Houston residents were yesterday told that Schlumberger Guyana Inc cannot go back in time to conduct an impact survey for its storage and calibration facility with radioactive sources as the process for an Environmental Assessment and Management Plan (EAMP) has now gotten underway.
“Unfortunately, we cannot go back in time to conduct an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) …,” said a representative of IMEX Environmental Service, the consultant hired to conduct the process for Schlumberger. The statement came in response to residents’ demands for an EIA.
Schlumberger, one of ExxonMobil’s major sub-contractors has constructed a source storage and calibration facility at Lot 1 Area X Houston. In a notice to the public in April, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had announced that it had screened the project and assessed the potential environmental impacts, and it was determined that the project would not significantly affect the environment or human health and was therefore exempt from the requirement for an EIA.
While the notice did not state that an EAMP would be required, Schlumberger started the process yesterday – after the construction of the facility – much to the consternation of the residents of Houston, East Bank Demerara who told the company that they only heard that it would be conducted a few days prior, leaving many concerned residents unable to attend.
Houston residents are also in court with Schlumberger in relation to the same project where similar concerns are being raised.
At the public scoping meeting yesterday, Vanda Radzik, told consultants IMEX and representatives of Schlumberger, that the EAMP has begun as a very flawed process as they have failed to do proper advertising that they would be conducting an EAMP. Even the EPA’s advertisement of the project in April, she says, did not mention that radioactive sources will be at the facility.
Noting that Schlumberger stated that this is phase three of their operations, Radzik, pointed out that residents were not even consulted about a Phase one which is well underway if a Phase three is beginning.
“So, everything going on at Schlumberger is unlawful and illegal…. At no point has there been any consultations,” Radzik declared.
She called for an EIA to be done, noting that facilities like that of Schlumberger’s are not permitted to be near residential areas or water sources – two factors that seem not to matter to the EPA as they are in proximity to the facility.
In response, a representative of Schlumberger argued that their operations are not illegal and that they have all the necessary approvals and permits. He noted that conducting an EAMP will require feedback from the public and while the facility is already there, the hearings will ensure that Schlumberger is operating in a sustainable manner.
“I understand that this engagement [is being} done later that it should’ve been, but it is something we have to have to do,” he said.
He noted that for these types of projects an EIA is rarely required.
However, Danuta Radzik said that an EAMP cannot replace the need for an impact assessment.
“We know the facility has been constructed, and you have the permit to operate but doing this now doesn’t make sense …all of this should have been done before,” she said.
She added, “An Environment Assessment & Management Plan in process cannot replace the need for an EIA. It cannot cure the …failure to conduct a Cumulative and Comprehensive Environmental Impact assessment before authorizing the SGI project. This is putting the horse before the cart to use that fitting example from environmentalist Simone Mangal-Joly.”
Danuta noted that such a facility poses health, environmental and economic risks to not only residents of Houston but those of surrounding communities as well.
Close proximity
“The construction and operation of Schlumberger Guyana Inc.’s facility in such close proximity to residential areas, schools, churches, mandirs and masjids, wells, constitute a gross deviation from zoning principles and poses significant social and environmental threats to our communities. An industrial development involving hazardous and radioactive sources and substances would greatly affect the quality of residents’ property, increase risks of pollution and risks to health and devalue the value of land and homes,” she stated.
According to Danuta, residents have asked the Houston Estates Ltd Board Secretary whether there are files of any consultation for an Industrial Re-zoning of the Houston Estate area but there were no records of this.
In addition, she noted Schlumberger was fined for numerous violations of safety protocols with respect to radioactive sources and hazardous substance in several countries beginning since 2001. Even in Guyana, she said, a chemical spill occurred at the Lombard Street wharf of the Guyana National Industrial Company (GNIC), originating from a container that belongs to Schlumberger. The EPA announced it would institute a $1M penalty against Schlumberger.
“The serious threats posed by Schlumberger Guyana Inc.’s Radioactive Storage and Calibration Facility are increased by the presence of other similar facilities at Houston. Schlumberger Guyana Inc.’s facility is bordered by a Liquid Mud Plant, and we are learning about a cement plant for oil and gas. It is well-documented that storing, treating, and disposing of the large quantities of waste produced during oil extraction and production requires a variety of equipment and facilities, all of which can pose risks to the environment, health, and property,” she stated.
She added that there should be a risk assessment of the quantity or the cumulative amounts of the radioactive sources and other hazardous substances to be stored or generated at the facility over the course of the project, which has a life span of 26-30-years as well as a fire hazard and the reactive propensities of the hazardous substances to be stored and handled at the facility and plans of how to combat such hazards, levels of damage control and compensation
She also noted that wastewater will be discharged into the Demerara River as per the Project Summary and questioned whether there will be any monitoring of this to ensure the receiving water is of a quality which will pose no risk to residents, children, and soil when flooding takes places in these areas.
She also asked if a baseline study of the water in the Demerara River was done to see if it is being further polluted.
Danuta noted that these are all grounds for an EIA.
