(This week’s column is dedicated to the memory of Elaine Therese Radzik Sochacki (nee Vieira), April 1st 1930 – January 4 2011.)
On December 16, 2022, Justice Nareshwar Harnanan pronounced his ruling on the Judicial Review case filed in the High Court by Vanda Radzik, Danuta Radzik and Raphael Singh vs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Environmental Assessment Bureau (EAB) and Schlumberger Guyana Inc. (SGI). Justice Harnanan quashed the decision by the EPA to award an environmental authorisation to SGI on the grounds that it was ultra vires and in breach of the EPA’s statutory duty as set out in the Environmental Act section 11 (2) Cap 20:05. Additionally, the judge ruled that the EPA’s decision to waive the requirements of an EIA was in breach of the EPA’s statutory duty to give reasons for waiving an EIA for the construction and operations of a radioactive source storage and calibration facility. An injunction was issued and directed to SGI restraining it, its servants And/or agents from continuing the operations unless and/or until in receipt of a lawfully issued environmental permit as set out in the Environmental Protection Act, Cap 20:05.
We welcome this landmark ruling and example of the Court upholding the Rule of Law in Guyana.
Prior to our filing for a Judicial Review in the High Court, 51 community residents, elected neighbourhood officials and Guyanese stakeholders, supported the original Letter of Appeal addressed and delivered to the EAB and EPA in May 2021. This Letter cited the same breaches of the Environmental Protection Act referenced above. The EAB and EPA summarily rejected this appeal.
On August 29th, 2022, 54 citizens of Guyana signed an Open Letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) & the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) which was delivered by email, with a hand delivered hard copy. The open letter was also published in Stabroek News with all names attached.
The letter registered dismay that a 1-million US dollar grant from the World Bank to the EPA to strengthen its monitoring and enforcement capacity was not fully utilised by the EPA. The grant was aimed at establishing a corps of personnel including 34 highly specialized and experienced petroleum, geological and environmental engineers. But because the monies were not fully utilized, it failed to achieve the intended outcome, and the EPA remains lacking in these essential skills and capacities.
The letter noted the many failings of the EPA, which has a duty under the EPA Act “to provide protection, manage the natural environment, assess impacts of development activities by conducting, promoting and coordinating research on pollution and prevention; formulating standards, guidelines and codes of practice including for the release of contaminants into the environment; monitoring and coordinating natural resources and how they are being impacted, advising key stakeholder on the content and applicability of environmental control instruments and providing general information to the public on the state of the environment.”
It called on the EPA to implement eleven actions. The EPA was given a 30-day period to respond to this letter. To date, no response has been forthcoming from the EPA or the EAB to these recommendations. This column focuses on three of these demands:
• Ensure that environmental permits granted are fixed for a period of no more than 3 years; and that renewals are dependent on a comprehensive, transparent, consultative process. The track record of companies awarded permits must comply with international best practice, standards and norms and with the EPA’s own law and regulations.
• Ensure that all reports on type, quantity, frequency, containment and classification of wastes and destinations to and from waste management facilities are complied with and made available to those communities directly affected, workers and the Guyanese public.
• Publicize without delay all the companies that have environmental permits to receive, handle, store, treat oil and gas wastes or operate mud plants and their waste management plans, to ensure compliance with international best practices. Where these are deficient or absent, we call for a stop notice / cease order until compliance is met, subject to inspection by suitably qualified experts.
In light of the aforementioned recommendations, we (and the Guyanese public) would like to know the status of ‘EPA-EMD2012HWRRF1R1 RECORDING AND REPORTING FORM OF HAZARDOUS WASTES (for New and Existing Operations)’. General instructions of this form state that it must be completed by the holder of an Environmental Authorization no later than forty-five days after the end of the operating year and should be prepared on activities relating to the previous calendar year along with any additional information requested and submitted to the EPA:
Specific Instructions for ‘Completing Form 3, Block B includes providing a description of the operation process, identifying all hazardous materials/chemicals used within the operation process and the number of years the project has been operational’.
For Block C, ‘providing information on hazardous materials/chemicals used in the life cycle of the project, the type of hazardous material/chemicals used, its hazardous, physical and chemical characteristics and the quantity and type of storage used e.g. containers, bags etc’.
For Block D, ‘providing information on all types of hazardous wastes generated, hazardous characteristics, quantity of hazardous wastes generated, physical characteristics, chemical characteristics, type of storage..’
For Block E, ‘reporting of all spills, information on the date of incident, type and amount of waste spilled, measures taken to mitigate incident, treatment standards for waste, data for off- site shipment of waste, transporter and receiver details and location of off-site waste facility, treatment standards for waste spilled (EPA recording and reporting form for hazardous waste for new and existing operations pages 57-60 in EEPGL’s Comprehensive Waste Management Report Oct 2021).
The Liza 1 oil field, as far as we know, started oil production in December 2019 and the Liza 2 oil field in February 2022. Estimated summaries of hazard waste generation & management methods given for the years 2020-2022 for Liza 1 and 2 show a combined estimated total of 15,310 metric tonnes (33,752,772 lbs.), with an estimated 85% of these hazardous oil & gas wastes to be transported to onshore waste management facilities (this information can be found on pg. 59, table 2-6, Liza 1 EIA and pg. 2-51, table 2.12-8 Liza 2 EIA).
The EPA should have complied with its own obligations and submitted the required forms referred to above, including that of companies such as Tiger Rental Services, Sustainable Environmental Solutions (SES), Schlumberger Guyana Inc, Saipem, and Halliburton etc. Where are these reports and why have the findings of these reports not been made public as lawfully required?
The EPA has waived EIAs for most, if not all, of these waste management companies as no EIAs can be found on the EPA website. Neither are environmental permits for these same waste management companies available on the EPA website. This is in violation of the EPA Act, Part 111- Establishment and Functions of Agency section 4 (3) e, which calls for the EPA to “maintain and make available to members of the public during normal working hours a register of all…environmental authorisations granted and other information in accordance with section 36”.
As the frenzied pace and expansion of the oil and gas industry continues, amounts of hazardous wastes generated will also significantly increase in volume. This in turn increases the risk to health, safety and well-being of Guyanese workers, communities and the environment. Needless to say, meaningful community consultations and information sharing to directly affected communities are, generally, non-existent. Likewise, there is an absence of independent monitoring and reporting on these facilities storing and transporting hazardous waste and toxic substances, including radioactive sources located within longstanding residential communities or in very close proximity to same.
The Government’s recent recognition that the number of collisions by vessels with the Demerara Harbour Bridge and the substantial increase in river traffic from the oil and gas industry also increases the risk of spills of and contamination by hazardous waste and other toxic substances.
These risks constitute a clear and present danger and necessitate modern and robust regulatory frameworks with necessary capacities for full implementation. We urge this to be made a priority.
We note the increasingly horrifying impact of environmental, cultural and social degradation and pollution on Indigenous communities from gold and manganese mining and the long-lasting and current impacts on the health and well-being of Guyanese in bauxite communities.
Guyana’s EPA Act specifically states the following:
(b) to promote the participation of members of the public in the process of integrating environmental concerns in planning for development on a sustainable basis;
(d) to establish, monitor and enforce environmental regulations;
(e) to prevent or control environmental pollution;
(f) to co-ordinate an integrated coastal zone management programme;
(3) (a) 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 EPA’s trend of silence and apparent refusal to engage with citizens on a regular basis in meaningful consultations and continuous disclosure of information and public reporting is a violation of its mandate.
It is time for us Guyanese to take a stand against our communities serving as sacrifice zones for fossil fuels and extractive industries, unscrupulous companies and state authorities that fail to act in accordance with the rule of law.
