Stating that “lives are at risk,” the Alliance For Change (AFC) is calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reconsider its decision to not require an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the storage of radioactive sources to be used in the oil & gas industry.
The AFC in a press release on Monday opined that the handling of such hazardous material would have been best suited on the numerous uninhabited islands in the Essequibo River, as opposed to the earmarked Coverden, East Bank Demerara (EBD) location.
Describing it as “a failure on the part of the EPA and government to inform the nation of procedures for the disposal of radioactive waste,” the AFC noted that it has been close to a year and the EPA continues to fail in its duty to inform citizens of the locations of the treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities in their neighbourhoods for the handling of highly toxic, hazardous, and radioactive waste and material generated by oil companies.
“Nothing has changed and the EPA continues to fail in its duty to the people of this country” the AFC asserted.
It was pointed out that the Coverden, EBD facility is a mere 100 feet away from the East Bank Public Road, 0.32 kilometres from the Demerara River and that the compound also houses bonds for other oil and gas companies, prompting the observation: “This is a clear indication that numerous persons could likely be exposed.”
The political party highlighted that in the face of the EPA’s claims that radiation exposure is not significant and that adequate mitigation measures will be implemented, “Guyanese will well remember the OMAI cyanide spill that was never supposed to happen, but did!”
According to the AFC, the EPA contends that the primary risk of the project is radiation exposure and that “persons at risk to radiation exposure include radiation workers and other employees working nearby.”
The AFC says, however, that while the agency responsible for environmental protection claims that radiation exposure is not significant and that adequate mitigation measures will be implemented and documented in the Radiation Safety Manual, those documents are not available to the public.
Further, the EPA had also stated that the operator will have an emergency response plan and a traffic management plan, but again, neither of those are available to the public.
“Residents and persons who traverse the East Bank Demerara Public Road know well the frustrations of that corridor. Will the movement of hazardous material compound and escalate these frustrations? What happens if there is an accident involving a vehicle transporting radioactive material of equipment?” the AFC asked, while noting that “Citizens deserve and are entitled to answers.
According to the AFC, “one would have thought that with the numerous uninhabited islands in the Essequibo River,” one of those locations would have been best suited for any facility dealing with radioactive material and other hazardous waste.
The political party in its release said that this development requires “absolute care and consideration for the environment and the well-being of citizens by the EPA and as may be necessary, considerable investment from the operator.”
“The AFC recognizes that neither the EPA nor the Government will provide answers unless residents of the East Bank Demerara and other citizens demand answers. Lives are at risk,” it added.
The company exempted from an EIA by the EPA is hazardous chemicals transporter Source One Oil and Gas Marine Supplier Inc, which transports hazardous and flammable chemicals for contractors to ExxonMobil’s offshore operations here as well as provides services to Baker Hughes and Halliburton facilities located at Coverden.
This newspaper had previously reported that in its screening report, the EPA stated that the overall significance of environmental impacts is considered to be medium and manageable from a technical, social, and financial point of view.
“Therefore, this existing project is exempt from the conduct of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), as set out in section 11(2) of the Environmen-tal Protection Act, Cap. 20:05, Laws of Guyana,” its screening results stated.
Further, the EPA maintained that if any environmental impact was to occur, the magnitude may be moderate to major as a result of the nature of the chemicals and risk to fauna and water quality. However, the impact is not expected to be continuous, and is predicted to be short term, localised, and with a functional recovery in short duration
Although the EPA took the decision to waive the EIA, it recommended a menu of protective measures to be in place at all times. These include a) the company should ensure that only one type of chemical is transported at any given time; b) chemicals must be transported in containers appropriate for the chemicals (e.g flammable chemicals must be in ISO steel containers); c) severely toxic and highly flammable chemicals are to be transported only during nonpeak hours (10:00 pm-4:00 am) and accompanied by the Guyana Fire Service and Guyana Police Force escort when necessary; d) the carrying capacity of trucks transporting chemicals must not exceed its stipulated amount; e) transportation vessels must be outfitted with spill kits and drivers trained in HAZMAT (hazardous materials) response and communication; and e) the company must have an established Emergency Response Plan (ERP) to address any spills.
