Stockfeeds rice mill project comes under intense scrutiny at hearing
Further arguments to be heard after design plans presented
By Oscar P. Clarke
Stabroek News
June 28, 2003
Guyana Stockfeeds Ltd (GSL) is to provide copies of the design and plans for its proposed parboiled rice mill which came under intense scrutiny at a public hearing on Wednesday and saw a petition against it being presented by residents.
The hearing by the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) was prompted by appeals from the Neighbourhood Democratic Council (NDC) in the area, the New Guyana Pharmaceu-tical Corporation Inc. (NGPC) and National Hardware (Guyana) Ltd (NHL) all of which are complaining that the project would be harmful to the environment. They are opposing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to waive the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the rice mill project
The hearing at the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre was adjourned for a date in two weeks at which time the parties would be given a chance to present arguments following assessment of the documents.
Making presentations before the four-man EAB, under the chairmanship of Dr Vibert Shury, NGPC, NHL and the NDC opposed the project for varying reasons.
In its argument against the project, NGPC, represented by Company Secretary Amanda Pierre, mentioned the likelihood of dust contamination and vibrations from pile driving, which could affect the company’s compliance with international standards.
NGPC, according to Pierre, would also suffer the effects of noise pollution especially during the construction phase and the waste generation and its disposal.
It also had concerns over increased traffic in the already deteriorating street, which she said the Farm, East Bank Demerara-based GSI had refused to join in repairing.
According to the company, an EIA would address several objectives including biological and physical impacts to the surroundings.
Further the EIA would highlight details as to the levels of emissions expected with regard to dust, noise, vibration, gaseous, solid and liquid wastes, some of the principle concerns to NGPC.
A petition was also presented by residents bordering the Farm industrial site especially those of Covent Garden whose concern was that they were not involved or informed about the decision to set up a rice mill in “our backyard.”
According to the petition, read by Ajay Baksh, “We the residents of this area object to this project since we do not want to suffer the same troubles that the residents of Cane Grove [Mahaica] have had to face (in relation to another rice mill). Who will pay for the medical expenses when the dust affects us? Who will help us deal with the tons of dust that will pile up in our yards and homes?” They further urged the EPA to have the matter properly investigated so that they would not become unwilling victims.
“We would like to know why are we going to be subjected to rice dust when we are not rice farmers, millers or persons who will benefit in no way from the project? GUYSUCO already affects us every time they burn sugar canes, now must we be further inconvenienced and endangered by the daily dust clouds that will be blown down on us from rice milling?”
They demanded the right to a fair hearing in their area while calling for work on the project to be halted.
The residents alluded to the issuing of a cease order against Stockfeeds in early May 2003 and the subsequent continuation of work unabated which they said was a clear reason why they could not trust the developer’s word on the project. The developer had said that work had to be continued for a while after the cease order to protect the foundation works.
Baksh presented a copy of the petition to the EAB, which had the signatures of 100-odd residents from the neighbouring community of Covent Garden.
Chairman of the Little Diamond/Herstelling NDC, Ramanah, who also addressed the hearing, later told Stabroek News that the main issue of concern to the council was that it had not been briefed about the proposed project.
He said no attempt had been made to meet and discuss the issues.
“The people have not submitted their proposals in keeping with the law so we cannot therefore object to something that we don’t know. That is what I told them. They will have to come in and submit their plans, all the proposals and plans, so that we can properly consider it and then we will be able to have a position on it,” the NDC chairman said.
He however cited as their main objection the granting of what he termed “tentative approval” without the environmental impact assessment or the NDC’s approval.
“But let us see the drawings, let us see the proposals only then you can decide whether we can reach agreement, only then we will be satisfied.”
He alluded to existing problems in the area with businesses polluting the drains.
“We have no objection to them operating we want businesses to develop because it provides employment, it generates revenue, but they have to obey the laws of the country.”
Attorney-at-Law, Khemraj Ramjattan representing his client, NHL, alluded to several of NGPC’s arguments to press his client’s case which he said amounted to breaches of strict liability with regard to the regulations.
NHL, whose warehouse and a proposed site for the development of a ham and bacon factory, is approximately 50 feet away knows nothing of the technical aspects of the proposed development.
The EPA case for exempting GSI from undertaking an EIA was later articulated by its Director of Environmental Management, Dr David Singh in which he outlined all the procedures adopted in keeping with the Act.
According to Dr Singh, the exemption was based on information at their disposal regarding existing operations, their knowledge of the rice industry and assurances from the developer that the design criteria were sound.
He acknowledged that the appellants immediately south of the proposed development would have the highest risk of exposure, but assured that as normal with their authorisation, and in keeping with section 45 of the EPA Act, the developer would be required to compensate any person or persons who is/are affected by the development through non-compliance with the environmental standards required for operating such a facility.
Singh however said that the agency would not venture to issue an environmental permit for the mill if the development did not have the concurrence of the NDC, as was the present case.
He reiterated that the decision to exempt the project from the EIA should not be perceived as authorisation, while stating that concerns raised in the public response period were to be incorporated into the authorisation process.
GSI Chief Executive Officer, Robert Badal presented his company’s case and alluded to its environmental record which he boasted was as good as the best.
He spoke of the perception of rice mills being based on existing operations and not those now in the developed world and
referred to the economic benefits of the project which he said would see direct employment for in excess of 60 persons with priority given to the local community. This, along with the contribution to the economy, should be considered.
The GSI head took a swipe at other businesses in the area for their own dumping practices.
He disputed claims that his existing operations are a nuisance and recalled that the piles were driven in 2000 to construct the silos for the feed mill right next to NGPC.
Badal also dismissed claims of likely dust, waste water, vibration and traffic pollution saying the operation would be fully insulated and enclosed with all the by-products being used.
The hearing was subsequently adjourned and the NDC is expected to identify a suitable site for the next hearing in two weeks.
