‘EPA broke the Law when it issued permit to Schlumberger – Justice Nareshwar Harnanan

Dec 19, 2022 News

---

Kaieteur News – On Friday, High Court Judge Nareshwar Harnanan ruled that Guyana’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) breached the law to issue a permit to Schlumberger Guyana Inc. to construct a radioactive storage facility at Lot 1 Area ‘X’ Houston, East Bank Demerara (EBD)., without conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) first.

On February 14, 2022, three Environmental Activists and residents who live nearby the facility, Vanda Radzik, Danuta Radzik, and Raphael Singh, through their Lawyers: Marlene Alleyne, Siand Dhurjon, and Ronald Burch-Smith, filed a lawsuit at the Demerara High Court against the EPA, the Environmental Assessment Board, and Schlumberger.

The residents won their case last Friday when the Judge handed down his ruling in the case not only quashing the EPA’s decision to grant permission to the US- owned company  to construct and operate the facility but also halting the works at the radioactive storage facility.

Justice Harnanan declared that the EPA’s decision to not conduct an EIA into the effects of the construction of the facility was illegal, ultra vires, unreasonable, and irrational since it breached the Environmental Protection Act, Cap.20:05.

Section 11 of EPA Act, stipulates that any project that may significantly affects the environment requires an EIA and such an assessment requires publication in the newspapers of the intended project as well as consultations with the public.

The Judge said, “This court is of the view that the EPA’s decision to waive the requirement or EIA cannot be found to be lawful as it directly contravenes [section] 11 (2) of the [EPA] Act, the court also finds that no adequate reasons were contained in the notice published by the EPA…”

Justice Harnanan highlighted that while the EPA contended that by granting a permit to Schlumberger to construct the facility it does not guarantee storage of the radioactive sources at the facility – the EPA Act explains – that the agency should not issue a construction or operation permit unless the agency includes in the permit conditions that are reasonably necessary to protect the environment.

Justice Harnanan granted an Order of Certiorari issued and directed to the EPA quashing its decision on June 9, 2021 to award an environmental authorisation to Schlumberger to construct a radioactive substances and material storage and calibration facility on the ground that the decision is ultra vires and breached the EPA statutory duty set out under section 11 (2) of the EPA Act.

A second Order of Certiorari, was issued and directed to the EPA quashing its decision made in January 2022, that permitted Schlumberger to operate its radioactive substances and materials storage and calibration facility and to possess, use and store radioactive materials, on the ground that the decision was in breach of the EPA statutory duty set out under Section 11 (1) and (2) of the EPA Act.

Further, the Judge issued an injunction against Schlumberger, restraining it from continuing the possession, use and storage of radioactive chemicals at its Houston facility, unless and until it is in receipt of a lawfully issued permit pursuant to the provisions of the EPA Act.

The Judge also ordered costs were to be paid by EPA and Schlumberger to the Applicants.

According to reports, on January 19, 2022, the EPA without any notice given to the public, granted Schlumberger permission to use, store and possess radioactive materials at its facility located at Houston.

Notably, the public was also not given any notice that any such permit was under consideration by the Environmental Agency.

However, on April 11, 2022, the EPA in a notice published in the daily newspapers, disclosed that Schlumberger wanted to construct a building to house radioactive materials and that the construction process would not require an EIA.

After seeing the EPA’s notice to waiver the EIA for Schlumberger, several residents formally objected to the decision stating that radioactive materials should not be used or stored in close proximity to schools, neighbourhood, or the Demerara River.

Kaieteur News had reported that the EPA then convened a meeting with the residents and their Lawyers.

During the meeting, EPA assured the residents that this was only for the construction aspect of the facility 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.

Three residents later approached the court seeking an Order of Certiorari to quash the construction permit EPA granted to Schlumberger and an order of injunction to prevent the company from continuing any construction of the facility.

However, in responding to the residents’ lawsuit, the EPA in its Defence disclosed that the construction of the radioactive facility was already completed and that it had granted permission to Schlumberger to use, possess and store radioactive substances at the facility since January 26, 2022.

The State Agency also submitted to the court that the Orders the residents sought ought not to be granted since the construction was completed and that operation had already started.

The applicants through their Lawyers challenged the EPA’s contention.

For its part, Schlumberger in its Affidavit of Defence argued that the public did not need any notice that the EPA was considering a radioactive materials usage, possession and storage permit because the Authority was satisfied that there would be no substantial impact on the environment.

Notably, the EPA had joined Schlumberger in its Defence stating that it was clear that the project would not affect the residents or the environment.

However, the Lawyers for the residents contended and maintained that the use and storage of radioactive materials at Houston, EBD could significantly impact the environment and should be moved to a less populated area.

---

---