Amid sharp criticisms of its handling of the approval process for ExxonMobil’s fourth well development, the EPA yesterday said it complied with the law and had conducted public consultations above and beyond what was expected.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last week approved the environmental permit for the Yellowtail well and this was followed two days later by the government approving the production licence. ExxonMobil itself yesterday announced that it had made the final investment decision in favour of the project.
Environmentalists and critics have contended that the EPA did not publish the revised Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prior to its final decision on the permit. The revised EIA was only published after the permit was approved. The environmentalists have argued that given the reservations that were entered during public hearings over the EIA done by consulting firm, ERM they should have been able to inspect the revised EIA to determine whether their concerns had been taken account of.
During the public consultations, environmentalists and other stakeholders had raised a raft of concerns about risk to flora and fauna from drilling, pollution and waste control and potential dangers to the waters of other Caribbean countries from a potential oil spill. The revised EIA released by the EPA did not detail what changes were made by ERM and the significance of these.
In a statement yesterday, the EPA said it had noted “glaring misconceptions, inaccurate and erroneous statements/ Commentary” from members of the public and the media on the EPA, and the EIA process that led to the granting of the permit for Yellowtail.
The EPA contended that the EIA process is clearly set out in section 11 of the Environmental Protection Act Cap 20:05, and that this will reveal that the EPA complied with the law, contrary to the erroneous statements and commentary.
The EPA also addressed the contention that it did not disclose the Terms and Scope for the EIA study at any point of the 60-day period which had been set aside for public scrutiny and comment.
“The EPA is not required to publish the Terms and Scope. The EP Act mandates that the EPA, following public scoping, `set the Terms and Scope of the environmental impact assessment’ taking into account any public submissions during the twenty-eight days (28) notice that an EIA is required, and the public can make written submissions setting out those questions and matters they required answered or considered in the EIA. The EPA develops the Terms and Scope in consultation with the project developer’s EIA consultant/contractor according to the EP Act, Section 11(7) and (8). Therefore, it’s at the discretion of the EPA to publish the Terms and Scope. What is important is that Section 11 (4) and (5) already sets out what every EIA must contain and consider”, the EPA argued.
The EPA had also been accused of not following procedures under the EPA Act for shortlisting eligible consultants to conduct EIAs and not engaging recognised international environmental groups in screening ERM.
In response to this, the EPA said it is currently developing a “fair and robust system” for compiling this list of approved persons with appropriate qualifications and experience to conduct EIAs. In the interim, it said that it approves consultants on a case by case basis, informed by their respective qualifications and experience in conducting EIAs similar to the type of project in question. The repeated use of ERM has been raised by some environmentalists as problematic.
“The EPA is not required to therefore screen the proposed consultant(s) with assistance for international environmental groups before approving them on a case-by-case basis. Compilation of the list as mentioned in Section 3 (a) of the EP Act is a separate function, and not directly material to a case-by-case approval. Many of the consultants approved are members of international Professional Environmental Impact Assessment Associations, which lends credibility regarding their qualifications and experience to conduct EIAs. Further, the team of approved consultants in this case covered several areas of expertise and were both international and local consultants with requisite qualifications and experience”, the EPA said.
The EPA also said that it undertook public consultations above and beyond what was required by the law.
“The EPA went above and beyond at its discretion, to ensure public participation, by hosting several public meetings virtually and in person in Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 during the months of July and Au-gust 2021. The public submissions were considered in preparing the final Terms and Scope for the conduct of the EIA.
“When the EIA/EIS were submitted to the EPA on October 15, 2021, the project proponent published a notice confirming same and inviting members of the public to make any submissions as they consider appropriate. Again, the EPA went above and beyond what was required and hosted public meetings both virtually and in person in Regions 1,2,3,4,5 and 6, during the period October and November 2021, where the consultants presented the EIA and the EPA garnered direct feedback. Again, ensuring public participation”, it asserted.
Further, in approving the project and issuing an Environmental Permit, the EPA said it complied with the requirement of the EP Act and considered the submissions received from the public and the finding that the EIA/EIS was acceptable to the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) and recommendations for inclusion in an approval.
“In fact, the EPA secured an independent international expert to support the EPA’s internal review of the EIA. The public comments were provided to and were considered by the international expert”, the EPA stated.
It said that the review period began on January 18, 2022, and concluded on March 25, 2022, with the EAB’s signal of acceptance and recommendations. The EPA said it then granted its approval on March 30, 2022 in the form of the Environmental Permit and the public was notified via a media release and publication of a notice of approval and the grounds on which it was made.
“The EPA fulfills its mandate and carries out its functions in keeping with the EP Act. We provide for and welcome inputs from the public and ensure their participation. The EPA always makes decisions rationally and reasonably”, the statement said.
