Offshore waste discharges monitored by robust, multi-layered system – EPA 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it maintains a “robust, multi-layered system” when it comes to the oversight of waste discharges during oil production offshore Guyana.
According to the agency, its monitoring framework includes real-time data access. This involves the EPA receiving live data feeds directly from the Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessels operating in the Stabroek Block, including real-time produced water discharge volumes and rates, flaring data, and operational parameters relevant to environmental compliance conditions.
In addition, the EPA also deploys continuous satellite monitoring technology to independently detect any oil sheen on the surface of the waters surrounding the FPSO discharge points. It added that thermal imaging is further used to monitor flaring activities and ensure gas management compliance.
Moreover, the EPA conducts independent physical sampling of water quality in the vicinity of FPSO discharge points. These samples, it noted, are analysed to verify that the operator’s self-reported data is accurate and that discharges remain within permitted limits.
The EPA further explained that all offshore discharges of produced water from the FPSO vessels must meet binding standards, including oil-in-water content limits (not to exceed 42 mg/L on any single day or 29 mg/L on a monthly average basis) and discharge temperature requirements.
“These standards are binding permit conditions, and their breach constitutes a violation of the Environmental Permit, attracting enforcement action up to and including permit suspension or revocation,” the agency stated in a statement on Saturday.

Legal framework
The missive was in response to a local media report about the ongoing public consultation for ExxonMobil Guyana’s eighth development project offshore, Longtail. The United States-based oil major is currently operating four Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessels in the Stabroek Block and has already received the green light for three other projects.
As part of its request for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) approval from the EPA for the Longtail project, Exxon is legally required to conduct public consultations and engagements across the country during a 60-day period.
However, at a recent consultation in Georgetown last week, questions were raised about the discharge of waste. A local newspaper reported that the EPA failed to say how it verifies the oil company’s discharge of waste.
But the EPA, in Saturday’s missive, explained that its officers could not have answered the queries made, as it outlines the legal foundations and comprehensive mechanisms through which the EIA process operates and how all public enquiries are systematically captured and addressed.

Disciplined adherence, not evasion
According to the Agency, its representatives’ presence at the meeting was strictly in the capacity of an observer, consistent with its statutory role during the active consultation phase of the EIA process. In fact, the EPA declared that the officers’ restraint in answering the questions was not evasion but adherence to the law.
It noted that this active 60-day statutory public comment period was intentionally designed to ensure a comprehensive capture of all public concerns. The process includes a formal channel through which all questions, concerns, and objections are captured and addressed. All submissions will be formally transmitted to the consultant and operator for response, reviewed by the EPA for technical adequacy and accuracy, and considered in the agency’s final decision.
“No inquiry is lost. Every submission becomes part of the official record that informs the agency’s decision-making,” the agency assured.
The EPA pointed out that had its officers answered technical and project-specific questions at the public disclosure meeting, this would have displaced the statutory obligation of the developer and consultant to answer, potentially pre-empted the Agency’s own independent assessment, undermined the formal submission and response process that the law establishes to protect the public’s right to receive considered, documented answers, and compromised the EPA’s independent regulatory posture, creating a conflict between the Agency acting as both advising party and subsequent decision-maker.
“The restraint exercised by EPA officers was therefore not a failure of the Agency but a disciplined adherence to the rule of law and the integrity of the statutory EIA process.

Safeguards
Nevertheless, the EPA went on to assure that there are critical safeguards in the EIA approval process, including the role of the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB). The EPA is required to submit the EIA and EIS to the board for independent consideration before any environmental permit is issued.
The EAB is empowered to conduct public hearings into the EIA and EIS; review whether the EIA should be accepted, amended, or rejected; and recommend whether an environmental permit should be issued and on what terms and conditions.
The EAB’s review includes scrutiny of whether the responses provided by the consultant and operator to public comments were appropriate, accurate, and complete. This provides an additional independent check beyond the EPA’s own assessment. Appeals against the agency’s decision may also be submitted to the EAB within thirty (30) days of publication of the decision. This appeals mechanism is a further safeguard of public rights.
“The EPA of Guyana is the nation’s primary environmental regulator and takes its mandate to protect Guyana’s natural environment with the utmost seriousness. The agency’s conduct during the disclosure meeting was lawful, appropriate, and consistent with the statutory framework established under the Environmental Protection Act.”
“The EIA process is comprehensive by design. Every question raised, whether at the disclosure meeting or submitted in writing, enters the formal legal framework and is captured, documented, and independently assessed. The process is guided and grounded in law at every stage, ensuring that public participation is meaningful, transparent, and enforceable. The EPA commits to ensuring that the public’s right to meaningful participation in this process is fully upheld. All questions will be answered. All concerns will be addressed. All details are captured in the EIA process,” Saturday’s missive detailed.

The post Offshore waste discharges monitored by robust, multi-layered system – EPA  appeared first on Guyana Times.