EAB still reviewing appeals on waiver of impact study for 300-megawatt gas plant

May 04, 2023 ExxonMobil, News, Oil & Gas

Kaieteur News – The Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) is yet to hand down its decision on the appeals made by citizens, regarding the waiver of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for a 300-megawatt gas fired power plant to be constructed at Wales, West Bank Demerara.

Chairman of the Board, Dr. Mahender Sharma in a brief telephone interview yesterday explained that the members of the body are still analysing the statements received from the two appellants and comments submitted by two other citizens. He said, “The report is still under review by the board members and we have not yet submitted it to the EPA…we have not yet completed the process, we are reviewing all of the comments and those comments will translate into our recommendations in the report.”

Dr. Sharma said he could not state the definitive timeline as to when the EAB will wrap up the process to either uphold the decision, or overthrow the EIA waiver. He was also reluctant to share any findings made by the board so far. The Chairman would only say, “We are reviewing all of the comments and all of the statements so that we can address it comprehensively.”

Over a month ago, the three member EAB presided over a Public Hearing into the decision made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to exempt the power plant from a detailed impact assessment. The project is a component of the US$2.1 billion Gas-to-Energy (GTE) initiative.

In a Notice published on January 6, 2023 the EPA announced that the project will not require the study, citing several reasons. Two objections were received by the EAB to appeal this decision. The appellants, Vanda Radzik and Elizabeth Deane-Hughes and, Danuta Radzik presented their arguments on March 22, 2023. Two citizens, Alfred Bhulai and Simone Mangal-Joly had also shared their written comments regarding the waiver with the EAB.

(From left) Chairman of the EAB, Dr Mahendar Sharma with EAB members, Dr. Garvin Cummings and Joslyn McKenzie

The appellants believe that the gas-fired power plant can be dangerous to the health and wellbeing of Guyanese and the environment and should therefore be guided by an EIA. In fact, Vanda Radzik in her submission pointed out, “Gas-fired plants and NGL facilities and the pipelines that feed them are notoriously dangerous. Peoples’ lives, livelihoods and lands are at risk. Toxic gases, chemicals and hazardous wastes are generated along with substantial emissions such as flaring that pollute the environment and affect the health of human.”

Radzik told the EAB that research shows burning fossil fuels at power plants create emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, carbon dioxide and other pollutants that lead to respiratory and cardiovascular problems, and other health issues such as cancer and other immune system damage. As such she asked, “Why would an EIA not be required?”

Meanwhile, Danuta Radzik in her presentation noted that an explosion is likely at the facility and can cause serious injury, loss of life and devastate the environment, yet the EPA thought it appropriate to exempt a separate EIA for the power plant.

The two other aspects of the GTE project- the Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) plant and pipeline were subjected to an EIA. The activist said at least seven communities, according to ExxonMobil’s impact assessment, are within a mile from the power plant and the NGL plant site, thereby placing these citizens at direct risk of air emissions, dust, soil erosion, noise, earth tremors, lost access to agricultural lands and could potentially experience a boiling liquid vapour explosion, jet fire or a flammable cloud.

These risks all highlight the need for a thorough study to be done according to Radzik since the Exxon study does not adequately explain each risk and offer mitigation measures. Moreover, she said there is no estimate as to the casualties from explosions, jet fires, or other explosions from the power plant. “It is therefore inaccurate to state that impact will be moderate to low…the fact that these communities are considered socio-economically and environmentally disadvantaged seems to make them even more acceptable as sacrifice zones for big oil and the beneficiaries of big oil,” she argued.