critical environmental evaluation lamp, page-3

IMHO, if the claims here are not true, Lynas should take legal action and sue this german researcher.


Main Results: Waste Management
•Release of Lynas‘s wastes from regulatory control and to the public domain has to primarily consider the adverse health consequences: if the radiological dose/risk of such release exceeds internationally accepted protection levels the waste cannot be released and has to be disposed of in any case.
•Our own dose calculation based on Lynas waste data shows:
?The WLP waste with the highest radioactive content would exceed by a factor of more than 1,000 above internationally accepted protection levels for the release of radioactive materials from regulatory control (Beyond Regulatory Concern, BRC level).
?Even if diluted 1:1 with gypsum the WLP waste is 200-fold above those internationally accepted levels!
?Even if diluted 1:100 with gypsum (technically unrealistic) the doses would still exceed BRC level!
?Even the less contaminated wastes FGD and NUF are above that level and require 1:4 & 1:9 mixing respectively before they can be released (assumed that the material properties meet the necessary requirements and their toxic by-product content is below any non-radiological environmental concern).

?Residue Storage Facilities (RSF) constructed with only 1 mm HDPE layer and a single 30 cm clay layer
?Would not be allowed in Germany, not even for the lowest toxic waste categories:
?Minimum thickness 2.5 mm HDPE to ensure resistance against mechanical stress (9 m of waste on top!) and to proof and quality assure that the sheets are welded without voids/leakages
?Minimum two separate clay layers of 25 cm each to ensure material and layer quality
?Environmental consequences:
?Leakage and seepage from the beginning of the storage period on will enter ground and groundwater under the RSFs
?Contamination with unknown seepage water quality because no reliable leaching experiments were made/published/presented to allow for a thorough environmental evaluation
?The poor layout of the RSFs should not have been accepted by the regulating agency