Schlumberger Guyana Inc, which has rebranded itself as SLB globally, yesterday confirmed it has submitted a new application to the Environmental Protection Agency for the operation of its RA source storage and calibration building that include radioactive source storage at Houston, East Bank Demerara.
The new application comes in light of the December 2022 court ruling against it by Justice, Nareshwar Harnanan, following a legal challenge by residents of Houston.
“SLB acknowledges the ruling of Justice Harnanan in relation to the Construction and Operation Permits previously granted to SLB by the EPA and, in compliance with said order, has submitted a new application to the EPA for the operation of its RA source storage and calibration building,” the company’s Guyana office last night said in response to enquiries from this newspaper. It added that as a company operating here, it remained “committed to respecting the laws and regulations of the countries in which we work and the sustainable development of Guyana.” Efforts to contact the Head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Kemraj Parsram for a comment proved futile. Calls to his phone went unanswered.
At the time of the ruling Justice Harnanan 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. Schlumberger is one of ExxonMobil’s major subcontractors and provides a range of services to the oil and gas industry.
In a notice which appeared in Friday’s Stabroek News, IMEX Inc., which has been conducting consultations on behalf of Schlumberger, invited residents in the area to attend a public stakeholder engagement that it will be hosting on Tuesday, February 7th on behalf of Schlumberger “regarding Radioactive Source Storage and Calibration Operations”. IMEX Inc., invited the Houston, Agricola, McDoom and D’Aguiar Park communities to attend and also encouraged businesses, community representatives, schools and other persons from the community to attend. The public has since been invited to consultation engagements as part of IMEX Inc., bid to restart the process and pave the way for SLB’s permission to operate. The meeting is scheduled for February 7th from 5 – 6.30 pm at Parc Rayne, Lot 1 Rahaman’s Park. The following contact number was provided – 592-270-4477.
Attorneys for the persons who brought the action against Schlumberger have however written to IMEX Inc, requesting an explanation for its recently announced public engagement. Attorney, Malene Alleyne, informed the company that the public invitation did not specify the purpose of the stakeholder engagement. A second Attorney, Ronald Burch-Smith, who acts on behalf of applicants, Vanda and Danuta Radzik and Raphael Singh, on Sunday 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.
Justice Harnanan had ruled that the 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, Justice Harnanan 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.
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 operation 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 EPA 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. They asked 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 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.
