Coverden residents pledge to up action against oil waste facility
A small number of Coverden residents yesterday gathered for a community meeting led by activist Audreyanna Thomas to voice their opposition to the establishment of a Waste Treatment Plant by PSWI in their area.
Although the turnout was small, the meeting was considered significant by those who attended. Participants expressed their concerns and outlined their strategic plans to address the issue.
The community plans to continue their protests and expand their advocacy by formally contacting key organizations. They intend to petition both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and G-Invest, urging them to halt the Waste Treatment Plant project. Additionally, they aim to request a visit from the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) to emphasize that the land use is incompatible with the community’s objectives. Residents also plan to seek legal advice.
A primary concern among residents is the fear of retaliation. Many, especially farmers who receive subventions and tools from the Ministry of Agriculture or work with various ministries, are hesitant to participate openly due to concerns about potential negative repercussions. While support remains strong on paper, the fear of victimization is a significant deterrent.
Worries
The meeting also highlighted worries about the potential environmental hazards, health risks, and economic impacts associated with the Waste Treatment Plant. The community members argued that the plant’s presence could endanger their environment and livelihoods, particularly given their plans to develop eco-resorts and relaxation areas. They believe the plant’s operation could undermine their sustainable development goals.
There is also a call for greater transparency regarding the types of waste being processed and the availability of a disaster preparedness plan. Residents are concerned about potential impacts of any mishaps at the plant on their livelihoods, homes, and the surrounding environment.
Thomas pointed out a perceived imbalance in decisionmaking within the community. She argued that while the PSWI project threatens local livelihoods, the community’s plans for eco-resorts pose no comparable risks. This discrepancy underscores their concern over the project’s potential negative impacts.
To address these issues, the Coverden community is preparing to submit petitions to the EPA and Go-Invest and formally invite the FAO to visit their area. They are also seeking detailed information on waste treatment processes and disaster preparedness to ensure they are adequately equipped to handle any potential incidents.
These demonstrations are despite assurances from the EPA that the new operator of the $214 million waste treatment plant, Professional Waste Solutions Incorporated (PWSI), has implemented improvements in processes and technology, aligning with the latest environmental best practices.
On August 15, the Department of Public Information (DPI) announced that the agreement for the waste treatment plant was formalized by Senior Minister in the Office of the President with responsibility for Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh, and Guyana’s Chief Investment Officer, Peter Ramsaroop. The plant is expected to create over 40 jobs and align with the government’s commitment to sustainable development. Ramsaroop highlighted
that the plant will use non-incinerator technology to process oil and gas waste, aiming to position Guyana as a leader in eco-friendly industrial practices.
Thomas has objected to the agreement, particularly in light of the change in operator. Thomas argued that when residents initially agreed to the project, after their concerns were addressed, it was to be operated by Global Oil Environmental Services (GOES). Residents believed GOES had the necessary expertise to operate the treatment plant without endangering their lives.
The EPA explained that GOES had submitted an application for environmental authorization on February 16, 2021, to operate a waste management facility for oil and gas exploration and production wastes. After a thorough review, the EPA determined that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was unnecessary based on the project’s scope and potential impacts. This decision was announced on March 21, 2021, with a 30-day public notice period allowing for
appeals to the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB).
Several appeals were filed, reflecting community concerns about the project’s environmental impact. In response, the EAB held a public hearing on May 10, 2021, to address and evaluate the concerns raised. After reviewing the input, the EAB upheld its decision to forego an EIA, concluding that, with appropriate safeguards, the project would not present significant environmental risks. Consequently, GOES received environmental authorization for the facility, valid from August 2021 to July 2026.
However, in January 2023, GOES ceased operations, and PWSI requested the transfer of environmental authorization. The EPA processed this request and issued a Transferred and Modified Environmental Permit to PWSI in July 2023. This new permit incorporated process and technology enhancements while maintaining regulatory compliance. The EPA ensured that the transfer adhered to environmental protection regulations and emphasized that PWSI’s updated
permit includes strict conditions to regulate operations, focusing on air and water quality. The EPA will continue to monitor the facility to ensure it meets high standards for environmental and human health.
Mahendra Jettoo, CEO of PWSI, has denied allegations of neglected environmental assessments or community consultations. Jettoo asserted that all necessary requirements were met and that the EPA and Ministry of Housing had approved the project. He emphasized PWSI’s commitment to regulatory compliance and local job creation.
Residents are calling for clarity on the EPA’s approval process for PWSI to operate the facility, the procedures G-Invest followed to allocate $214 million to PWSI, and the lack of consultation with Coverden residents regarding the establishment of the facility. They also believe that the EPA should have mandated an EIA or environmental management plan regardless of the operating company.