Dear Editor,
The Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA) is in receipt of your correspondence dated September 2, 2008 and its accompanying letter to the editor pertaining to dust emissions caused by Bosai bauxite operations in Linden (‘What is the EPA doing about chimney emissions in the bauxite industry?’ SN 3.9.08). The EPA is greatly concerned about the problem and has been engaging in discussions with the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) and the management of Bosai Minerals Group Guyana Inc to resolve the problem.
Regarding the questions posed by the writer, the agency would like to present the following response:
1. EPA’s recommendations in relation to the Problem in Wismar
The dust emission in Linden, as recognized by the letter writer, dates back to the early days of the bauxite processing operation. Prior to the privatization of the operation to Cambior, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was done and measures were recommended to be implemented to address this problem. The measures were outlined in the environmental permit issued to Cambior by the agency. Based on the environmental permit, the company had committed to installing a dust collection system. However, Cambior sold the company to Bosai Minerals Group before the system was installed. The responsibility for installing the dust collector system was transferred to the new company which requested an extension to the timeline for implementation. The agency has always maintained that the dust emission problem needs to be resolved and we have been working with the company to agree on an acceptable timeline for installation.
2. Expected timeline for implementation
The management of Bosai Minerals Group Inc. has proposed a timeline until the end of 2009 for the installation of a dust collection system. However, both the EPA and GGMC have determined that, given the seriousness of the current situation of Linden and the urgent need to address this problem, there should be a revision of the timeline to ensure an earlier installation. A meeting was held on September 2, 2008 in Linden with the EPA, the Guyana Geology & Mines Commis-sion and the company and revision to the timeline was discussed in detail. A site visit was also conducted of the operation. It was agreed that the timeline should be revised and the company has until September 12, 2008 to submit the required revision. Once this revision is acceptable to both the EPA and GGMC, the company will have to comply and proceed with installation. In the meantime, the agency informed the company that interim measures must be implemented to alleviate the dust problem. The company has indicated that some measures are already being implemented. In addition, despite the timeline not yet agreed upon, work has commenced in terms of developing the dust collector system.
3. Possible penalties
If the company fails to comply with the recommendations and requirements of the agency, penalties could be instituted in accordance with s 19 of the Environmental Protection Act No 11 of 1996 and s 14 of the Environmental Protection (Authorisations) Regulations, No 10 of 2000.
Should you have any further questions, comments or clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Yours faithfully,
Doorga Persaud
Executive Director
Environmental
Protection
Agency
You guys in authority are joking. A foreign company comes into your country and are setting the time table. Wonderful. I wonder if a Guyanese company would be allowed to get away with this nonsense. Excellent management EPA.
This is not a new phenomenon. Companies are investing in the third world only if they have lesser environment law. China is given special nation status by the US, because of cheap labor for us companies. For the Olympics, china had to close many factories.
It seems to me that the recognised weak link is the EPA. Had they held Cambior at the time of sale to upkeep the agreed to dead line, this situation would have been resolved. In other words, had Cambior been held at the time of sale to demonstrate that the required mechanism/infrastructure were in place to have the system installed as stipulated in their arrangements with the EPA, then it would have been just a question of the succeeding owners continuing the activity to finality.
It appears that Cambior never intended to do the installations, since their aim was to demonstrate that the Company was profitable by operating on a shoe string budget. They did little stripping while maximising ore extraction activities, and processing the “tailings”. This allowed the company to show huge profits making it a prime target for any buyer, who looked at their books.
Thus the EPA should to begin with apply a penalty on Cambior, a company that is very much interested in operating in our lax system.
Roger