tan bun teet at it again, page-5

For anyone interested,
My email chain between ANAWA (Marcus), Nict T and myself earlier this year.




From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2012 2:19 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Lynas issues

Hi,

I have been a Green party voter for some 20+ years and marched in many rallies across Australia, especially the Anti-Nuclear and Anti-Logging ones.

With that in mind I am a big believer in non-nuclear power and non-fossil fuel future.

I have to ask, what on earth is ANAWA and the Greens doing lobbying against the lynas company ? (Yes I am e-mailng them as well)
Did you do much research before going down this path ?

There is no chance that we can move to a greener future without rare earth materials, and the current Chinese sources result in massive enviromental damage due to their old technology.
If we want Solar panels, Electric Cars, etc etc we must dig up, and process rare earths.. full stop.

The new LAMP is cutting edge technology with high standards that are overseen nationally and internationally by buth nuclear and environmental bodies.

I know that there have been many claims, but having done the research into the matter before deciding my stance I am amazed that people are protesting this, let alone on a Nuclear standpoint.

The level of radiation is less that table salt !
The Opposition (not Government) MP who is also a Physicist was gagged until recently and then finally came out and publicaly stated that he did not agree with the claims the radiation was at dangerous levels and that the Lynas LAMP was safe.

Honestly, where did you get your information ?

Please take time to read both sides of what has become an emotional debate.

http://unmsia.com/2012/03/stop-lynas-save-malaysia/

I am just one voter, but I like to think I am a reasonable person within the wider community who takes the time to Think and Act green.
My support for any party and organization relies on them doing the same thing.

Regards,
XXXXXXXXXXXX
---------------
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM, ANAWA wrote:
Hi XXXXXXXXXXXX

Thanks you for your email regarding our (ANAWA) stance on Lynas and their rare earth mine.

I can not speak on behalf of the Greens, but as far as we here at ANAWA, we are not trying to stop the Rare Earth mine at Mt Weld and we are aware of what the rare earths are used for.

We do, however, feel that although we need these materials to advance aspects of the renewable energy industry, this is not an excuse to become lax on some of the mining and processing issues that arise from this industry.

We (ANAWA) have written to the EPA to look at the environmental impacts of the mine, as the Lynas operation has changed considerably since the approvals were first given in 1992. Originally Lynas was meant to process the rare earth here in W.A and there was a system in place of water evaporation at the processing plant at Meenar that has been recognised as worlds best practice due to past contamination at plants in the USA & China.

The LAMP plant does not have this system in place and will process the waste water and pump it in to the river around the wet lands.

Also the IAEA has raised concerns regarding the long term storage of waste at the LAMP plant.

Lynas has no long term storage plan for the waste at the LAMP plant in Malaysia, as their original plan was that the waste after processing here in W.A, and after the water evaporation process was complete that the waste would be placed back in to the mine, covered and regenerated.

This is one of the major concerns facing the long term project in Malaysia as the plant will generate 106 tonnes of radioactive Thorium and 5.6 tonnes of uranium every year.

We are also aware that Thorium is Alpha emitting and can be contained, but without the water evaporation system and long term plans for storage this does raise concerns about Thorium entering the water supply and food chain in the long term. Although Alpha emitting particles can not penetrate the skin they can become dangerous if ingested.

These are some of our concerns regarding the Malaysian side of things, but our referral to the EPA is more based on the W.A side of the operation.

Since the changes by Lyans in location for processing this will now mean 40 road trains per week for over a decade transporting the rare earth concentrate from Mt Weld to Fremantle for Export to Malaysia for processing. Because this concentrate contains only 8bq/g it does not have to be labelled as radioactive material. (it is actually just over 60bq/g but because of an exemption of the parent isotope of thorium & uranium the on paper calculation becomes 8bq/g!! anything over 10bq/g needs to be labelled as radioactive material in W.A)

This is a concern to us, because it will not be labelled as radioactive material, any spillage of material either at the ports or during transportation will not be treated with the care that we think this material deserves. Over the 15 years that this will be transported it could led to a build up of thorium around the docks and possibly on the transport route if any accidents causing spillage were to happen. Although these levels are low, workers have the rights to know what it is that they are handling and should have the appropriate training if an accident was to happen.

Sorry for the long email, but I want to try an explain our position on this issue..

I hope that I have made it clear that we are not working to stop the production of rare earths, but rather that we are trying to hold the companies involved to worlds best practice and that we are committed to not ignoring some legitimate concerns because the product will be used to further the renewable energy sector that we are 100% supportive of.


In peace and solidarity,

Marcus Atkinson
Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia



________________________________________________________________________


-----Original Message-----


===================
Hi Marcus,

I have found the answer to my question by asking the person who wrote the WA guidelines directly.

There are two ways to calculate the activity of the material:
a) the old method when you determine how much thorium and uranium is there, and then multiply the number for thorium by 10 and for uranium - by 14 (the number of radionuclides in each respective decay chain) - that you get 'total activity concentration'. This stuff is not supposed to be used anywhere since about 1997, but it may have been used in some calculations in Malaysia, as their transport regs are still dated '1989'... this method results in concentrate being ~61 Bq/g
b) the new method, since 1996-1997 - you just determine the 'parent' isotopes (thorium and uranium) and sum them up. This method results in concentrate being 6 Bq/g

I can now see where you got your figure of < 60Bq/g.

The methodology of calculating has changed.

If there is good reason to change the methodology back to the previous method I would be interested to hear it.

Regards,
XXXXXXXXXXXX
Hi XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX..

Attached is some of the calculations if you are interested..

I am aware of the IAEA's calculation standards (re NORM) but there is also some restrictions around when they can be used.

If the Thorium or Uranium is to be extracted from the ore for commercial use then this form of calculations can not always be applied...

The requirements for the exemption to the parent isotope are not so straight forward... and we are looking into whether Lynas can use this exemption..

As far as any court action goes we are still waiting to hear from the EPA on our referral and will look at options when we have their decision.

In peace and solidarity,
Marcus Atkinson

Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia

===================================

Nick T's response to ANAWA's (Marcus) email to me.


Dear Marcus,
Thank you - I see now where they've made an error:
When the stuff is in equilibrium U-234 is accounted for as a part of U-238 chain - it should not be counted 'in'.
Otherwise it's pretty much OK.
Also - if it would be useful, please send Marcus the link:
http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/6745.aspx
NORM-4.3 is for transport. It does have some inadequacies here and there (I have to fix them soon) but generally OK.
NORM-4.2 has an appendix on blending of NORM for re-use, if anyone is interested as well.
What would be a good idea, I think:
Can you mention my name and email address to them, please? If they will formulate the questions in general terms (not like 'Lynas is going to...') - about transport etc. Say, referring to my report to ARPANSA on NORM transport: http://www.arpansa.gov.au/Publications/codes/rps2.cfm and inquire about 'NORM in general'. Would be perfectly fine I reckon.
Then there will not be a major embarrassment, as it was the case with 'national toxics network' document.
Not like he will give me a reference, but I consider our Robin Chapple a good acquaintance - they can ask him of what he thinks.
Basically, I do not work for uranium industry and if they'll want me to look over any of their future docs, it may be useful as well. But the main point is that they do need someone to tell them if they're right or not, before they make all 'green movement' look stupid, as NTN did...
Please let me know what you think.
cheers, nick


===============================