Director Dr Vincent Adams has denied that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to address concerns raised by residents about the proposed Nalco Champion request to operate a chemical warehouse facility at Ruimveldt Industrial Estate.
Adams has, in particular, taken issue with comments by engineer Charles Ceres, whom he says has given the impression that residents wrote the EPA and it never responded. “Mr. Ceres is an engineer and knows that a process must be followed. He is misinterpreting the facts and I am perplexed as to why. We are just going through the legal process,” Adams told Stabroek News.
The international oilfield chemical company has applied to the EPA for authorisation for the operation of a chemical warehousing facility at the John Fernandes Ltd Inland Terminal and the transportation of chemicals from the Inland Terminal to John Fernandes’ Water Street port for transfer to Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessels offshore Guyana.
An EPA notice said the facility at the Inland Terminal site will be engaged in the filtration, storage and warehousing of oilfield chemicals to supply the FPSO vessels that will be offshore of Guyana. The proposed operation estimates that 1,493,000 kg of specialty and commodity chemicals will be imported and stored on-site and will occupy 5,000 square metres, with the intention of extending to 20,000 square metres as oil production increases. The notice added that the proposed development of the operation will also involve the construction of office spaces, installation of a laboratory, storage of mechanical equipment and parts and transportation of chemicals, among other activities.
Residents from nearby communities, such as Houston Gardens, Roxanne Burnham Gardens, Shirley Field Ridley Square, Rasville and D’Aguiar’s Park, have openly objected to such a facility being set up in the city.
Adams noted that before any permit is granted, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has to be conducted and the EPA must respond to every single comment or issue obtained from any member of the public. “We have not even started that process as yet,” he said.
Adams noted that he wanted to clear the air on the issue and make it known that the residents had written to the EPA about the issue sometime last year when he had not yet been appointed and then in June of this year. Adams said that a letter came to the agency with about 12 names and signatures affixed, including Ceres’, but it had no return address or contact information for the listed persons.
Adams said he requested that his staff make contact with Ceres to obtain an address so that the agency could reply formally but they were brushed off by Ceres. “He is giving people the impression they wrote us twice and we never responded. They wrote us a letter last year before I was here and that letter had nothing to do about the EPA but concerned land use. Albeit that I was not here, the EPA doesn’t handle land use,” he said.
“Then a letter came from a group of about 12 residents in June. I was given the letter, prepared my response and then realised there was no address to reply to. I recognised Mr. Ceres’ name because I know him, and so I then asked my officer to call him and ask him for get an address, that I may send my response. The officer returned and you know what he told her when she called? He said that they were not looking for a response and we didn’t need an address. The only address needed was his needing us to address what was said in the letter. How can Mr. Ceres say that when he fully well knows that an EIA is a process with stated procedures that we must comply with?” Adams added.
Ceres told a press conference last Saturday that the residents had sent two letters to the EPA and had not received a response. He said that one of the letters was written after the Nalco notice was published, while the other was written registering complaints about the noise level in the area, prior to them finding out about the proposed chemical warehouse.
He also said that he is hopeful that the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) will be conducted as soon as possible so they can determine whether or not any kind of development should be taking place in Georgetown. “The Environmental Protection Act of 1992 is very clear and it talks about the development of terms and scope for the projects and development of the terms of scope mandates that they must consult with the stakeholders and incorporate the stakeholders themselves. We have already raised this issue and we have documented it to the EPA. The reality is that the EPA process doesn’t get started until there is a list which is prepared by internationally recognised experts to undertake this work. The EPA has never prepared such a list so we regard that the entire process as being flawed to begin with,” he said.
Adams reiterated that there is a process that needs to be adhered to. “Anybody could apply for a permit to set up any kind of development activity but they must apply for a permit. When they apply, there is a checklist of things and we follow that. One part of the process is checking to see if the Central Housing and Planning Authority [CH&PA] and the respective City Council or Neighbourhood Democratic Councils gave that person or company authority to apply for the purpose they are applying. If they have not gotten that required permission, we cannot proceed. That is the first question we ask before we can even proceed: Do you have the zoning authority? We have no control over that. If we see that CH&PA, [and] the city council say no and the zone does not allowed for that project, we don’t even go to the EIA process. That is it. We tell you sorry and can’t move further; we close the file and say no. If they say yes, then we move to the environmental aspects,” Adams explained.
“We carry out what is called an Environmental Impact Assessment and that process calls for us to publish the intended project and issue a call for any concern from the public. It doesn’t matter who and doesn’t matter which part of this country they live, anyone can comment. We are required by law to address all those concerns and issues and that has to be reflected in the records where we make our decision. We are living in a society, a democratic one, where we are to follow the rule of law where we cannot unilaterally say if a developer can or proceed without following the legal process. I would not allow that. We are simply following a process,” he added.
As it pertains to the Nalco Champion Guyana project, Adams said that his agency last Thursday visited the site along with CH&PA and Mayor and City Council of Georgetown officials. “…There are some issues that CH&PA and the council have to work out and provide information to us. That is where we are,” he noted.
