After a decision against it by the High Court, Schlumberger Guyana Inc is seeking to restart the process to pave the way for its operations – including radioactive source storage – at Houston on the East Bank of Demerara.
In a notice in yesterday’s Stabroek News, IMEX Inc, which has been conducting consultations on behalf of Schlumberger, issued an invitation to residents in the area.
The notice said that IMEX Inc will be hosting a public stakeholder engagement on Tuesday, February 7th on behalf of Schlumberger “regarding Radioactive Source Storage and Calibration Operations”.
It invited the Houston, Agricola, McDoom and D’Aguiar Park communities to attend. It said that residents, businesses, community representatives, schools and other persons from the community are encouraged to attend.
The meeting is scheduled for February 7th from 5 pm to 6.30 pm at Parc Rayne, Lot 1 Rahaman’s Park. It provided the following contact number: 592-270-4477.
Schlumberger is one of ExxonMobil’s major subcontractors and is providing a range of services to the oil and gas industry.
On December 16 last year, Justice Nareshwar Harnanan ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) breached its statutory duty by issuing environmental permits to Schlumberger-Guyana Inc. and waiving the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the construction of a radioactive chemical facility. The judge noted that the EPA had not given reasons for its decision
As a result, he ordered the quashing of an environmental permit issued by the EPA on June 9, 2021 in favour of Schlumberger to permit it to construct a radioactive substances and materials storage and calibration facility at lot 1 Area X Houston on the East Bank of Demerara.
The High Court judge also declared that the decision of the EPA to not conduct an environmental impact assessment into the effects of the construction of the facility was illegal, ultra vires, unreasonable, irrational for breaching the Environmental Protection Act, Cap.20:05.
Justice Harnanan also granted an injunction against the company from continuing the possession, use and storage of radioactive chemicals at its Houston facility. The injunction is in place until the company can legally obtain a lawful permit under the EPA Act.
Through IMEX, the company now seems to be headed towards complying with the need for consultations and later proceeding for approval from the EPA.
The High Court ruling on December 16 last year came in light of a legal challenge brought against the EPA and Schlumberger Guyana by residents of Houston.
Residents—Danuta Radzik, Vanda Radzik and Raphael Singh— had filed an action asking the High Court to declare the EPA’s decision waiving the requirement for an EIA as being among other things, unlawful and unreasonable.
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 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.
Against this background, they accused the Agency of having arbitrarily made the decision in breach of its statutory duty and contrary to natural justice. They said, too, that it was made in the absence of evidence, was unfair and asked that the Court so declare.
On December 24th 2022, the EPA said that it respected the outcome of the case. The environmental agency said it “acknowledges its error in this instance, and will adhere to the Honourable Court’s judgment.”
It added: “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”.
It noted that Justice 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. 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.
