Waiver of EIA for Wales gas plant shows pattern of Governmental neglect of environment, nation's health - Former EPA Head

Waiver of EIA for Wales gas plant shows pattern of Governmental neglect of environment, nation’s health – Former EPA Head

Jan 09, 2023 News

Kaieteur News – The decision by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to exempt government’s 300 megawatt (MW) gas-fired power plant from a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) shows a pattern of continued negligence by the government, towards the environment and health of its citizens.

Former EPA Head, Dr. Vincent Adams

This is the position of Dr. Vincent Adams, a Petroleum Engineer and former Executive Director of the local EPA.

In an exclusive interview with Kaieteur News on Sunday, the specialist said the waiver of the impact study was not grounded in logical reasons. In fact, he argued that the decision of the EPA was “sheer nonsense”.

To explain his position, Dr. Adams said, “They gave six reasons and at number three, they tried to say that there would be no particulate matter but that is total nonsense. Gas is made up of particulate matter, that’s what the flue gas is made up of, so whoever wrote that, for somebody at the EPA to be saying that I would be embarrassed.”

Additionally, he pointed out that the EIA done for the natural gas pipeline aspect of the project said that a separate EIA would be required for the power plant. “That means it was clear that there is need for another EIA and now they are not doing it,” he said.

Thirdly, the Petroleum Engineer reasoned that the EPA in its decision also explained that this project is in the “footprint of an EPA approved Gas to Energy Project 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.”

Dr. Adams however explained, “When I read that it’s in the footprint, I don’t know what that means to start with but what should be asked is well you say it’s in the footprint and it shows cumulative impacts, how the hell could it show cumulative effects when the people who wrote the EIA for the first aspect said an EIA is needed for the gas plant project? That means it wasn’t even considered as to what that cumulative effect would be because you hadn’t done the study.”

He challenged the EPA to tell the public what the worst-case scenario with the existence of gas plant would be as outlined in the CIA and what derived these impacts.

The former head of the regulatory body pointed out that while companies’ sole intent is to make money, government’s responsibility is to safeguard the country.

“To me, a company is there to make money. That is the bottom line, that’s how those guys get paid and those big fat bonuses. They cut the corners and take the risk, hoping that nothing is going to happen. The Government’s responsibility is to make sure that the health, safety of the environment of the nation and the people are protected and that’s where they are being very neglectful,” Dr. Adams noted.

He said that this project shows that a pattern in the oil industry where the administration has sat back and allowed U.S oil major, ExxonMobil to break the laws of Guyana.

He explained, “This shows a pattern because if you go back to the oil industry itself where they are neglecting matters such as flaring, the government not forcing Exxon to comply with our own laws to have the parent company guarantee. They are dumping water into the ocean; this shows a clear pattern of neglect by the government towards the people’s health, safety and the environment.”

Dr. Adams urged that an EIA is required for the power plant as there are presently unknown risks that can impact the population. He said that there are plans to develop a new Demerara River Crossing, which will likely attract further developments in Region Three, where the power plant is being developed. This he said can put hundreds and possibly thousands of lives at risk in the event of an explosion.

“A project of this magnitude was never done so how can we know the impacts and how can we dismiss it to say well the impacts will be negligible? What happens if there is an explosion over there? They have plans to put in a fertilizer plant and all of that there in the future but all of this is highly hazardous,” the former EPA Chief argued.

He said it is important to never put production ahead of schedule and safety, as safety should always be the top priority.

On January 6, 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.

The country’s High Court had only days before gave the EPA a clear definition of the reasons that must be included in its determination for granting an exemption of an impact study, but the Regulator has issued yet another waiver on its own grounds.

Justice Nareshwar Harnanan 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’s 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.

The 300 MW power plant is a component of the 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.