Arguing that their health and community are at significant risk in the event of escaped hazardous radioactive waste, residents of Houston on the East Bank of Demerara are challenging the waiver of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) granted to Schlumberger-Guyana Inc. by the EPA.
Schlumberger, one of ExxonMobil’s major subcontractors, has constructed a source storage and calibration building facility at Lot 1 Area X Houston, EBD.
Residents—Danuta Radzik, Vanda Radzik and Raphael Singh—have filed an action asking the High Court to declare the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) decision waiving the requirement of an EIA as being among other things, unlawful and unreasonable.
The Radziks and Singh (the Applicants) who in court documents said that they live near the radioactive facility which is also in close proximity to schools and places of worship are contending that EPA’s decision was made without any consultation with residents.
Against this background they accuse the Agency of having arbitrarily made the decision in breach of its statutory duty and contrary to natural justice. They say, too, that it was made in the absence of evidence, was unfair; and want the Court to so declare.
They deposed in their fixed date application (FDA) against Schlumberger, the EPA and the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) which are all listed as Respondents, that the waiver granted to Schlumberger back in January was done without notice to the public.
They said there was no inkling that the facility would be used to store radioactive materials or that the request for such a permit was even under consideration.
The Applicants said it was not until April 11th that the EPA issued a public notice via the press that Schlumberger wanted to construct a building to house the radioactive materials and that the construction process would not require an environmental impact assessment.
In the newspaper notice which is an exhibit in the case, the EPA announced that in accordance with Section 11 (2) of the Environmental Protection Act, Schlumberger-Guyana Inc.’s application for an environmental authorization had been “screened” for “potential environmental impacts.”
According to the EPA, following its assessment, it was determined that the project “will not significantly affect the environment or human health,” and that Schlumberger would therefore be exempt from requiring an EIA.
The Applicants have, however, questioned the basis on which the EPA arrived at its conclusion that an EIA would not be required.
Their main contention is that radioactive materials should not be used and/or located in close proximity to schools, neighbourhoods, a main thoroughfare, or the Demerara River; and that an impact assessment was therefore inherently necessary.
Relying on Section 11 of the Environmental Protection Act, the Applicants note that any project that may significantly affect the environment requires an EIA and such an assessment requires publication in the newspapers of the intended project and consultations with the public.
The Applicants said that the EPA at a meeting with them and their attorneys had assured that they would be given an opportunity to speak on the merits and demerits of the facility’s operation.
Subsequent to that meeting, the Applicants sought an Order of Certiorari to quash the permit granted to Schlumberger to construct the facility, and an injunction to prevent any further construction.
The Applicants said that in a responding affidavit, however, the EPA in defence of Schlumberger said that construction of the facility was completed and that it had already permitted Schlumberger’s use and storage of the radioactive substances and that the orders sought by the Applicants should therefore be quashed.
Siand Dhurjon—one of the attorneys representing the Applicants—has said that his clients had been granted an amendment by Justice Nareshwar Harnanan to seek orders targeting the operation of the facility being used for storage of radioactive materials.
Schlumberger, the lawyer said, had advanced in its affidavit that the reason the public did not need a notice that the EPA was considering its application for permit to store radioactive materials, was because the EPA was satisfied that there would be no substantial impact on the environment.
The Applicants are, however, strongly contending that the storage and use of radioactive materials in their community could significantly impact the environment and should be moved to a less populated location.
According to Dhurjon, Justice Harnanan refused his request for interim injunction to prevent the operation of the facility “on the basis that such an order would have completely determined the proceedings at the interim stage.”
He said that in the circumstances, the Judge, however, noted that the matter will be expedited to ensure that it is swiftly dispensed with.
It will be called again on Monday July 25th for arguments.
