The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has instructed Guyana Water Inc (GWI) to desist from using the chemical Polyhexanide, known as Antinfek, for water purification until its safety can be confirmed by an external agency.
The directive came even as new information indicates that GWI has definitely been using the chemical in some areas, despite its claim that its use has been restricted to testing.
Nevertheless, Public Health Minister Dr. George Norton yesterday said that he was comfortable with the explanation provided by the corporation and that the populace is not at any risk.
In a letter, dated October 17, 2016 and addressed to Chief Executive Officer of the corporation Dr. Richard Van West-Charles and copied to Minister of Communities Ronald Bulkan and outgoing GWI Board Chairman Nigel Hinds, Secretary to the PUC Vidiahar Persaud said the commission has noted reports in the media that “GWI is using Polyhexanide in the water treatment which may pose a risk to consumers.”
“If the reports are true the Commission instructs that you immediately cease the use of the chemical until a full and comprehensive review by an external agency confirms that it is compatible with existing safety standards,” the letter, which has been seen by Stabroek News, said.
GWI, in a statement on Monday evening, denied reports that it had replaced chlorine with Antinfek to treat water, while stating that the chemical was only being researched by the utility.
Being dosed to treat water
However, documentation from GWI meetings, seen by this newspaper, indicates that the chemical is being used in wells at Bartica, Diamond and Hillfoot, Linden-Soesdyke Highway and that $3.6 million has already been paid to the local subsidiary of the Thailand-based company, Dove Biotech, which was selected in a single source process to supply the chemical.
At an April 11 meeting, it was indicated that an Antinfek 10H chemical order was expected the next day and Van West-Charles suggested that a guideline for chemical dosing in hinterland and riverain communities be prepared. At another meeting, dated June 7, it was stated that the “two dosing pumps” to monitor the chemical were procured for Hill Foot and Mabaruma.
At a July 6 meeting, it was stated that three of the five wells in Region Nine-Tabatinga, Bon Success and Kanuku-were contaminated with fecal and total coliforms and that since the network was interconnected the entire network is affected. It was at that meeting the Director of Operations recommended that a “small amount of the Antinfek chemical can be used to shock chlorinate the wells.”
On July 11, the Director of Operations reported at a meeting that the Diamond Well was functioning fine and that the well “is being dosed with Antinfek 10H chemical to treat the water.” However, on August 11 the same official said that he had ceased using the chemical to treat the water at Diamond since he was informed by the Water Quality Manager Donna Canterbury that the corporation’s laboratory could not test Antinfek when it is being used.
At this stage, the corporation was aware that the chemical’s safety for human use was questionable and that its own equipment to monitor the residuals was obsolete.
Yesterday Stabroek News reached out to Van West-Charles through the corporation’s public relations office for a response to the above information but none was forthcoming.
The GWI statement on Monday was issued following reports that it was using the controversial chemical to treat water. Norton had said his ministry would have asked the utility for an explanation, following email correspondence between Director of the Government Analyst-Food and Drug Department Marlan Cole, GWI Chemical Engineer Deon Anderson and representatives of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), which questioned the proposed use of the chemical. From all that was said in the emails, it was clear that there are several questions as it relates to the safety of the chemical should it be used by humans.
‘No reason to worry’
Meanwhile, Norton told Stabroek News yesterday that his ministry contacted the office of Van West-Charles and was assured that there “was no reason to worry.” He said it was explained that in keeping with recent developments, the corporation is working to find out the advantages and disadvantages of switching to Antinfek as a water purifier for the nation’s potable water. “I am satisfied [with the explanation],” Norton said, while adding that whatever is being done has not gone beyond testing.
He pointed out that it is a fact that chlorine might not have the long lasting purification effect and in keeping with the government’s aim to provide better service to the nation, the corporation will “have to look elsewhere.”
“I have no reason to doubt the integrity of those at the water corporation,” Norton maintained, when told that this newspaper has seen documentation that the chemical is in use in at least three wells in Guyana.
Meanwhile, while not naming Cole, Norton yesterday said that his Chief Medical Officer Dr. Shamdeo Persaud had not given permission to any official that falls under his direct purview to make a public statement on the issue. Stabroek News was also told that in the wake of the controversy-and this was hinted by Norton-there has been communication between the Ministry and Cole’s office regarding the protocols for the latter’s exchange with external agencies.
On Sunday, Cole had said he was disturbed when he read in the Guyana Times that GWI had stopped using chlorine to treat water and was instead using Antinfek. “They didn’t even say let us do a pilot…over the years we used chlorine and that has been effective. I don’t know who ordered this and under what basis but this is very disturbing and I will have to get to the bottom of it… This is serious. We all use this water and we don’t know what it is being treated with?” he questioned.
This newspaper understands that Cole has been in communication with GWI with a view to clarifying exactly what chemical is being used for purification but it is unclear whether he has received a response.
Yesterday, Cole declined to comment on the issue to this newspaper.
GWI’s statement on Monday said that Cole’s statements “were inaccurate and irresponsible as a senior government functionary. Instead of contacting GWI to gain clarity on the thinking behind the use of Antinfek and whether or not chlorine was still being used, Mr Cole added to an unnecessary cause for public alarm.”
Claiming that Antinfek is not harmful for human consumption, GWI maintained that chlorine is being used as the sole disinfecting agent in all treatment plants, while “laboratory studies are being done on the use of other treatment alternatives.”
Before Anderson had reached out to Cole and the international experts, Canterbury had already expressed concerns about Antinfek and recommended that it not be used. Her recommendation was in keeping with the same one she made in 2012, when the company had approached GWI.
According to documentation seen by this newspaper, while Canterbury would have conducted tests on the chemical in 2012 which proved positive, she did not recommend its use as the supplier could not have provided her with the side effects of the Antinfek 10H. At the time GWI did not have the equipment to test for the chemical and confirm the correct dosage and PAHO could not have confirmed that the chemical should be used in water.
