassification of WLP residue and which
consequently leads to an inadequate design and siting of the PDF in Gebeng in the EIA report.

4. The EIA report fails to take into account the climate change impact, in particular
relating to the increase in monsoon precipitation and risk of flooding
The recent Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(August 2021) has concluded with high confidence that monsoon precipitation is projected to
increase in the mid- to long term at the global scale, particularly over South East Asia and
several other regions. With climate change, there will be more frequent extreme hydrologic
events and 100-years flood seems to occur too frequently now.9
While the EIA has taken into account the 100 years’ average recurrence intervals (ARI), there
is a lack of reference to climate change in the EIA, especially in relation to the projection of
future rainfall characteristics with 100-year floods that may occur more frequently. This is a
critical weakness in the EIA report, given that the nature of the WLP residue warrants an impact
assessment from the long-term perspective.
As we note on page 7-32, “Excavations will loosen soils or the residues and subject them to
erosion. Under normal rain events, the runoffs will be contained in the WLP Lagoon; however,
should there be an extreme rain event, the erosion may be severe and the lagoon may not be
able to contain the runoff flow, leading to a flood of turbid runoffs containing WLP residue
reaching Sungai Baluk.”
Stormwater management and the increased risk of exposing WLP residues to rainwater have
to take into account extreme events and how extreme events will worsen with climate change.
The impact of climate change has to be addressed in the design, the construction, the operation,
and the closure and post-closure of the proposed project. This is a critical consideration and
cannot be ignored.
As commented by Dr. Gilles Wendling, risks of flooding (Section 6.2.6.1) should also include
the risks taking into account climate change and use time projections extending at least until

9
Yusop, Zulkifli, “Climate Change Adaptation Framework for Malaysia”, presented at a Webinar on Climate
Change and Water Security: Malaysia’s focus on 21 October 2021,

7
SAHABAT ALAM MALAYSIA & CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF PENANG

2050 and 2075. The assessment should provide an opinion on how risks of flooding could
impact the industrial site post closure.
The project will result in permanent and irreversible modification of the natural infiltration,
and both the surface water and groundwater regimes. These modifications may take decades
to be observed and it will be impossible to restore the site to its original state. Therefore, long-
term potential negative effects must be thoroughly investigated.
Further, the effects of modification of the land and the subsurface will compound with
modification of the water cycle anticipated due to climate change. This is expected to be more
noticeable with extreme events, whether increasing the amount of water to be managed during
extreme precipitation and associated risks of flooding, or exacerbating the effects of droughts.
The proposed site that requires removal and replacement of peat will contribute to climate
change as it will release huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Again, this has not been
taken into account in the EIA, which is vital in assessing the overall environmental effects of
the PDF.
5. Lack of a detailed study on building a Permanent Disposal Facility on a peat area
One of the biggest uncertainties with the proposed project is to develop a Permanent Disposal
Facility (PDF) on a peat area. According to Chapter 6, the project site and the surrounding
areas are alluvial in nature and comprise mainly of peat. Gebeng has been identified as one of
the areas prone to peat fire in Pahang, and the project site is situated within the peat land. Peat
may be fire prone during excavation and removal, and this can spread to adjacent areas. Chapter
7 and 8 have not considered the possible impact and risk of peat fires and the necessary
mitigation measures.
The disposal of peat will lead to large greenhouse gas emissions. The amount of borrowed soil
is 886,000 cubic meters, which is much larger than the present amount of WLP residue
(688,793 cubic meters) by volume. This may not be a wise move and the EIA has yet to
examine the options to reduce the climate change impacts by converting the peat to organic
fertilizer or growing media other than dumping.
There is indeed a lack of focus on peat in the EIA, which is a major omission and is far from
adequate without such concerns being addressed.

6. Risk of instability, subsidence and slope failure

Based on our consultation with expert, there seems to be a risk of instability and a need of
thorough review of the geotechnical investigation by a third-party consultant. See the detailed
comments from ELAW in Appendix 2.
According to Table 6.9: Soil Stratification on page 6-27, soft clay/silt layers have been
encountered at a typical depth of 1 to 3 m, 3 to 5.5 m, and 9 to 18 m, with the water table
encountered at a depth ranging between approximately 1 m and 3 m. Soil replacement is
proposed to be completed only in the upper section of the deposit to depth of up to 3 m for
most of the site, and up to 4.5 m for a portion of Cell D (Figure 5.29 on Page 5-59). Still, large
settlements are anticipated (up to 0.7 m according to Table 8.11, Appendix L, Volume 3) and
construction must be properly staged to allow drainage of the subsurface. We are concerned

8
SAHABAT ALAM MALAYSIA & CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF PENANG

that the block model presented in Appendix C (sub-appendix of Appendix L, Volume 3) –

reinforced Slope and Wall Stability and Liquefaction Analysis – seems to omit the presence
of a deep soft clay layer that could act as a failure plane. Therefore, a thorough review of
the geotechnical investigation by a third party with expertise in geotechnical engineering is
recommended and numerical modelling should be completed to assess/confirm:
a) Anticipated settlement of the subsurface; and
b) Potential risk of instability and slope failure during and following placement of the
WLP residues.
This recommended additional geotechnical study must be completed to assess the risk of a)
failure/rupture of the liners, b) disruption of the proposed drainage and monitoring
infrastructure and c) catastrophic slope failure that would jeopardize the integrity of the
proposed facility.
Geotechnical modelling should use for input the hydraulic conductivity values calculated
during the hydrogeological investigation because they are more representative of the site
conditions. The in-situ permeability tests conducted for the geotechnical design were carried
out inside the boreholes without well development and with no well screen installed. On the
other hand, the in-situ permeability tests conducted for the hydrogeological study were carried
out after the wells were developed and well screens were installed, thus being more reliable
and representative of the in-situ conditions.

Access to drinking water will become an increasing priority in the near future. The site is
located in an area with a high potential for access to groundwater of drinking water quality, as
shown in Figure 6.39. The local investigation has confirmed the presence of aquifers with
relatively good quality water. Several wells are used by the local population within 8 km
(Figure 6.152). Therefore, it is critical that the project does not jeopardize the quality of a
resource that could become essential for the local population and species at large in the near
future.

7. The HDPE layer and PDF design does not guarantee a “Permanent” Disposal
Facility
Given the long half-lives of Thorium and Uranium, the EIA has yet to define the As-Long-As-
Technically-Reliable period (based on current technical standards and available technologies)
of the PDF design and also justify the effectiveness and longevity properties of the proposed
design.
Section 8.5.1 on Page 8-42 states that “the HDPE layer is generally guaranteed for about 25
years; if it is damage due to age or institution, the spot should be dug up and repaired.” This
leaves a lot of uncertainties on how the damage can be detected, and the SOP on how this can
be done safely.
Further, the groundwater flow modelling shows that “there is no indication that the dissolved
compounds would migrate beyond the boundary of the project site over a duration of 20 years.”
Thorium-232 and Uranium-238 have a half-life of 14 and 4.5 billion years respectively and
will stay for a long time. While it has been repeatedly claimed in the EIA that Thorium has low

9
SAHABAT ALAM MALAYSIA & CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF PENANG

solubility and low permeability under certain conditions, but given the plans to develop the
Gebeng Industrial Estate, it cannot be guaranteed that the surrounding environmental
conditions will remain the same for another such long time-frames, beyond the 20-year
consideration.

8. There are serious shortcomings in the hydrogeological modelling.

According to Dr. Gilles Wendling, a Senior Hydrogeologist from the Environmental Law
Alliance Worldwide (E-LAW), there are serious shortcomings in the hydrogeological
modelling (see the attached detailed comments in Appendix 2):
a. The absence of graphs allowing comparison between modelled versus measured values
(e.g., for hydraulic heads in monitoring wells) makes the review of the model and its
calibration difficult. We note that the recharge had to be adjusted from 10% (initial input)
to 2.6% (calibrated) of the precipitation (Table 6-8 on page 6-11, Sub-appendix M, Vol.
3). This appears to be a very low value for recharge. Therefore, it is uncertain that the
developed hydrogeological model is representative of the groundwater regime.

b. The long-term potential impact on groundwater and possibly on surface water has been
modelled but it has not considered the worst-case scenario. As shown in Figure 6-50 (Sub-
appendix M, Volume 3), Layer 3, which is an unconfined aquifer with hydraulic
conductivities five times greater than Layer 2, is much shallower at the right of Cell B and
C. Therefore, a liner failure in Cell B or C would have a higher likelihood to allow the
migration of contaminants to this more conductive layer. The modelling of the worst-
case scenario presented in the EIA is incomplete.

c. Surface water and groundwater interconnection is poorly described. The drain / canal
located along the south boundary of the proposed site discharges to the Sungai Baluk and
is a direct connector between the site and the river. It will be used as the discharge point
for treated effluent. Its role as a drain and collector of groundwater should be described,
too. Any modification of the groundwater under the site will have long-term effect on
both the quantity and quality of water discharging to Sungai Baluk.

d. A review of the hydrogeological model by an external party with expertise in

hydrogeology is highly recommended.

9. Contradictory statements in the EIA over the use of groundwater by the nearby
villagers
Groundwater contamination is one of the key issues in the EIA, given the use of groundwater
by the nearby villagers daily as reported in Chapter 6 below. However, we note that the “use
of groundwater on a daily basis” has been watered down to “emergency use” in Chapter 7 when
assessing the radioactivity impact in groundwater on Page 7-61.
“Apart from water provided by PAIP, the survey discovered that 100% of respondents
in Kampung Seberang Sungai Ular used groundwater, river, or lake water on a daily

10
SAHABAT ALAM MALAYSIA & CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF PENANG

basis. There were respondents from Kampung Sungai Ular (45%), Kampung Darat
Sungai Ular (23.1%), Kampung Gebeng (7.7%), Taman Sungai Ular Jaya (5%) and
Taman Balok Makmur (3.7%) who said they use ground water daily, while others from
AMSAS (25%), Taman Balok Makmur (7.4%), Kampung Sungai Ular (5%) and Taman
Balok Perdana (4.5%) claimed to use river or lake water daily.” (Page 6-241)
“Other than these wells, there are seven Telaga Kerek/Gali which are wells that were
dug by villagers for their daily use and for watering crops.” (Page 6-262)
“The public are provided with tap water as their source for drinking water and there
are no public well within the study area. However, there are telaga kerek (well with
cement ring-wall) installed by a few villagers and tube wells installed by the
Department of Minerals and Geoscience (JMG) quite a distance away from the
proposed site (Figure 7.20). The wells installed by villagers are used mainly in
emergency (e.g., drought) and when watering personal small agricultural plot of land,
while the tube wells installed by JMG are used primarily to fight peat-forest fire.” (Page
7-61)

10. Missing information in the EIA

a. One of the key uncertainties in the EIA is the missing information on the development
of MCKIP 3, which is less than 0.2 km away from the project site. MCKIP 3 caters for
logistic hub, light industries, residential and commercial components. MCKIP
management and investors were also not engaged in the EIA process. The map of
MCKIP and the aerial view of MCKIP 3 are shown in Appendix 1: Figure 1 and 2.

b. On page 5-24, the proposed design includes backfilling the bottom of the cell with a
0.5m to 1m thick layer of sandy silt to provide an adequate distance between the dual
liner and groundwater, thus enhancing the retardation of pollutants from entering the
groundwater (p 5-24). This should be based on monitored fluctuation of the water
table at the site, and this information is presently missing. Also, the capillary effect
associated with the use of fine soils (sandy silt) will likely result in a much thinner non
saturated zone under the liner. See the detailed comment in Appendix 2.

11. The sampling of WLP RSF runoff should cover dry and wet season to provide a
more representative characterisation of the wastewater
We note that on page 5-37 and 5-38 that three samples were taken at different times in June
and August 2021. These correspond to conditions under lower precipitations conditions with
June and August having precipitations typically between 160 mm and 190 mm. It is assumed
that reported samples represent the highest concentrations to be expected. However, there is a
need to sample from wetter months (e.g., December with precipitations typically around 560
mm) to have a better representative and understanding of the wastewater characteristics. This
is critical to ensure the effectiveness of the wastewater treatment throughout the year, and also
to make sure that parameters like TSS would not jeopardize water treatment throughout the
year. See the detailed comment in Appendix 2.

11
SAHABAT ALAM MALAYSIA & CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF PENANG

Further, on a relevant note, as shown in Table 5.15 on page 5-39, the consultant should justify
why Sample 1 and 3 collected on 3/6/2021 and 6/8/2021 have some radionuclides and
parameters that were not tested.

12. The need for a full disclosure of monitoring data

a. Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program (ERMP)

We note that the EIA and RIA have both referred to the 55 ERMP monitoring studies. However,
based on our understanding, there should be a total of 65 ERMP conducted by LAMP from
December 2012 to October 2021. There is a need for clarification on the total ERMP that has
been completed by LAMP thus far and if there are more than 55 ERMP completed, there is a
need to explain how these 55 ERMP are selected?
The raw monitoring data from 2012-2021 should be disclosed. The raw data have to be made
available as this is key to understanding the changes in activity concentration over time. An
average as shown in Table 6.63 does not tell the full picture of the changes over time.
Figure 6.52 shows 55 ERMP from Temporary Operating License (TOL) to Full Operating
Stage License 4 (FOSL4). ERMP started monthly during the TOL period. It became every 2
months since FOSL1 in Nov 2014. The 55 ERMP consists of 22 monthly data sets (Dec 2012-
Sep 2014) from the TOL period. In calculating the average over the whole period, it carries
more weight (40%) due to the more frequent monthly reporting, and skewed the average
towards the lower initial values. The chart shows radiation has increased over time since the
beginning of the TOL period. No new data is shown since the first ERMP in FOSL4 in March
2020. Why are more recent data not included? The EIA should include a discussion on all the
non-compliances detected throughout the operation of LAMP.
b. Groundwater monitoring
In Chapter 6, on Page 6-141, we find that the data from GW6 is missing from Table 6.64
Summary of activity concentrations measured in groundwater samples throughout the Lynas
ERMP.
We note that GW6 is located close to GW13. This is of interest because GW13 was highlighted
in the Executive Review Committee 2018 report with a few non-compliances. We also
understand that MESTECC had set up a new monitoring station just 2 meters away from GW13.
Please clarify whether GW6 is the same monitoring station as GW13 or the MESTECC
monitoring station. The monitoring data from MESTECC should be disclosed to the public.

13. The recommendation in the RIA risk defeating the purpose of building a
“Permanent” disposal facility (PDF) for the WLP residue
The Radiological Impact Assessment report (Page 153, Appendix K, Volume 3) has
recommended that “The WLP residue will be stored as a single source ‘waste’ in the WLP PDF
at the GIE in anticipation that it could easily be retrieved in the future when conditions to
safely commercialize it is right”. This recommendation in the RIA risks defeating the purpose

12
SAHABAT ALAM MALAYSIA & CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF PENANG

of building a “Permanent” disposal facility (PDF) for the WLP residue and renders a lot of
doubts over how “permanent” the disposal facility is.
We also note that the RIA report was prepared by Prof Ismail Bahari, who is the Orang yang
Bertanggungjawab Terhadap Lesen (OBTL) under AELB and is also a registered consultant
with DOE. Hence, we have a serious concern as to whether there is still a plan behind closed
doors to commercialize Condisoil in the future.
This goes against the 2018 Executive Review report’s recommendation that Condisoil is not
suitable to be used as a soil conditioner as there is still a risk for the heavy metals and
radionuclides to contaminate the soil and bioaccumulate in plants. The AELB has since
instructed Lynas to cease all R&D activities related to the use of the WLP residue as Condisoil
for use in agriculture in 2019. (See Appendix A6: LPTA License 2019-2020 and Appendix
A.10: LPTA License 2020-2023 Additional conditions no. 38). Any continuation of research
or plan to commercialize Condisoil is a potential violation of the license condition issued by
AELB.

14. Concerns over the competency of Gading Senggara to manage one of the largest
Permanent Disposal Facility in the world
According to Table 5.1 in Chapter 5, Lynas accumulated 668,793 cubic meters of WLP residue
at LAMP from Jan 2013 to Oct 2021. The amount is expected to increase by 32% to 907,537
cubic meters (1,306,852 tonnes) in 2023. Instead of controlling the amount of WLP residue
generated by limiting the amount of Lanthanide Concentrate (LC) imported, AELB increased
the LC import quota to 110,000 from 95,000 tonnes per year in 2019 to allow Lynas to increase
production (as shown in the AELB License 2019 and 2020-2024 in the Appendices).
The design capacity of the PDF is 1,100,000 cubic meters. This volume will make the PDF the
largest surface radioactive waste disposal facility in the world. Currently, the largest facility is
in France. The Andra CIRES disposal facility has an authorised disposal capacity of 650,000
cubic meters (2003-2028), with an additional capacity of up to a total of 900,000 cubic meters
in the longer term (2029-2040).10
It took Andra (French National Agency for Radioactive Waste Management), a state-owned
undertaking of industrial and commercial nature, many years of planning and decades of
experience in managing the facility before growing to a 900,000 cubic meters capacity. GSSB
on the other hand has no track record in managing radioactive waste and the project is
developed in haste.
Based on a check on the DOE’s list of licensed scheduled waste facility/transporter as of
October 31 2021, GSSB’s name does not seem to appear on the list. This has raised concerns
on whether GSSB has any experience in collecting, treating, and disposing of solid and
hazardous waste material, more so for radioactive waste.
The EIA should also make clear on the handover details from GSSB to the state government
and whether or not the handover will happen immediately after the project completion in year

10
ANDRA, 2020, https://international.andra.fr/increase-authorized-very-low-level-waste-disposal-capacity-
cires-project-2022

13
SAHABAT ALAM MALAYSIA & CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF PENANG

2026. Who will be managing the site once it is handed over to the State Government and who
will be paying for the maintenance of the site? These questions should be addressed in the EIA.

15. The need for the EIA to provide more information on the decommissioning, post
closure and/or abandonment plan
According to the EIA Guidelines for Radioactive Materials and Radioactive Wastes 2018, the
EIA should provide an abandonment/decommissioning plan framework and the environmental
monitoring and audit programmes for post-abandonment activity. This is critical considering
that the proposed project is a PDF for WLP, with the presence of naturally occurring thorium
(half-lives for Th-232 is 14 billion years).
For post closure, we note that the consultant has proposed that “The HDPE layer is generally
guaranteed for about 25 years; if it is damaged due to age or institution, the spot should be
dug up and repaired.” (Chapter 8, page 8-42) (Emphasis added)
Given that there is no such precedence of a similar process before in Malaysia and the nature
of the proposed project, it is critical for the EIA to discuss the post closure phase in detail and
to what extent the precautionary approach will be observed. This information is critical for
decision-makers and stakeholders to understand the long-term post-closure care, detection
monitoring and especially on who will be held responsible should any spillage or leakage
happen. This is another inadequacy of the current EIA under consideration.

14
SAHABAT ALAM MALAYSIA & CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF PENANG

APPENDIX 1:

PDF
Lynas

Figure 1: Map of Gebeng and MCKIP (Source: MCKIP website, https://www.mckip.com.my/ and credit to Feini Tuang)

PDF project site

MCKIP 3

MCKIP 3

Figure 2: Arial View of MCKIP 3 (Source: https://www.ecerdc.com.my/investment-opportunity/ecer-an-ideal-investment-

destination/thematic-industrial-parks/malaysia-china-kuantan-industrial-park-mckip-3/ and credit to Feini Tuang)

15