A Coverden resident has lodged a new appeal over a decision of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to once again waive the requirement for an impact assessment for the storage of radioactive equipment by Trinidadian based Non Destructive Testers Limited (NDTL) Guyana in the community.
NDTL had applied to the EPA for environmental authorization to operate and store Industrial X-Ray and Gamma Ray Equipment at Coverden, East Bank Demerara last year.
In June, 2021, the EPA made its first announcement that the proposed operation would not require an impact assessment. Instead, it said NDTL would have to prepare an Environmental Management Plan (EMP).
Coverden residents had then appealed against the agency’s decision and public hearings were held by the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) to listen to concerns of the people and determine whether the EPA erred in its decision to forego an impact assessment.
Last month it was explained by Khemraj Parsram, Executive Director of the EPA, that NDTL had withdrawn their initial application and submitted a new one, which the agency screened. It was based on the new application that the agency again determined that an impact assessment will not be needed but an EMP will be requested and appropriate safeguards put in place if an environmental permit is issued.
The source storage facility will be located at 1-2 Coverden, East Bank Demerara. In its environmental screening report, the agency said that the primary risk of the project is radiation exposure. Those at risk include radiation workers, and other employees working nearby.
In the appeal to the EPA’s decision, which was submitted yesterday to the EAB and seen by this newspaper, resident Penelope Howell raises several key questions pertaining to the operations in her community. She questioned the explanations given in the project summary and asked “if you think that in any good and judgement that is humanitarianly safe, to add further environmental hazards to an already environmentally sensitive neighbourhood…”
Howell questioned the rationale behind the selection of the location as she pointed out that the site will be closely located to the Cheddi Jagan International Airport and the Demerara River. She also highlighted that the community access road is connected to the Linden Soesdyke Highway.
“With all of the available lands in Guyana why is there a proposal in or near a densely populated residential area?” she asked.
“We would like to find out exactly how you concluded that: – ‘The Industrial Radiography Equipment will be securely stored away from the public in a well-designed structure and shielding located more than 200m away from the nearest resident.”
She went on to state that “We are not comfortable in your assurance that: – ‘Only suitably trained and qualified personnel will be allowed access to and use of the equipment.’ Thus we are very unsettled by your assertion that: ‘… The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has screened the following applications and determined that the proposed projects will not significantly affect the environment and are therefore exempt from the requirement for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs).”
In her questioning of the decision, she asked what measures will be in place should there be an accident and what are the limits on liability for negligent damage to the environment and residents.
She also asked if there is any requirement for an effective and valid insurance policy in place to benefit residents and surrounding zones.
“…What safety and evacuation measures do you have in place in case of an emergency? What immediate communication mechanisms are in place to immediately inform residents about an immediate evacuation? Please list some benefits to the residents for having this project in Coverden?: she questioned.
Additionally, she pointed out that the community is prone to flooding during spring tides and as a result Howell asked about the mitigating measures in place for the facility to reduce possibility of leakage or water contamination. In her questioning, she also asked about the monitoring mechanism in place by the EPA and “Who/which are the environmental experts/bodies that have been consulted regarding the feasibility of such a location?”
In the EPA’s waiver of the EIA it was stated that “Radiation exposure is not significant since adequate mitigation measures will be implemented to protect employees and the public. These mitigation measures were clearly documented in the Radiation Safety Manual that was submitted along with the application and Project Summary as required by the EPA,” while the agency noted that NDTL will have an emergency response plan, a traffic management plan and a Radiation Safety Officer.
It was also determined that environmental impacts will not be significant as there are no direct discharge or releases to air, soil or water from the operation while no risk to flora or fauna is foreseen. In addition, the report states that while the Demerara River is approximately 0.32 kilometers away from the source storage facility, the operation will not release any effluent in this waterway.
“The potential impact of radiation exposure was thoroughly assessed and the proposed safety and security risk and measures along with monitoring and emergency response procedures were deemed adequate and in keeping with international standards and best practices,” said the screening report.
The AFC earlier this week has exhorted the EPA to reconsider the NDTL assessment waiver, stating that “lives are at risk”. In a press release the party expressed the view that material of this kind would have been best sited on the numerous uninhabited islands in the Essequibo River, rather than at Coverden which is only 100 feet away from the East Bank Public Road and 0.32 km from the Demerara River. As for the reassurance given by the agency that the radiation exposure is not significant, the AFC reminded it that the Omai cyanide spill was not supposed to happen, “but it did!”
The party also pointed to the fact that while the agency claimed adequate mitigation measures were documented in the Radiation Safety Manual, this was not available to the public. Similarly in the case of the emergency response plan and traffic management plan, which were also not available. It added that those who traversed the East Bank Road were well acquainted with its frustrations, and queried whether the movement of hazardous material would not make that worse. Significantly it went on to ask, “What happens if there is an accident involving a vehicle transporting radioactive material …?”
A 30-day period is allowed for appeals against the EPA’s decision, and this started on February 20th. If no objections are raised during that time then the permit will be issued
