Court ruled against failure to publish reasons for waiver, not waiver – EPA

…agency acknowledges error, pledges to abide by court ruling

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has pledged to abide by a recent court ruling on its waiver of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for Schlumberger Guyana Inc (SGI), though the Agency is maintaining that the ruling focused on its failure to publish reasons for the waiver – not the waiver itself.
The case of Radzik and others versus the EPA and Schlumberger Guyana was a battle over the oilfield services company building a storage facility for radioactive chemicals in Houston, East Bank Demerara (EBD).
The EPA had waived the requirement for the company to submit an EIA – as it can under the Environmental Protection Act. However, High Court Judge Nareshwar Harnanan ruled that the EPA breached its statutory duty to provide adequate reasons for the waiver.
In a statement, the EPA acknowledged that it did indeed err by not providing said reasons. But the Agency was adamant that the ruling was not against its decision to waive the requirement for the EIA. In fact, the EPA pointed out that the Judge reinforced the Agency’s mandate for deciding if a project needs an EIA or not.
“The EPA wishes to make it clear that the judgement was not against the Agency’s decision to waive the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), but rather our failure to publish in our statutory notice reasons/adequate reasons for the decision not requiring an EIA,” the Agency said.
“The Hon Justice Nareshwar Harnanan in his judgement stated, “That the EPA’s decision to waive the requirement of an Environmental Impact Assessment with respect to SGI’s application for environmental authorisation for the construction of the said facility is in breach of the EPA’s statutory duty FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONS for the wavier as mandated under Section 11 (2) of the Environmental Protection Act, Cap.20:05.”
According to the EPA, Justice Harnanan further stipulated in paragraph 56 of his judgement that “the EPA by Section 11(2) is mandated to determine whether the project requires an EIA or not”, as the regulatory body.
The applicants in the case were Danuta and Vanda Radzik and Raphael Singh, who are residents of Houston, where the project is located. They had argued that the EPA has a statutory duty to require an EIA for any activity which may negatively affect the environment.
The applicants had said that in late April 2021, they discovered that Schlumberger was proposing to construct a storage facility for radioactive substances at its current location, and that the EPA had waived the need for the company to do an EIA for the proposed project.
Contending that the project put their health and the community at significant risk, as the permit contains no provisions that regulate how Schlumberger is to ensure that the facility is safe for storage and use of radioactive substances, they asked the court to declare that the EPA’s decision to waive the requirement for an EIA was in breach of its statutory duty; contrary to natural justice; arbitrary, ultra vires, and without any legal foundation; and should, therefore, be quashed.
Given that Houston and its immediate environs include residential areas where hundreds of people live, and the area for the facility is close to schools and places of worship, the applicants were contending that the EPA should have consulted with residents before waiving an EIA for a project of this nature.
The applicants have said that it was not until April 11, 2021 that the EPA had issued a public notice, via the press, which stated that Schlumberger had applied for an environmental authorisation.
The notice, which was published in the Guyana Chronicle, they added, further stated: “It has been determined that the proposed project will not significantly affect the environment or human health, and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment.”
The notice also said the public could appeal against the EPA’s decision within 30 days.
“The notice was vague and deficient in detail, and omitted significant relevant details about the nature and scope of the proposed facility. The project summary was effectively concealed from the public, and not made readily available to persons who may have concerns,” the applicants deposed.
On December 16, Justice Harnanan quashed Schlumberger’s permit to possess, use, and store radioactive materials at its main location at Lot 1, Area X Houston, EBD, finding that the EPA breached its statutory duties when it issued the licence to the company in January of this year. (G3)