By way of letter, attorneys for the applicants in the Judicial Review case filed against the Environmental Protection Agency, the Environmental Assessment Board and Schlumberger Guyana Inc (SGI) have written to IMEX Inc requesting an explanation for its recently announced public engagement.
In the letter sent to IMEX Inc, which is acting on behalf of Schlumberger, and seen by this newspaper, Attorney Malene Alleyne informed the company that the public invitation did not specify the purpose of the stakeholder engagement.
According to the invitation, published in Friday’s edition of the Stabroek News, IMEX Inc is hosting a public stakeholder engagement on Tuesday, February 7 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 tomorrow’s meeting, scheduled from 5 pm to 6.30 pm at Parc Rayne, Lot 1 Rahaman’s Park. It provided the contact number: 592-270-4477.
Attorney Ronald Burch-Smith yesterday told Stabroek News that this engagement seemed to be an act of acknowledging the court order, but his clients are not convinced that they are seriously complying. The consultations, he explained, also appear to be a slow march to comply with the orders of the court. However, he stated that it is yet to be determined whether the EPA has been monitoring the operations to ensure they are compliant with the court order.
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.
The residents – Radziks and 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.
On December 16 last year, Justice Nareshwar Harnanan ruled that the EPA had breached its statutory duty by issuing environmental permits to Schlumberger-Guyana Inc and waiving the requirement for an 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, East Bank 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.
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 that 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 24, 2022, the EPA said that it respected the outcome of the case. The agency said it “acknowledges its error in this instance, and will adhere to the Honourable Court’s judgement.”
It added: “The EPA wishes to make it clear that the judgement was not against the agency’s decision to waive the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment, 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 judgement stated: “… the EPA’s decision to waive the requirement of an Environmental Impact Assessment with respect to SGI’s application for environmental authorisation 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 judgement 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.
