EPA ignores Law... Gives own reason for waiving EIA on gas plant

EPA ignores Law… Gives own reason for waiving EIA on gas plant

Jan 08, 2023 News

Kaieteur News – The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has returned to its own method of handling business, just weeks after the Court handed down a ruling in which it explicitly stated the factors that must be included in its reason(s) for waiving an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

Guyana’s High Court on December 16, last ruled that the country’s main regulatory body for the petroleum sector, the EPA breached the law when it issued a Permit to Schlumberger Guyana Inc. to construct a radioactive storage facility without conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) first.

EPA Head, Kemraj Parsram

Justice Nareshwar Harnanan after listening to arguments from the two sides told the Court that according to the Environmental Protection Act, EIAs must “(a) identify, describe and evaluate the direct and indirect effects of the proposed project on the environment including— (i) human beings (ii) flora and fauna and species habitats (iii) soil; (iv) water; (v) air and climatic factors (vi) material assets, the cultural heritage and the landscape, (vii) natural resources, including how much of a particular resource is degraded or eliminated, and how quickly the natural system may deteriorate, (viii) the ecological balance and ecosystems, (ix) the interaction between the factors listed above, (x) any other environmental factor which needs to be taken into account or which the Agency may reasonably require to be included, and (b) assess every project with a view to the need to protect and improve human health and living conditions and the need to preserve the stability of eco-systems as well as the diversity of species.”

The Judge explained that while these parameters must be taken into consideration for the impact study, in like manner, the EPA reasons for waiving such a study must reflect these standards.

“This Court is of the view that in the light of the extensive range of factors to be considered in an EIA under sub-section (4), where ‘reasons’ must be given by the EPA for their decision to either require or exempt an EIA for a project applied for under section 11(1), these reasons should reflect the standard expressly laid out in sub-section (4),” Justice Harnanan stated.

He continued to point out that where the EPA determines that a proposed project will not significantly affect the environment and exempts the requirement for an EIA, then the reasons for making this determination must be published.

In its decision to grant an exemption to Schlumberger Guyana Inc. for the radioactive facility, Justice Harnanan said that the notice did not give reason as to the determination that the project will have no significant impact on the surrounding environs or neighbouring residential communities. He was keen to note that, “These considerations are important in giving effect to the intention of the notice.”

But while the Court only days ago gave the EPA a clear definition of the reasons that must be included in its determination for granting an exemption of an impact study, the Regulator has issued yet another waiver on its own grounds.

On Friday, the EPA in a public notice published in the Guyana Chronicle announced that an EIA was not required for the 300 megawatt gas-fired power plant being pursued by the Government of Guyana.

It went on to list six reasons for its decision.

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.

Secondly, the EPA explained that the CIA done for the project revealed that while there is potential for temporary impacts on air quality, these will be within the World Health Organization (WHO) stipulated limits.

Thirdly, the Regulator noted, “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.”

At its fourth reason, the body noted 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.

Fifthly, it was explained that “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 storm water pond prior to discharge into the Demerara River.”

In wrapping up its announcement at the sixth point, the EPA noted 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.

However, the Court was clear that the EPA reasons must reflect an evaluation on human beings, flora, fauna and species habitats, soil, water, air and climatic factors-how much of a particular resource is degraded or eliminated, and how quickly the natural system may deteriorate, among others.

The public was not given any reassurance concerning these factors.

The 300 MW power plant is a component of the Gas-to-Energy (GTE) project in which the Government is pushing, even in the absence of updated feasibility studies and environmental safeguards being instituted.

This project is now pegged at over US$2 billion, with a 190 kilometres pipeline to be laid by ExxonMobil to the tune of US$1.3 billion and a Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) facility and power plant to be built by Government at a cost of US$759M.