The Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) today tossed out a decision by the EPA not to require an impact survey for a project to store radioactive sources in the East Bank Demerara (EBD) community of Coverden.
The decision by the EAB will be seen as a major victory for members of the community, including Penelope Howell, who battled the company that wanted to take the project to Coverden, Non-Destructive Testers Limited (Guyana) Inc.
Appeals of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decisions are heard by the EAB which is presently chaired by Pradeepa Bholanauth. The EAB decision today is also noteworthy as it raises the need for there to be baseline information first before decisions can be made on the mitigation of risks.
The EAB in its decision said that it had recorded three formal appeals dated 7th March 2022, 16th March 2022, and 18th March 2022 regarding the EPA’s decision to waive the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), for the project.
A Public Hearing was convened on 7th July 2022 by the EAB at which presentations were made by Non-Destructive Testers, the Appellants and the EPA. Further, the decision said that a site visit was conducted by the EAB on 12th July 2022 to situate the project within the frame of the EPA’s assessment and the appeals made and to gain a practical overview of the project and its various dimensions.
The EAB said that the submitted written information regarding the storage of the radioactive sources and the oral submission of the potential use of these sources changes the scope of the project. Further, the risks which are identified and assessed may likely change, given the expanded project scope.
“The absence of an identified procedure or plan to address exposure prior to project commencement is also noted. The new application of this source within the oil and gas sector, nested within a populated residential community, requires baselines to be established for monitoring and proximity considerations for safety, without which, effective prevention, management, and mitigation of risks would not be possible. The sensitivities toward the lives and livelihoods of the Coverden community regarding the storage and potential use of radioactive sources within close proximity of residences need to be addressed through scientific studies, and effective engagement with the residents of Coverden throughout the process. In view of the above, the EAB sets aside the decision of the EPA that no EIA is required for the Project”, the EAB decision said.
The EAB noted that the application submitted to the EPA by the Developer referred to the storage of radioactive sources at the project site. However, it said that the EPA assessment as part of the Agency’s site verification outlines the use of radioactive sources on-site in its description of the operating process for the facility. Further, the approvals of the Neighbourhood Democratic Council refer to welding and fabrication, as well as storage of X-Ray Materials. Oral submissions by the EPA and the Developer at the Public Hearing stated that the facility will be used for storage only but that there was a possibility that this could include the use of the sources at some point in the future. The EAB said it was noted that the type of risks that will be monitored, and mitigated will be different in an environment where there is the use of radioactive sources. The assessment of risks for storage where there is a potential for use of these sources to be added, limits and/or invalidates the efficacy of any identified mitigation measure, the EAB added.
The EAB also noted that the proposed project location is within a residential community. It added that whilst international standards on proximity have been shared by the EPA for projects such as these “there is no established set of guidelines to define the project structure with regards to safety and best practice in the absence of an EIA”.
Furthermore, the EAB said that the project was presented as one that is new for the scale and type of application, though similar uses currently take place in the health sector.
“The project and its application are new to the oil and gas sector in Guyana and more so, the embedding of this aspect of its application within a populated community. Though information is available globally, and regionally, on a baseline level, for monitoring impacts regarding environmental and human health receptors, this information is also needed at the local level to enable effective monitoring. One example of the lack of baseline relates to groundwater level which, based on the Verification Report, could not be confirmed and is stated as unknown. Without this, there are inherent uncertainties that will be introduced in preventing, managing, and mitigating direct and indirect risks involved in the project”, the EAB said.
As it pertains to the sensitisation of the project at the community level, the EAB said that the EPA Act requires full stakeholder engagement during an EIA process.
“The requirements for the application of a project do not necessitate engagement and feedback as part of the process of application. Whilst this may not pose a significant challenge to projects that are more routine in their application, the storage of radioactive sources within a community environment poses concerns for residents who, because of the lack of engagement, are not adequately informed, aware, or able to discern the potential risks or safeguard measures that may be present for a project of this type. Whilst an environmental management plan may provide for some aspects of this to take place, the timing of the engagement becomes of consequence; communicating with residents before project implementation, answering questions, clarifying areas of concern and providing an opportunity to effectively engage with direct stakeholders of the project, is broadly recognized as an important part of the process for new projects, and especially one that involves the storage and possible use of radioactive sources”, the EAB stated.
At the public hearing by the EAB on July 7th, the appellants had kept up the pressure on the EPA and Non-Destructive Testers.
“The developer presents the best-case scenario, I am concerned with the worst-case scenario,” appellant Dr Stacy Wilson-James told members of the EAB. She noted that numerous diseases can stem from radiation exposure that are not reversible and would be life impacting.
If there was a leakage from the facility, it would take six months before residents would know if they were exposed as the company would only be conducting biannual checks for potential leaks, she said.
Unconvinced by assurances that residents will not be affected by NDTL’s operation, Wilson-James noted that as part of its safety procedure, the badges of employees must be tested every month. She added that they are basically testing whether an employee was exposed to radiation without having to alarm them and may not tell them if it was so. She concluded that this can only mean that NDTL is only interested in protecting themselves and their operation.
She pointed out that NDTL has outlined lines of communication in the event there is an accident or contamination but residents of Coverden are not included in the communication chains. “When will we be informed that we have been exposed to radiation?” she asked.
“EPA please live up to your name: protect the environment,” Wilson-James added.
Howell, another appellant in the case, questioned why the EPA is opposed to conducting an impact assessment even though from the very beginning – as this was not the first hearing related to the project – residents have not been in favour of it.
Howell said the location where NDTL intends to conduct its operation is where “ordinary people conduct ordinary activities.” She notes that there is a drain near the facility where children play and brought to the fore the issue of disposal.
Before an environmental permit is approved, she argued, details of daily activities surrounding the area should be known, while stressing the importance of an impact assessment.
Although NDTL say they would not be using the Demerara River to transport the materials to clients, Howell says they are not convinced, saying that the location was chosen for a purpose. However, NDTL said that transporting the equipment via water was a consideration, but this would not happen in the foreseeable future due to country laws.
