‘A non-independent expert can’t say what is safe for us’

Feb 10, 2023 News

---

– Houston residents tell Schlumberger

By Shervin Belgrave

Kaieteur News – James Doug Aitken, a consultant with Schlumberger on Tuesday failed to convince residents that his company’s Houston, East Bank Demerara (EBD) radioactive waste facility is harmless because he is not an independent expert on the environmental dangers it poses.

Aitken is a retired Schlumberger employee and was reportedly brought in by the company to be its consultant in Guyana. On Tuesday, he presented on radiation safety during a public consultation hosted by IMEX INC. – a local environmental service provider to oil and gas companies- at Parc Rayne, Rahaman’s Park, EBD to engage citizens on operations of the facility.

Research by this publication shows that exposure to radioactive waste can cause cancerous growths in humans and genetic damage or mutation to animals and plants. Scientists believe these changes could prevent sustainable procreation. In his presentation, Aitken sought to explain the extreme measures his company has in place to protect residents living close to the facility and its employees from exposure to dangerous levels of radiation.

The Schlumberger consultant claimed that all of the company’s radioactive sources are triple sealed with the most non-corrosive alloys and added that they are stored in pits secured by heavy lids that only special machines can remove. When asked if flooding can affect the storage facility, causing leaks and contamination, Aitken said that it is highly unlikely this would happen because of how secure the radioactive sources are kept.

The consultant explained that if one of it sources gets lost in the pits, it can remain there for hundreds of years without causing any catastrophe and assured that no matter long it takes, Schlumberger will return to remove them. Despite his efforts to convince the Houston residents that the company’s operation does not pose any significant threats, it was not enough to shake their stance that such a facility should not be in or close to their communities.

When it was time to share their comments on his presentation, one of the residents said, “With due respect sir, the presenter [Aitken], he is not an independent…he is not an independent person that we deserve, we want somebody independent to come and explain to us what this really is”.

This resident’s view was supported by almost all the other residents who attended the consultation. Another joined in saying, “We do not know much about this thing and you can come here and tell us anything” while others shouted, “You work for them, they are paying you; we don’t want it here”.

A third resident, Dr. Roshan Khan said, “You do not love us… Y’all are here to mek money… we don’t trust you… all of you there are white washing”. One of the company’s officials tried one last time to convince the residents by responding “It’s true I don’t love you, I only love my wife but it is impossible for any catastrophe to happen” but it was of no use.

Tuesday’s meeting with the residents came close to two months after the Guyana’s High Court ruled that operations at the facility must cease. 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 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Environmental Assessment Board and Schlumberger.

It was reported that 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. With the several citizens stating their disapproval for the radioactive (RA) facility at Houston, given its close proximity to schools, homes, places of worship and work places among others, Schlumberger is willing to relocate if the need arises.

The company’s lawyer, Kyle Prescod told reporters at the sidelines of the event, “Well then we just have to look at alternatives, whether it be relocating the facility or… we don’t know at this point in time, but of course we are in the hands of the regulator so whatever the regulator says in terms of whether an EIA is required or whether the facility needs to be relocated, we will have to respect and adhere to those.”

The Attorney said the Houston location was selected given its prime position near the Demerara River. This, he explained, reduces the need for the RA materials being transported on land, thereby limiting its exposure to citizens. According to him, if Schlumberger were to shift its operation elsewhere this may mean road transportation and increased chances of incidents should protocols not be followed.

The representative signalled that while he is not a technical personnel, the activities at Schlumberger are designed in a manner to limit likely impacts from the radioactive sources. “Basically, the sources are sealed sources, so there is the seal that they are stored in, but even when they come out of that shield there is a separate shield for the source so it’s not that you have a radioactive source that is ever out, completely exposed to the environment,” he said.

Schlumberger has moved to the EPA, seeking approval to restart the operations at Houston. The application was made shortly after the Court ruling on December 16, 2022. Justice Nareshwar Harnanan ruled that the EPA breached its statutory duties when it made the decision to waive the requirement of an EIA to Schlumberger in relation to granting an environmental permit for the construction of the facility.

In fact, the Judge declared that 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. 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.

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 EPA is presently in the process of reviewing the new application from SGI and will publish its decision on whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required.

If the regulator determines that the study is required, SGI will have to conduct the assessment through an independent consultant, approved by the EPA. That study will then be used by the agency to decide on the project’s approval. On the other hand, the EPA can decide that an EIA is not required and instead order an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and/or other forms of assessment to inform its final decision for the facility. The public must be notified of the EPA’s decision according to the law, which must be supported with reasons for their conclusion. The public will also have an opportunity to offer comments on the decision made by the EPA.

---

• Expert, facility, James Doug Aitken, radioactive, Residents, Schlumberger

---