EPA rejects “inaccurate” account of Gas-to-Energy environmental approval process

EPA rejects “inaccurate” account of Gas-to-Energy environmental approval process

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has rejected what it describes as a “materially inaccurate” account of the environmental authorisation process for the Wales Gas-to-Energy project.

In a statement today the  EPA said claims that no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was conducted for the Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) facility and the gas-fired power plant, and that no project summary or decision on an EIA was published, do not reflect the official record.

The agency said the NGL facility was assessed as part of the broader Gas-to-Energy EIA, while the proposed 300-megawatt power plant underwent a separate screening process.

The EPA also explained that, following a review of an application submitted by Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL),it determined under Section 11(2)(b) of the Environmental Protection Act that the Gas-to-Energy project required a full EIA.

“The power plant was placed outside the scope of that EIA, except for cumulative impacts, because it would be built and operated by a separate entity. In its cumulative impact assessment, the EIA modelled air emissions from the NGL plant together with the planned power plant and other existing, permitted or planned EEPGL activities,” the EPA explained.

The EPA said the power plant was excluded from the direct scope of the Gas-to-Energy EIA because it would be constructed and operated by a separate entity. However, its potential contribution to cumulative environmental impacts was considered in the assessment.

According to the agency, the cumulative impact assessment modeled air emissions from the NGL facility alongside those projected from the planned power plant and other existing, permitted or planned EEPGL activities.

The EPA said the power plant’s application was subsequently screened separately under Section 11(2) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The EPA also cited the lower carbon emissions expected from natural gas compared with heavy fuel oil, provisions for wastewater treatment before discharge, and the project’s location in a highly modified landscape where controls and mitigation measures would be incorporated.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login