Houston residents sue EPA, Schlumberger over radioactive storage facility

Jul 19, 2022 News

---

– say agency ignored concerns over proximity to schools, neighbourhoods

 Kaieteur News – Radioactive waste materials if not properly managed can be a risk to human health and the environment.

Exposure to high levels of radioactive substances can lead to severe health problems. Among these are complications of the central nervous system, intestinal lining, cancers and ultimately death.

The impacts of radioactive on human life and the environment is now the subject of a local court case filed by residents of Houston East Bank Demerara.  Residents Vanda Radzik, Danuta Radzik and Raphael Singh have canvassed their concerns over the impact of a radioactive facility at Houston in legal documents filed in the High Court.

The residents who are also described as environmental activists detailed the Fixed Date Application (FDA) calling for a court order to quash the EPA’s decision to grant the US-owned onshore oil and gas company, Schlumberger to build the radioactive storage facility at Houston, East Bank Demerara.  According to the residents, the authorisation was granted in absence of evidence, on whimsical and capricious grounds which are against the EPA’s own policies and without any legal foundation or authority.

According to the court documents, lawyers of the applicants have asked for an order of injunction to prevent Schlumberger from continuing any construction of the facility. They are seeking a court order to forbid the EPA, its agents and servants from permitting or otherwise issuing an environmental authorization to operate a radioactive substance and material storage and calibration facility at Lot 1 area x Houston Georgetown.

The residents also want an injunction to forbid and restrain Schlumberger Guyana Inc, its agents and servants from taking any steps in furtherance of construction activities purportedly authorised under the said environmental authorization which was granted on June, 9, 2021. The matter is currently ongoing before Justice Nareshwar Harnanan in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Kaieteur News understands that the case was filed after the EPA ignored the concerns of the applicants and granted the foreign company permission to build the radioactive storage facility at Houston.

According to the information related to the case, seen by this publication on January 19, 2022, the EPA approved Schlumberger’s application for permission to use, store and possess radioactive materials at its facility at lot 1 Area X , Houston without any inkling of a notice given to the public.  The EPA had previously advertised on 11^th April, 2021, in the newspapers that Schlumberger wanted to construct a building to house the radioactive materials at lot 1 Area X , Houston, beside the East Bank Demerara public road and that the construction process would not require an environmental impact assessment.

Upon seeing, the notice dozens of residents of the East Bank formally objected to the waiver of the need for an environmental impact assessment into the construction process on the grounds that an EIA was inherently necessary and that radioactive materials should not be used and located in close proximity to schools, neighbourhoods, a main thoroughfare, the Demerara River, etc.

The EPA had therefore convened a meeting with the said residents and their attorneys, Siand Dhurjon and Ms. Vidushi Persaud-McKinnon. The EPA assured that this was only for the construction aspect of the undertaking by Schlumberger and that they would get a better opportunity to speak on the merits and demerits of the actual radioactive storage facility’s operation when Schlumberger seeks an application for same.

It was noted then that under section 11 of the Environmental Protection Act Cap.20:05, any project that may significantly affect the environment requires an environmental impact assessment and such an assessment requires publication in the newspapers of the intended project and consultations with the public.

In one of several affidavits to support their claim, the residents explained some of the efforts that were taken to prevent the EPA from granting permission for hazardous waste facility to be constructed. Among the affidavits are documents signed by Mayor and City Council (M&CC) representative Celihsia Hall for constituency 15– residential areas stretching from Agricola to D’Aguiar Park. She noted that in May of last year, she was contacted by Vanda Razik who expressed concerns that Schlumberger Guyana had applied to the EPA for permission to build the radioactive facility at Houston.

Radzik, she said, explained that she was concerned to find out that the EPA had decided to waive the requirement of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) to be done toward the construction of the facility. Hall said that neither the MCC nor any of the councillors including herself included were not aware of the issue.

As a result, she noted that the company had bypassed any permission requirement by the council to build the facility in the area. Further, the councillor explained too that as a follow up on the matter she learnt that Radzik and her lawyers had attended a meeting with the EPA where agency sought to dispel concerns about the dangers and risk of the radioactive facility.

According to the councillor, the applicant were told that based on a screening tool conducted by the EPA, the radioactive facility was not that hazardous compared to the Georgetown Hospital has at its Cancer Institute. However, when the applicants asked to examine the screening tool and methodology used to measure the risks involved in constructing the facility, they were told that the document is an internal one.

Additionally, the councillor noted that Schlumberger operations are against the zoning required since the residential constituency was never rezoned to allow for industrial uses.  As such, she noted her support for the residents as they seek reliefs from the court to have the facility removed from Houston and placed in an area that is less hazardous to residents.

The EPA has since responded in defence of Schlumberger’s facility by Affidavit dated 28^th March, 2022 that construction of the radioactive facility was completed and that they had already permitted Schlumberger to use, possess and store radioactive substances at the facility since 26th January, 2022.  The EPA submitted that the orders sought – to quash the construction permit – ought not be granted since both construction had completed and operation had already begun. The residents have since been granted an amendment by Justice Harnanan to seek orders targeting the operation of the facility, the use, storage and possession of radioactive materials by Schlumberger.

Schlumberger has stated in its affidavit filed with the court at paragraphs 16 and 18 that the reason the public did not need any notice that the EPA was considering a radioactive materials usage, possession and storage permit sought was the EPA was satisfied that there would be no substantial impact on the environment and that the likely impact on the environment was not unclear.

The EPA has joined Schlumberger in their defence and has contended in its affidavit filed with the court that the reason the public was not given any notice that the EPA was considering a radioactive materials usage, possession and storage permit sought by Schlumberger was that it was clear that the project would not affect the environment.

However, the residents maintain that the use and storage of radioactive materials at Houston could significantly impact the environment and should be moved to a less populated area.  An interim injunction to prevent the operation of the facility temporarily was refused by Judge Harananan on the basis that such an order would have completely determined the proceedings at the interim stage. Therefore, the Court has ordered that the matter be expedited and timelines were fixed for the filing of documents to allow for a speedy hearing of the matter.

The Court reconvenes on 25^th July, 2022 for oral addresses by attorneys for the residents, the EPA and Schlumberger to commence. Schlumberger is represented by law office Hughes, Fields and Stoby, the EPA is represented by Shareefah Parks and Frances Carryl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

---