The Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) has announced that its planned public hearing on appeals filed against the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to exempt the proposed operation of the radioactive source storage and calibration facility at Houston, East Bank Demerara from an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been postponed.
The hearing was to be convened at 5 pm today in the conference room of Parc Rayne, Lot 1 Rahaman’s Park, East Bank Demerara. A new date is to be announced shortly.
According to an advertisement in the Guyana Chronicle, under Section 18(2) of the EPA Act, Cap.20:05, Laws of Guyana, the EAB shall conduct public hearings into all appeals submitted against the EPA’s decision not to require an EIA for the project. The public hearing is expected to involve representations from the appellants, the developer, and other key stakeholders. Thereafter, the EAB will deliberate on the findings and prepare a report with its decision confirming or setting aside the EPA’s decision.
The project in question involves SLB Guyana, formerly Schlumberger Guyana Inc, which in April filed a new application with the EPA for the operation of a radioactive source storage facility at Lot 1 Area X Houston.
The application was made subsequent to a court ruling by Justice Nareshwar Harnanan that the EPA 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.
In a notice in April, the EPA had said that the project was evaluated as per section 11(2) of the Environmental Protection Act. It had said it took into account “the Project’s Site Verification Report, Environmental Assessment and Management Plan 2022, Project Summary, the International Atomic Energy Agency Safety Standards, and Security Guidelines, the Application submitted, and further relevant environmental information. Based on this assessment, the EPA concluded that the environment will not be significantly impacted by the project. Thus, the project is exempted from the requirement for an EIA.”
The EPA contended that disused sources would be returned to their respective manufacturers or suppliers outside of Guyana. It had stated as well that the current location did not require the transport of the sources along main public thoroughfares. “… All calibrated sources are returned offshore via vessels leaving the port west of the facility. Internal transport reduces the risk of accidents, loss, and public exposure to radiation during transportation,” the notice had said.
Further, the EPA had explained that the inventory of radioactive sources submitted with the application fell under Categories 3-5 as per the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Categorization of Radioactive Sources (No.RS-G-1.9). “It is important to note that the IAEA has specified that these sources may only pose a potential risk to individuals close to them when they are unshielded, with typical durations ranging from days to weeks,” the EPA had said in the notice.
When the company hosted a public engagement back in February, residents, including litigants Vanda and Danuta Radzik, strongly objected to the presence of the radioactive storage facility.
During February’s public engagement held at Parc Rayne by IMEX Inc, which has been conducting consultations on behalf of SLB, residents had made it known that they were neither pleased nor convinced that the explanations given were sound. They said the company’s objective was making money and the explanations were intended to make the company “look good.” The moderator at times found it difficult to manage the strong views of the residents as they spoke over those from the company who attempted to address their concerns.
Justice Harnanan, in his December ruling, noted that the EPA had not given reasons for its decision. As a result, the judge ordered the quashing of the 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. The judge also declared that the decision by the EPA to not conduct an EIA into the effects of the construction of the facility was illegal, ultra vires, unreasonable, and irrational, for breaching the Environmental Protection Act, Cap.20:05.
The Radziks and Raphael Singh, via court filings, had said that they live near the proposed 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. 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, unlawful and unreasonable, among other things and asked that the court so declare.
