## 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.
...
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.
...
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.
Dr Vincent Adams
EPA decision exempting the 300 MW power plant from a separate EIA
Guyana Chronicle · 6 January 2023
Writing on behalf Ramon Gaskin and other concerned citizens, Janki recalled the EPA’s Notice to the Public on January 6, 2023 which stated that the construction and operation of the 300MW project will not significantly affect the environment and is exempt from the EIA requirement.
Janki noted that the Agency’s decision is: unlawful being inter alia unauthorised/contrary to law, an excess of jurisdiction, a failure to satisfy conditions required by law, an unreasonable irregular and improper exercise of discretion, an abuse of power, conflict with the policy of the Environmental Protection Act Cap: 20.05, irrational, and arbitrary.
In the eight page missive seen by this newspaper, Janki outlined several reasons to support the foregoing conclusion.
...
other than the
...
Janki was also keen to point out that the Project Summary submitted by Guyana Power and Light Inc. does not meet the requirements of the Act and must be discarded. The lawyer said Section 11(1)(ii) requires a Project Summary to provide information on the “possible effects on the environment.”
...
It also defines natural resources as, “the living plants, animals and organisms, ecosystems, forests, waterways, soils, and other biological factors within the natural environment, and the geologic formations, mineral deposits, renewable and non-renewable assets, and the habitat of the living plants, animals and organisms.” Janki said a Project Summary should therefore list all of the items in Section 2 of the Act and show the possible effects on each. She said the GPL Project Summary does not state the possible effects on the environment and therefore does not meet the requirements of section 11 of the Act. In relying upon such a deficient document, she said the Agency has acted unlawfully.
...
Janki’s clients also took issue with the fact that the EPA relied on information from another document to hand down its decision. That document was an EIA that was done on the Gas-to-Energy Project by Exxon.
The lawyer recalled the EPA’s reasons for exemption as follows: “1. 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 impact from the combined activities/projects.
“2. The result of the CIA revealed that while there is potential for temporary impacts on air quality, the maximum predicted concentrations of key pollutants nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) and carbon monoxide (CO) will be within the World Health stipulated limits. ”
...
She noted that Section 11(2) of the Act makes it clear that the Agency’s power to determine whether a project will not significantly affect the environment is based only on the information on the Project Summary. Janki wrote, “The section does not authorise the Agency to look at other material in order to exempt the project. The Project Summary must contain all of the information that the EPA is relying on to determine that the project ‘will not’ affect the environment.”
Janki said the EPA has relied upon irrelevant material in reasons 1 and 2 and its decision is therefore unlawful.
...
Janki also reminded that the Act is predicated on the principles of public access to ... and public participation ... She said the ... acting contrary to the
...
Janki said Section 11(3) states that, “Any person who may be affected by a project exempted under subsection (2) (a) may lodge an appeal with the Environmental Assessment Board ... The lawyer contended that it is unlawful for the agency to ... the public to ... the Cumulative Impact ... considered in a separate ... submitted by Exxon), to read through it and to try to work ... what data the
...
foregoing and other critical factors into ... immediately revoke/
Concerned Citizens Appeal EPA’s Decision to Exempt Natural Gas Fired Power Plant from Environmental Impact Assessment, Citing Violations of Environmental Protection Act and Natural Justice – Village Voice News
# Concerned Citizens Appeal EPA’s Decision to Exempt Natural Gas Fired Power Plant from Environmental Impact Assessment, Citing Violations of Environmental Protection Act and Natural Justice
by Staff Writer
March 21, 2023
A group of concerned citizens identified as Attorney Elizabeth Deane Hughes, Ms Vanda Radzik and others have filed an appeal against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to exempt the government’s planned 300MW Natural Gas Fired Power Plant from conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The appeal is scheduled for a public hearing on March 22, 2023, but the appellants have requested a postponement on several grounds.
The appellants argue that the EPA’s decision violates the Environmental Protection Act and the principles of natural justice. They claim that they have not received the rules governing the process and procedure of the public hearing, nor have they received the requested evidence from both the EPA and ExxonMobil Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL), which is involved in the Gas to Energy Project.
The appellants say that they need at least 14 days from the date of receipt of these rules and evidence to prepare their cases comprehensively. They also question how the public hearing will be recorded and whether it will be accessible to civic and civil society after the hearing.
The appellants contend that the proposed project will have significant environmental and social impacts that require a thorough assessment. They point out that natural gas is a fossil fuel that contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. They also express concerns about potential air pollution, water contamination, noise disturbance, land use conflicts, waste management, health risks, and human rights violations.
The appellants urge the government to reconsider its deal with ExxonMobil and its co-venturers, Hess Corporation and CNOOC Petroleum Guyana Limited. They say that Guyana deserves a fair share of its oil and gas resources and should not pay taxes for foreign companies that exploit them. They also call for more transparency and accountability in the management of oil revenues.
The appellants hope that their appeal will be heard by an independent and credible Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) that will uphold environmental justice in Guyana. They also hope that their appeal will raise public awareness and mobilize support for their cause.
Despite their concerns, the appellants claim that they are being denied access to Zoom facilities, which greatly affects their submissions as their advisors, legal and technical, who are currently not in Guyana, will be denied the right to participate in the EAB hearing of the waiver of an EIA for the 300 MW Natural Gas Fired Power Plant at Wales, part of the Gas to Energy Project. They argue that this denial of access violates their right to be heard, particularly for those unable to travel to the location due to Covid-19 or care-giving responsibilities.
The appellants have written to the EPA and EEPGL seeking evidence necessary for a comprehensive presentation at the hearing, but to date, they have received no acknowledgment or response. They have also sent a letter requesting the postponement of the public hearing to the EAB, but they have yet to receive a response.
The US Embassy has been informed of these denials along with other infractions of the laws of Cooperative Republic of Guyana in the implementation of the Gas to Energy Project.
The appellants hope that their appeal will be heard by an independent and credible Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) that will uphold environmental justice in Guyana.
EAB upholds EPA decision on waiver of impact study for gas-fired power plant - Kaieteur News
## EAB upholds EPA decision on waiver of impact study for gas-fired power plant
May 11, 2023 News
…says project will pose manageable risks
Kaieteur News – The Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) on Wednesday issued its decision to uphold the waiver of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for a 300 megawatt gas-fired power plant to be constructed at Wales, West Bank Demerara.
...
Guyana’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on January 6, 2023 published its decision to exempt the project from the study. This decision was appealed in two separate applications, leading to a public hearing by the EAB on March 22, 2023.
...
In upholding the decision of the EPA, the Board- Chaired by Head of the Guyana Energy Agency (GEA), Dr. Mahendar Sharma- said among other things that the project will pose manageable risks to the environment and socioeconomic resources of Guyana.
...
The Board made it clear that the Environmental Protection (EP) Act does not mandate the requirement of an EIA for any particular project or categories of projects, as the decisions remain that of the EPA.
...
With the adoption of such controls and others, the ... AB is convinced that “the project is expected to pose only manageable risks to the environmental and socioeconomic resources of Guyana.”
...
In delivering its ruling on the waiver of the EIA, the Board said it found there are proposed mitigation measures for the expected environmental impacts included in the project summary and other supporting documentation submitted by the developer, which the appellants may not have been privy to.
It explained, “The appellants appear to have based their arguments solely on the information presented in the application whereas the EPA utilized information from the supporting documents submitted as well as the application to evaluate the project.” The Board did not state the other supporting documents that were used but ruled, “The EAB therefore upholds the decision of the EPA that no ESIA is required for the Project.”
Idle gas pipeline to be preserved until power plant is commissioned - Exxon Guyana - Kaieteur News ↗
Idle gas pipeline to be preserved until power plant is commissioned - Exxon Guyana - Kaieteur News Idle gas pipeline ... preserved until power plant is commissioned - ... Guyana - Kaieteur News
...
Kaieteur News – The 12-inch gas pipeline being constructed by ExxonMobil Guyana Limited (EMGL) will be delivered by the company by the end of this year, however, the power plant and Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) facility will not be completed until the following year.
In light of the foregoing, the company will be required to conduct additional works to ensure the structure is safe to operate when the other components of the Gas-to-Energy (GTE) project have been completed.
This is according to President of ExxonMobil Guyana Limited, Alistair Routledge. The Country Manager of the company during a press conference on Tuesday at Exxon’s Duke Street, Kingston, Georgetown office explained that it was not unusual for varying elements of a major project to be come on stream at separate dates.
As such, he pointed to measures that will be taken by Exxon to secure the US$1B pipeline. “What we will do is we’ll complete the pipeline and we will make sure that it is secure. Generally we will leave it within an earth gas like nitrogen, perhaps with treated water, we are looking at the details of that depending upon how long we think it will be left idle until we are ready to commission it with gas which would be when we already know that the plant is ready to receive gas,” Routledge said.
He added, “We’ll do the testing of its integrity, but there will be a blind flange on the end of it waiting for the new plant to be connected and in the meantime we will just keep that pipeline if you like, in earth and safe, ready to go for the operation.”