The EPA on Saturday said that it respects the outcome of the recent case of Radzik and others -v- the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Schlumberger Guyana Inc (SGI) over a facility to store radioactive substances.
In a statement on Saturday, the EPA noted that the Supreme Court of Judicature of Guyana, on December 16, 2022 issued several administrative orders, which dealt with the issue of the EPA not publishing reasons/adequate reasons for a decision in relation to not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the construction and operation of a source storage/calibration building in accordance with Sec.11(2) of the Environmental Protection Act, Cap.20:05, Laws of Guyana.
“The EPA wishes to make it clear that the judgment was not against the Agency’s decision to waive the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), but rather our failure to publish in our statutory notice reasons/adequate reasons for the decision not requiring an EIA”, the statement said.
It noted that Justice Nareshwar Harnanan in his judgment stated: “That the EPA’s decision to waive the requirement of an Environmental Impact Assessment with respect to SGI’s application for environmental authorization for the construction of the said facility is in breach of the EPA’s statutory duty for failure to provide reasons for the waiver as mandated under section 11(2) of the Environmental Protection Act, Cap.20:05.”
The EPA said that notably, Justice Harnanan, further stipulated in para. 56 of his judgment that “[t]he EPA by section 11(2) is mandated to determine whether the project requires an EIA or not”, as the regulatory body.
“The EPA acknowledges its error in this instance, and will adhere to the Honourable Court’s judgment”, the statement said.
The action was brought against the EPA by residents—Danuta Radzik, Vanda Radzik and Raphael Singh.
Schlumberger, one of ExxonMobil’s major subcontractors, has constructed a source storage and calibration building facility Area X Houston, EBD and this was objected to by the Radziks and others.
During arguments, the EPA said that permission was given for the construction of the facility and not for the operation of a radioactive substances and materials storage and calibration facility.
However, the High Court Judge ruled the operation and construction must not be viewed separately. In the court’s view, he said the EPA cannot treat the operations independent of the construction permit when it is a condition precedent to the functionality of the facility.
“The court is of the view that it could not have been the intention of the party to treat the operation as distinct from construction for the purpose of licensing since operations can only commence after construction,” he said.
Justice Harnanan ruled further that the EPA body further breached its mandate as outlined in the EPA act when it took the decision to waive the EIA requirements. He stated that they failed to do so by failing to provide reasons behind the decision for a waiver.
In this regard, he also quashed the EPA’s decision of the January 2020 award of an environmental authorisation.
The Radziks and Singh, via court filings, had said that they live near the radioactive facility, which is also in proximity to schools and places of worship. They contended that the EPA’s decision was made without any consultation with residents.
