Govt. relies on non-existent EIA study for Power Plant

Jan 07, 2023 News

---

…as EPA now gives go-ahead after contract signed

Kaieteur News – The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the 300 megawatt (MW) gas-fired power plant to be constructed by the Government of Guyana will not have significant impacts on the environment and is therefore exempted from undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

Notably, the EPA’s decision to not require an environmental impact study comes weeks after the contract to construct the power plant was awarded by government. The US$759M contract with CH4-Lindsayca was inked on December 13, 2022.

An EIA, as described by the former head of the EPA, Dr. Vincent Adams, is the “Bible of a project” that defines all environmental risks and hazards associated. Once these are identified, the study- usually conducted by an independent Consultant – points out actions that will be taken to mitigate the hazards or respond in the case of an emergency.

In announcing its decision to waive an EIA for the project through a public notice in the Guyana Chronicle on Friday, the EPA listed six reasons for its conclusion.

To begin with, the regulator explained, “The proposed location for this project falls within the area of influence/footprint of an EPA approved Gas to Energy Project (GTE) that was subjected to a comprehensive EIA, including a Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA). The CIA concluded that there will be no significant impacts from the combined activities/projects.”

That EIA was conducted by a Texas based Consultant, Environmental Resources Management (ERM), for the gas pipeline and Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) Plant to be developed by U.S oil giant, ExxonMobil. These two aspects form part of the Government’s Wales, West Bank Demerara Gas-to-Energy (GTE) project.

In that study, the Consultant made it clear that the power plant being pursued by the government would be subjected to a separate Environmental Authorization process and impacts from this venture were not included except during the Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA). This means that the public is still unaware as to the potential impacts of this project as well as what safeguards would be instituted.

“The Government of Guyana is pursuing a separate project to construct a power plant (the Power Plant) that would use a portion of this associated natural gas as a fuel source. Accordingly, EEPGL, at the request of the Government of Guyana, is proposing the Project to provide fuel for the Power Plant. The Power Plant will not be owned and operated by EEPGL and is being proposed by a separate proponent under a separate Environmental Authorisation process. The Power Plant thus is not included in the Project within the EIA (with the exception that the Power Plant is considered as part of the cumulative impact assessment),” the EIA stated.

Nevertheless, the EPA said the proposed location for the project has already been subjected to a rigorous EIA and CIA.

According to the EPA, the CIA done for the project revealed that while there is potential for temporary impacts on air quality, the maximum predicted concentrations of key pollutants including nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM 2.5 and PM10), and carbon monoxide (CO)- will be within the World Health Organization (WHO) stipulated limits.

In further explaining its decision to waive the impact study for the power plant, the regulator explained, “As natural gas is used for power generation, the flue gas emissions will not have particulate matter and SO2 emissions. However, in the case of back fuel use, particulate matter and SO2 emissions will be released but to a minimal extent, and well below recommended WHO guidelines.”

It added that compared to Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) currently in use for power plants, natural gas has lower carbon content and as a result will have a lower CO2 emission. Natural gas, according to the EPA, also does not contain sulphur meaning there will be no sulphur emissions from burning the natural gas.

Meanwhile, as it regards water quality, the regulator explained, “Process wastewater will be treated to local and international acceptable standards (GNBS Interim Effluent discharge standards and/or IFC Guidelines) via a wastewater treatment plant prior to being discharged. The sanitary sewage system within the facility will collect all sanitary wastewater and treat it to international applicable standards prior to discharge into a stormwater pond prior to discharge into the Demerara River.”

It noted too that the project is not located in a sensitive ecosystem but within a “highly modified landscape”. The design of the project, according to the EPA will include embedded controls as well as targeted mitigation measures during construction and operation to avoid, minimize and mitigate any impacts to biodiversity.

As such, the agency concluded, “The Project will not significantly impact or change overall ecological functions of the landscape and affected watershed will retain their current functions largely unchanged. Potential environmental and social impacts that will be caused by the project during pre-construction, construction and operation phases, have been identified, screened and assessed.”

It added, “Overall, many of the impacts are localized, short-term and/or temporary in nature. This project therefore is exempt from the conduct of an Environmental Impact Assessment.”

In keeping with the Environmental Protection Act, Cap 20:05; any person that may be affected by the project may lodge an appeal to the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) against the agency’s decision not to require an EIA. The appeal must be submitted within 30 days of the notice, which means persons have until around February 6, 2023 to submit their objections.

Appeals against the EPA’s decision should be addressed to the Chairman, Environmental Assessment Board or email at eabguyana21@gmail.com or submitted to its website at www.epaguyana.org.

The EPA on November 25, 2022 gave Exxon its blessings to commence the US$1.3 billion GTE project that will allow for the construction of a natural gas pipeline, NGL facility and supporting infrastructure.

While many stakeholders had raised concerns regarding the safety of the project, the EPA in its decision to grant the Permit said the project’s EIA and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) have been declared acceptable, by the Environmental Assessment Board in accordance with section 11(13) of the Environmental Protection Act, Cap. 20:05.

---

---