–to operate radioactive facility at Houston

THE Guyana High Court has quashed an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decision to allow Schlumberger (SLB), one of ExxonMobil (Guyana)’s major subcontractors, to construct a storage and calibration facility at Houston, East Bank Demerara, without the mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

The ruling was handed down by Justice Nareshwar Harnanan on Friday afternoon in favour of Houston residents Danuta Radzik, her sister Vanda Radzik, and Raphael Singh, who are all opposed to the idea of having such a facility in their community.

The trio had moved to the High Court to declare that the EPA’s decision to waive the requirement of an EIA was, among other things, “unlawful and unreasonable”.
The applicants had argued that their health and community are at significant risk, since they live near the radioactive facility.

They deposed in their fixed-date application (FDA) that in late April 2021, SLB, then Schlumberger, was proposing to construct a radioactive substances storage facility in Houston, Georgetown, and that the EPA had waived the need for an EIA into the proposed project.

However, the EPA later published on its website a ‘Notice to the Public’ which stated that an application for an environmental authorisation was submitted for the construction of “a source storage and calibration facility”, and that it has been determined that the project will not significantly affect the environment or human health, and [is] therefore, exempt from the requirement of an EIA.

The notice also mentioned that the public could appeal against the EPA’s said determination within 30 days.
However, the applicants said that by the time they saw the publication in one of the daily newspapers, the 30-day period was almost expired, and as such they were unable to find out more details about the project with sufficient specificity to appeal the EPA’s purported decision as published in the Notice.

As such, an appeal could not be made in the time permitted.
“The Notice was vague, and did not include reasons, as required by Section 11(2) of the Act. The First Respondent (EPA) has failed to provide any or any adequate reasons for its decision or conclusions, and accordingly, they are irrational, unreasonable, irregular, and unlawful,” the applicants said in their application.

In the circumstances, the Radziks and Singh asked the court to find that the EPA’s decision to grant the EIA should be quashed.
In response, Justice Harnanan said that he is of the view that in its consideration of the applications for environmental authorisations under the EPA Act, the EPA cannot treat the operation’s permit independent of the construction permit.

He, therefore, granted an order of certiorari in favour of the residents, and quashed the EPA’s decision made in June 2021, to award an environmental authorisation to the company to construct a radioactive substances and materials storage and calibration facility, on the grounds that it was ultra vires, and a breach of the EPA’s statutory duty.

The judge issued an injunction, restraining SLB or its agents from continuing the operations reportedly authorised by the EPA at the facility, unless a “lawfully issued” permit is granted.
The cost was awarded to the applicants, which will be assessed.

SLB was represented by the law firm, Hughes, Fields and Stoby, while the EPA was represented by Attorneys-at-Law Shareefah Parks and Frances Carryl.
The residents were represented by Attorneys-at-Law Siand Dhurjon, Ronald Burchsmith and Malene Alleyne.