By Laurel Sutherland
An almost five-hour-long public hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to waive an impact study for the construction and operation of a 300-megawatt natural gas-fired power plant ended with appellants remaining adamant that one be conducted citing limited available data on the project.
In January, the EPA notified the public that the government’s planned 300 MW natural gas power plant to be constructed at Wales on the West Bank Demerara will not require an impact study. Persons who might be affected by the proposed project were advised to lodge an appeal against the Agency’s decision (EIA not required) with the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) within thirty (30) days of the publication of the notice.
Several persons lodged appeals against the EPA’s decision and a public hearing was scheduled at the Cara Lodge Hotel for yesterday – which went ahead despite appellants calling for a postponement for several reasons including that fact that newly appointed Chair of the EAB, Dr. Mahender Sharma, has a direct conflict of interest in the project since he was a longstanding Guyana Power and Light Inc. (GPL) board member prior to the hearing.
The issue was once again brought up at the hearing. Sharma was questioned by several appellants including Vanda Radzik, Danuta Radzik, Elizabeth Deane-Hughes and Alfred Bhulai on whether he would recuse himself from the decision-making process. Sharma, however, refused to answer and instead urged appellants to make their presentations. One of the reasons given by the EPA to waive an impact assessment was that the proposed location for this project falls within the area of influence/footprint of an EPA-approved Gas to Energy Project (GTE) that was subjected to a comprehensive EIA, including a Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA). The CIA concluded that there will be no significant impacts from the combined activities/projects. But according to appellants, this information is not sufficient to make such a major decision.
Vanda Radzik told the EAB that no information on the types of mitigation measures in place for potential explosions and leakages as well as the project’s impact on water, air quality and the amount of greenhouse gases that would be released exists.
“Is it a guesswork by the EPA?” she questioned. According to Vanda Radzik, no specific and detailed information on mitigation measures for explosions or leakages can be found and this shows why an impact assessment needs to be conducted.
“People’s lives and livelihoods are at risk,” she stated before questioning the speed at which the government is implementing the project. She added that the information on which the EPA based their decision cannot truly show the complete magnitude of the impacts of the project, making an EIA critical for the issuance of a permit.
Executive Director of the EPA, Kemraj Parsram explained that the GTE Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) included the potential impacts the natural gas plant will have on the environment, and considering that the government decided to build a combined cycle power plant instead of two separate gas and power plants, it was only practicable to use that information, but the decision was made after seeking international expert advice as well as those contained in scientific papers.
Regarding explosions, Parsram stated that an Emergency response plan and Gas leak detection systems will be required before a permit is issued. He also said that the EPA intends to procure technology that will measure the amount of Green House Gases (GHGs) that will be emitted by the power plant.
Another concern raised by the Radziks on behalf of several others are the alleged lack of consultation with residents living on the West Bank Demerara and how severely they would be affected by the project. She added that the government has not provided any alternatives to the power plant for persons to consider.
Addressing the issue of the lack of power plant alternatives, Parsram assured that the project is one that will begin Guyana’s transition to clean energy. Other alternatives are solar, hydro and wind projects which will soon be implemented.
He noted that the location of the proposed power plant is in an isolated area and more than two kilometers away from communities.
“It must be noted that this proposed power plant is a combined cycle gas power plant. This technology is adopted globally, replacing heavy fuel oil and coal powered plants thereby reducing GHG emissions. An ESMP including a fire/explosion and other key risks and detailed and management measures will be required if moved to permitting,” he said.
Parsram also addressed concerns regarding the agency that will oversee the functions of the gas power plant. He clarified that the Guyana Power and Gas will be holder of any permit the EPA issues, not the Guyana Power and Light even though they had submitted the application for environmental authorization.
There were also concerns regarding soil and waste management, ground water contamination and open-pit flaring. According to the EPA, a soil and waste management plan is required as well as a water treatment plan but there will be no significant impact to ground water that will be used by consumers as there are not in the vicinity of the project site.
Regarding flaring, Parsram said there will be pilot flaring during the start-up of the power plant. Apart from that flaring will only occur in emergency cases.
Head of the Gas-to-Shore Taskforce, Winston Brassington also made a presentation regarding the project. Like Parsram, he assured that all safety measures will be in place before the power plant becomes operational.
However, despite assurances, appellants remained adamant that an EIA should be conducted for the project, stating that information on the project and mitigation measures are not comprehensive enough and the CIA information alone cannot dictate the impacts of a project of such a magnitude.
Other reasons provided by the EPA to waive an EIA for the project as stated in its January notice include:
The results of the CIA showed that while there is potential for temporary impacts on air quality, the maximum predicted concentrations of key pollutants nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM 2.5 and PM10), and carbon monoxide (CO) will be within the World Health Organization (WHO) stipulated limits.
3. As natural gas is used for power generation, the flue gas emissions will not have particulate matter and SO2 emissions. However, in the case of back fuel use, particulate matter and SO2 emissions will be released but to a minimal extent, and well below recommended WHO guidelines.
4. Compared to Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) currently in use for power plants, natural gas has a lower carbon content and as a result will have a lower CO2 emission.
Natural gas does not contain any sulphur, so there will be no sulphur emissions directly from burning of natural gas.
5. Process wastewater will be treated to local and international acceptable standards (GNBS Interim Effluent discharge standards and/or IFC Guidelines) via a wastewater treatment plant prior to being discharged. The sanitary sewage system within the facility will collect all sanitary wastewater and treat it to international applicable standards prior to discharge into a stormwater pond prior to discharge into the Demerara River.
6. The Project lies within a highly modified landscape and is not located within a sensitive ecosystem. The Project design will include embedded controls as well as targeted mitigation measures during construction and operation to mitigate any impacts to biodiversity. The Project will not significantly impact or change overall ecological functions of the landscape and affected watershed will retain their current functions largely unchanged.
The notice goes on to add that potential environmental and social impacts that will be caused by the project during pre-construction, construction and operation phases, have been identified, screened and assessed. Further, overall, many of the impacts are localized, short-term and/or temporary in nature.
