Dr M may not have changed his opinion but neither has Yeo and...

Dr M may not have changed his opinion but neither has Yeo and unfortunately it’s the ministers decision that stands ATM. Only recourse for Lynas is to appeal through the judicial system as the ministers decision is final with no ability to appeal through the executive branch. Similar to the TOL debacle when the anti Lynas folks appealed the AELB decision to issue Lynas a TOL, the ministers decision on the matter was final. Anti Lynas folks then took the matter to court but lost because their argument had no legal basis. 

I believe Lynas has a strong legal case against Yeo who has simply based her decision on biased opinion. The letter of undertaking has no legal basis and Lynas has regulatory approval to increase storage limit of residues on site. Yeo cant simply change previously granted regulatory approvals without adequate reason which would be non compliance. Risk of natural disasters and floods would have already been taken into consideration when AELB & DOE granted regulatory approval to increase residue storage limit on site so that excuse would not be valid either IMO.

I this instance I believe the Minister has no legal basis to make Lynas return the WLP reside to source.