EPA defends decision not to re-engage public on EIA changes

Apr 04, 2022 News

---

Kaieteur News – Environmentalists are outraged that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has moved to approve ExxonMobil’s fourth project – the Yellowtail Development and accepts its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), even though the public remains completely unaware of whether their initial concerns have been addressed, as no follow-up meeting was held in this regard.

But the Executive Director of the EPA, Mr. Kemraj Parsram has made it clear that the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB), which was tasked with the review of the document gave the project its blessing, hence the EPA furnished the developer with the requisite approvals. In a brief interview with Kaieteur News, Mr. Parsram explained, “The Environmental Protection Act Section 11 outlines the statutory process, including public review period which, was the 60 days so the Consultants were not required to re-engage (the) public at this time”.
He added, “The EAB is the authority on acceptance of EIAs or EIS (Environmental Impact Study) and they gave their acceptance and recommendations on the 25th (March) and we reviewed and (made) clarifications, and discussions concluded on the 29th (March). We issued our approval via environmental permit on the 30th.”
When pressed about changes that were required to the document, the head of the agency pointed out that the key recommendations related to “reliance on international standards such as World Bank and good international industry practice; environmental effects monitoring, grievance mechanism, improving oil spill management and response such as capping stack (and) first response technology”.
He did not say whether the concerns of the environmentalists had been addressed in the revised EIA. It was on February 27 that Parsram shared with this publication that ExxonMobil’s Consultant, Environmental Resources Management (ERM) was required to revise the EIA it prepared.
While the EPA head did not reveal what specific adjustments were required, Kaieteur News had reported on the submissions made by environmentalists on the EIA document which was described as “significantly deficient” by one specialist, Simone Mangal-Joly.
The expert in an invited comment to this newspaper back in December argued that the document failed to specify how toxic waste brought to shore will be disposed of for the full life of the project, as well as the amount of toxic waste that will be generated. Mangal-Joly in her comments to this newspaper noted that in the absence of such provisions, ExxonMobil must address this deficiency in the Yellowtail EIA.
She argued, “This matter should be of concern to all Guyanese. The quantities of toxic and other waste being brought to shore, health, and ecological risks of each of their constituent parts, and how they are treated and disposed of are critical issues, as the toxic waste treatment facilities are in areas where people live and all are at high-risk for flooding and creating a toxic soup on the coast, and our coastal groundwater aquifers are at risk. We stand to lose a lot. We need to understand the value of what we currently have and risk losing, both in terms of quality of life and health and monetary terms, and to protect ourselves and our valuable natural resources that could be despoiled.”
In fact, she said that the Yellowtail EIA cannot be accepted as it stands. A group of international environmentalists, Alfred Buhlai, Vanda Radzik, Janette Bulkan, Denuta Radzik, Jerry Jailall, Alissa Trotz, Mangal-Joly and Maya Trotz, had made a submission to the EAB calling for the Yellowtail development EIA to be scrapped, given that the document fails to address critical subjects such as the impacts of the total waste brought to shore, and baseline data for Guyana’s fisheries sector.
The environmentalists said they are requesting information on “What Public Communication discharges there will be to air, water, and ground during treatment and what are the chemical compositions of these discharges and what risk do they pose to human health and ecology? Will any discharge be directly into rivers and estuaries with protected forest species, and if so, what threats do they pose to such bodies over the full life of the Yellowtail project? Will this discharge affect fisheries and other activities in any estuary? What is the chemical composition and risks of the residues that will be taken to a landfill? What is the total volume of waste bound for landfills during the life of the project? What is the total land demand for such landfill given the volume of waste produced over the life of the project? What are the standards for operation of such landfill, and what are the risks if these standards are violated?”
When it comes to baseline information on Guyana’s fisheries sector, the group requested the consultant to provide them with specific data such as the total number of formal and informal operators, size, catch per unit, effort in the dry versus the wet season, economic value of formal and informal production, livelihood dependency, economic linkages, and total economic value of the sector considering linkages with other sectors.
It was also requested that information pertaining to the near-shore and offshore fish nurseries located and mapped by geospatial coordinates be provided. The public feedback period on Esso Exploration Production Guyana Ltd’s (EEPGL), Exxon’s subsidiary, Yellowtail Environmental Impact Assessment was closed on December 15, 2021.
In addition to these individuals, Caribbean organizations had also objected to the Yellowtail EIA. The Caribbean Coastal Area Management (C-CAM) Foundation, The Jamaica Fish Sanctuary Network, Jamaica Environment Trust, Institute for Small Islands, Fishermen and Friends of the Sea and Freedom Imaginaries contended that ERM has violated international laws by failing to consult them on the likely impacts of the project, even though the EIA clearly outlines the dangers they are exposed to.

---

---