Dear Editor,
I read in an INEWS Guyana article that was published online on August 21, 2024, and titled ‘O&G waste treatment facility at Coverden was carefully screened – EPA’. The following are the contents of the article which includes the statement from the EPA, and I have made my comments at the end. ‘The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken note of several recent articles related to the Oil and Gas Waste Treatment Facility at Coverden, East Bank Demerara.’ ‘In the light of public interest in the project, the EPA hereby provides pertinent facts in relation to this facility.
a. Global Oil Environmental Services (GOES) applied to the EPA for Environmental Authorization on February 16, 2021, to install and operate a waste management facility for the exploration and production of oil and gas wastes. b. The EPA screened the application and determined that an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) was not required. c. The EPA published a 30-day Public Notice on March 21, 2021, informing of its EIA-Not-Required decision and requested persons who may be affected to submit an appeal to the EAB. Several appeals were received in response to this Notice. d. The hearing was organized by the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) to listen to public concerns about the facility, noting that the EPA had published a Public Notice that it will not require an EIA for the project. e. The EAB conducted a Public Hearing on May 10, 2021, to hear from all appellants in keeping with the Environmental Protection Act. Having allowed due process and considering all of the concerns, comments and responses made during the Public Hearing, the EAB rendered its decision that an EIA was not required for the project by GOES. f. GOES was then issued an Environmental Authorization for five years valid August 2021 to July 2026. g. On July 12, 2023, the EPA received an
application to transfer the Environmental Authorization from GOES to Professional Waste Solution Inc. (PWI), citing the following reason: “GOES suspended operations at the current location in January 2023. However, since the permit is still valid for three additional years, Profes-sional Waste Solutions Inc. is desirous of recommencing operations at the current location, especially since some of the infrastructure, already in place, will remain intact.” h. The EPA processed the application for transfer in keeping with the Environmental Protection Regulations, and issued an Environmental Permit (Transferred and Modified) to PWI. The Agency took into consideration that, while the project is now under transferred ownership, all of the elements generally remain the same, with some improved process and technology. All safeguards are captured in the transferred and varied permit, as the Agency wanted to ensure that impacts are not significant and, importantly, that the permit holder can meet their obligations in accordance with the Act.
The EPA must emphasize that an Environmental Permit stipulates conditions for the operation of a project and the PWI’s Environmental Permit is no exception. The Permit allows for the regulation of all conditions for the operation of the facility in accordance with the Act and all regulations, as well as best available technology. The EPA wishes to assure all concerned persons that it has carefully screened the project and stipulated conditions for its operation to safeguard air and water quality and human well-being.’ End of EPA’s statement and article.
My comments
Editor, I would like to make a correction to (e.) above, the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) conducted two Public Hearings on this matter, one on May 10, and the other was held virtually on May 18, 2021. With regard to the EPA transferring the Environmental Authorization from GOES to Professional Waste Solutions Inc. (PWSI). EPA indicated that GOES suspended its operations at the Block ‘X’ TE Huiste, Block I, ‘T’ Hustle Coverden, East Bank, Demerara in January 2023, and since the permit is valid for three more years, Professional Waste Solutions Inc. expressed a desire to recommence operations at the current location, noting that since some of the infrastructure was already in place. Further, the EPA statement indicated that the agency processed the application for transfer in keeping with the Environmen-tal Protection Regulations and issued an Environmental Permit (Transferred and Modified) to PWSI. It is important to note that PWSI’s Chief Executive Officer, Mahendra Jettoo, was the landlord for GOES and JAPARTS.
Can the EPA provide us with additional information on what factors inform the agency’s decisions to transfer a permit? Is it merely that some of the infrastructure must be on the location or land ownership? Can someone walk off the street and request the transfer of a permit from the EPA to operate an oil and gas waste treatment plant and the authorization is given? It is our view that since GOES and JAPARTS suspended their operations of the oil and gas waste treatment plant and Professional Waste Solution Inc. (PWSI), as a new entity, should have been required by the EPA to submit a request for a new permit.
The EPA Act No. 11 of 1996, Article 11 (1) states that ‘A developer of any project listed in the Fourth Schedule, or any other project which may significantly affect the environment shall apply to the Agency for an environmental permit and shall submit with such application the fee prescribed and a summary of the project including information on:- (i) the site, design and size of the project; (ii) possible effects on the environment (iii) the duration of the project; and (iv) a non-technical explanation of the project’. Article 11 (2) states ‘Where it is not clear whether a project will significantly affect the environment, the developer shall submit to the Agency a summary of the project which shall contain the information as required by subsection (1) and the Agency shall within a reasonable period publish in at least one daily newspaper a decision with reasons as to whether the project:_ (a) will not significantly affect the environment, and thereof exempt from the requirement for an environmental impact assessment’. Article 11 (3) (a) states that ‘Any person who may be affected by a project exempted under subsection (2) (a) may lodge an appeal with the Environmental Assessment Board established under section 18 within sixty days of the date of publication of the Agency’s decision and the Environmental Assessment Board shall within a reasonable time publish a decision confirming or setting aside the Agency’s decision’.
The residents of Coverden were deprived of the opportunity to lodge their appeal to the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) for Professional Waste Solutions Inc., a new entity, operating the oil and gas facility in the village, since the EPA did not require the new developer/ entity to submit a new proposal or request for a new Environmental Authorization/ Environmental Permit. In our view, Professional Waste Solutions Inc., is possibly operating the oil and gas waste treatment plant unlawfully based on the EPA Act Article 11 (3) (b) which states that ‘Every person who commences a project before final determination of an appeal under paragraph (a) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to the penalties prescribed under paragraph (d) of the Fifth Schedule’. The EPA statement above indicates that ‘The EPA wishes to assure all concerned persons that it has carefully screened the project and stipulated conditions for its operation to safeguard air and water quality and human well-being.’ Is the EPA telling the residents of Coverden that the operation of an oil and gas waste treatment facility, by a company without the requisite competencies – experience, expertise, etc. in oil and gas waste management, is safe for the environment – air, water, soil and to the health and wellbeing of residents, and the community? How did the EPA make this determination without a scientific assessment/an Environmental Impact Assessment being done?
Part II Establishment and Functions of Agency (EPA) Article 4 (1) (g) states that one of the functions of the agency is ‘to ensure that any developmental activity which may cause an adverse effect on the natural environment be assessed before such activity is commenced and that such adverse effect be taken into account in deciding whether or not such activity should be authorised’. Our position is that the oil and gas waste treatment plant must not operate in our community. This is a hazardous and highly dangerous operation yet; it can so easily be passed from hand to hand. Next steps, there will be a community meeting in Coverden on August 31, 2024, where residents will be discussing this matter further. Members of the media are invited. Residents are also seeking legal advice on the matter.
Sincerely,
Citizen Audreyanna Thomas
