Sarawak - Articles Giant waste dump to be created in Sarawak 920 hectares (or 2,208 football fields) will be used to dump bauxite processing waste from alumina refinery project. SARAWAK State Government stands to gain about RM9 billion in tax revenues for about 30-35 years from the proposed alumina refinery project in Similajau in Bintulu Division, Sarawak. The project could potentially provide jobs for 470 local residents at its initial stage and 800 when the plant reaches full production capacity in 10 years. In fact, the EIA report states that a no-project option would deprive Malaysia of many advantages. Given this rosy picture of gain and profit presented by the EIA report, one may not suspect any malignant intent and consequences of the RM8.5 billion refinery project proposed to be undertaken by Northern Aluminium Sdn Bhd, the wholly-owned subsidiary of Comalco Aluminium Ltd of Australia. The Australian alumina refinery plant was supposed to be built in Gladstone, Queensland, Australia, where the raw material bauxite would be supplied from the mine at Weipa in Queensland. As late as June this year, the company was still undecided on the location of the refinery and was still negotiating with suppliers of natural gas in Australia. However that plan has been shelved and Similajau has been picked as the new location. But before we can start to congratulate the Malaysian success in attracting this company to Similajau, we should first consider the reasons behind the company's decision. How much do they stand to gain and will it be to our detriment? One main question would be why the company is overlooking the huge costs of shipping 10 million kilograms of bauxite per year from Queensland to Sarawak. What we do know is that the EIA report is inadequate and possible extensive damage to the environment from the alumina refinery and the immense costs of rehabilitating the damaged areas have not been considered. Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) has put forward a set of comprehensive comments on the EIA report for the proposed alumina refinery, which would produce about 4.2 million kilograms of red mud (bauxite processing wastes) per year and at the end of 35 years, about 147 million kilograms of red mud would remain forever in Bintulu in an impound area the size of 2,208 football fields. This huge area and the large scale of the project have grave long-term implications for the environment and public health and safety. SAM pointed out that a major environmental problem posed by the alumina refinery would be the disposal of tailings, which form alkaline mud. Although the EIA concludes that, "There will be no direct impacts on the local groundwater system near the refinery site and that all areas of potential contamination will be bunded and lined to prevent the seepage of any spillages into ground water," and that "seepage controls will be incorporated into the design of storage facilities to ensure that detrimental environmental impacts do not occur," the report has not adequately dealt with or demanded mitigation measures. Red mud The magnitude of the tailings that would be produced each year, the huge area of impoundment and perpetuity of the waste brings grave doubts about the adequacy of the location for such a project. Mere assurances of safety alone are insufficient. A much more rigorous and thorough risk assessment must be undertaken of the bauxite residue area. Jamaica's experience with the red mud problem is noteworthy in appreciating and evaluating the likely environmental impacts of such a large impoundment area. The industry in Jamaica adopted a new approach in disposing of the tailings by building sealed ponds in which the interior of the ponds were lined with 12-14 inch clay sealant. These ponds, which were 100-200 acres in area (much smaller than the one in the proposed Similajau project) were constructed in highly arable lands and were designed to hold 5-7 years of mud storage. The ponds never dried out after they were full and had to be consequently abandoned. Recent findings obtained from domestic water wells in the vicinity of the alumina refineries have indicated elevated sodium and pH readings, which may have been caused by the escape of caustic soda into the groudwater supply. The sodium in the water has been associated with a higher incidence of hypertension among the people. In addition, although there are effluent treatment technologies to essentially meet "zero" pollutant discharge level, these are impossible in Sarawak because the heavy rainfalls here exceed evaporation. There will certainly be difficulties to contain the mixture of rainfall and red mud in the impoundment area. The proposed location of the refinery may well be a fundamental problem, as compared to locating it in a drier area. Wastewater According to the EIA report, Comalco proposes to discharge wastewater or effluents, which meet the requirements of Class II B of the Interim Water Quality Standards for Malaysia, into the estuary of the Sg. Selungun. If this refinery were to be built in the USA, the company would not be allowed to discharge this wastewater. This is because the US Environmental Protection Authority prohibits any new bauxite refinery from discharging any process wastewater unless incident rainfall in the area of the impoundment exceeds evaporation. Obviously, the US EPA imposes much higher standards than its Malaysian counterpart. For better environmental protection, of course. Given Comalco's experience in this industry, its claims, as contained in the EIA report, of having an environmental track record and of using of state-of-the-art technology to contribute to a high standard of environmental management, there is no excuse for their not applying the highest standards for better environmental protection. Any attempt at doing less would amount to taking advantage of poorer standards in a developing country and weaker environmental laws. In Australia itself, there are other bauxite refineries that operate without discharging wastewater. One such refinery is the Worsley Alumina Refinery located in the upper catchment of the Augustus River. Information obtained from the company's web site indicates the highest standards practised in protecting the environment. Here, water from the refinery site, including rainfall, is all considered to be potentially contaminated and is directed to the refinery catchment lake, which is a sealed dam adjoining the refinery site. Rain that falls on the sealed bauxite residue disposal area and liquor that flows out of the fresh red mud is all contaminated with caustic soda and is collected in the pipe head dam and pumped to the refinery catchment lake. All water control structures have been designed to cope with extreme one in one million storms and variations due to the greenhouse effect on weather patterns. Ground and surface waters are sampled on a regular basis. Given the above, the mitigation measures proposed by Comalco, to discharge wastewater into the Sg Selungun estuary is unacceptable and should not be allowed. Limestone mining According to the EIA report, the proposed refinery would eventually consume 270 million kilograms of lime per year. This large volume of lime would necessitate a large increase in limestone mining in the area. What is alarming is that the EIA report does not discuss the substantial environmental impacts of limestone mining and only refers to them as "indirect" impacts. This is a major omission. Dust and Caustic Soda Two other environmental impacts of great concern are dust and caustic soda contamination. The particularly small size of both raw bauxite and alumina very often affect areas downwind of processing, transporting and ship loading operations. In Jamaica, for instance, it has been observed that a considerable amount of alumina is spilled on the pier and clouds of dust being carried downwind from loading equipment. Although it has been argued that the dust is chemically inert, it does adversely affect the respiratory system, pollute the residential cisterns and deface property. These concerns have not been addressed in the EIA report. Emission of Greenhouses Gases According to the US Department of Energy, CO2 emission, inclusive of emissions from fuel combustion and transportation, from alumina production is 16.1% of 11.7kg CO2/kg of aluminium eventually produced. And although global climate change and its consequences, in particular CO2 emissions have received widespread public and government attention, this aspect does not appear to have been dealt with in the EIA. Potential Oil Spills The number and size of vessels required to import 10 billion kilograms of bauxite per year and to export over 4 billion kilograms of alumina per year will be substantial. Numerous large tankers, each of which would contain large amounts of fuel, would arrive to the port frequently. And accident involving any one of these tankers could release very large quantities of fuel that would cause substantial long-term impacts to the coastal environment surrounding the deepwater port. This is yet another area that has not been covered by the EIA and is therefore, yet another omission. Such an inadequate EIA throws some light on why Comalco has decided to choose the Similajau location over Gladstone, Queensland. Besides being able to get away with low environmental protection standards, the company would also benefit from the reduced labour, energy and material costs in Sarawak. With such high handed power play and environmental disregard on its track record in New Zealand (see box), and harsh worker union treatment in Australia, maybe the Sarawak State Government should not be welcoming this corporation with such open arms. It could stand to lose too much.