Dear Editor,
Being focused on the pleasurable pursuits of a single retired life, I have paid fleeting attention to the ongoing debate related to EEPGL liability insurance and the submissiveness or lack thereof of the EPA. I now add my two cents!
The Environmental Protection Act, 1996 was promulgated after the tailings dam failure at Omai Gold Mines and was adequately configured to address all the issues now in the public domain. The Environmental Protection Act 1996 (EP Act, 1996), Part II, 4(2) (g) and (h) respectively identify the function of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to “formulate standards and codes of practice to be observed for the improvement and maintenance of the quality of the environment and limits on the release of contaminants into the environment;” and to “request, examine, review, evaluate and approve or reject environmental impact assessments and risks analyses and make suitable recommendations for the mitigation of adverse effects of any proposed activity on the environment“.
Part IV of the EP Act 1996, 11(5) (c) (iii) requires all Environmental Impact Assessments to contain “a description of the likely significant effects of the proposed project on the environment resulting from the emission of contaminants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste, and a description by the developer of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment.” Part IV of the EP Act 1996, 11(5) (i) and (j) further requires all Environmental Impact Assessments to contain an emergency response plan for containing and cleaning up of any pollution or spill of any contaminant and the developer’s programme for rehabilitation and restoration of the environment.
The EPA has never created any Standards and/or Code of Practice with limits on the release of contaminants into the environment as mandated by the EP Act 1996. In the absence of these standards there will be significant difficulties and differences on acceptable cleanup levels in the event of a release to the environment. Further, the EPA has never requested, examined, reviewed, evaluated and approved or rejected any environmental impact assessments based on a comprehensive risks analysis. The EPA approval of EIAs without a risk analysis may enable a developer to circumvent responsibility in the event of a spill since the entire function of the EPA may become questionable and the spill may be in fact be attributed to the EPA failure to fulfill its mandate.
The liability insurance and its quantum can be easily determined if the EPA in accordance with its mandate, requires that Part IV of the EP Act 1996, 11(5) (c) (iii) and Part IV of the EP Act 1996, 11(5) (i) and (j) be satisfied. Use of a hydrodynamic model will enable the costs associated with any spill of contaminant to be easily determined. This model can be configured to simulate duration and quantity of contaminant released to determine both the impact of the release and the associated costs of remediating the release. This predictive analysis will satisfy Part IV of the EP Act 1996, 11(5) (j) of the EP Act 1996.
These flaws at the EPA have existed since the promulgation of the EP Act in 1996. Several people have served a wide range of political directorates in the intervening period without addressing these issues. The submissiveness of the EPA is therefore nothing new! Liability insurance should be provided for all industrial operations in Guyana as is reflected by the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission request for bonds to be posted for mining operations. The quantum of the liability insurance should be based on the EP Act 1996 mandated “developer’s programme for rehabilitation and restoration of the environment”. The ongoing debate fails to incorporate that mandate. I now return to my pleasurable pursuits.
Sincerely,
Charles P Ceres
Retiree