NORTH SPUR: THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

Guest Post by David Vardy

Sometimes revelations occur and information comes to light which sheds real insight into the mysteries of Muskrat Falls. Uncle Gnarley has just reported on such revelations. Through an ATIPPA request our avuncular friend secured correspondence between the Premier and SNC Lavalin which offers insights into a number of interrelated matters, not the least of which is the relationship between government and Nalcor. Also intertwined in these exchanges are concerns about water management, liquefaction of sensitive clays and methylmercury contamination.  

Uncle Gnarley reported on these mysteries in his post at "Extremely Frustrated" Premier Goes To SNC-Lavalin For Advice.  The Premier wrote to SNC Lavalin to seek advice on the impact of raising and lowering water levels upon erosion of the river banks on the Churchill River. The response from SNC Lavalin urged caution with respect to such variations in water levels, similar to the advice rendered to the advice rendered to the Joint Panel by Dr. Gregory Brooks while dealing with the North Spur.

Why would the Premier decide he needed to deal directly with SNC Lavalin on risks associated with the raising and lowering of water levels at Muskrat Falls.  Does this betray a lack of confidence in Nalcor’s Board and CEO? Why was the Oversight Committee unable to secure answers to the questions raised by the Premier, without recourse to SNC Lavalin? Why did the Oversight Committee not seek answers to these questions without the intervention of the Premier?

Despite his disclaimer about the safety of the North Spur one cannot help but wonder if the North Spur is not the central issue, along with the risk that landslides may trigger a series of major earth movements as glacio-marine clay liquefies from the disturbance.

Was this letter from the Premier to SNC Lavalin prompted by the Independent Expert Advisory Committee (IEAC) which was established to consider mitigation to food contamination from methylmercury? If soil and vegetation must be removed to mitigate the risk then this will call for lowering and raising the water level. It is clear that Nalcor considers further removal of vegetation and soil to be problematic. In fact many consider the appointment of the IEAC to be window dressing.

On April 10, 2018 the IEAC issued its final report and recommendations.  One of the recommendations was as follows:

“In addition, while the IEAC was not able to achieve consensus with respect to mitigation, based on votes by three of the four voting members, the IEAC recommends that Nalcor Energy undertake targeted removal of soil and capping of wetlands in the future reservoir area before impoundment. This recommendation includes:

• the removal to a depth of at least 50cm of topsoil from an approximate 10.3km² land area of the reservoir where vegetation has already been removed, avoiding steep slopes and waterways, and • covering the wetlands with a 50cm cap of low organic soil and aggregate”

Was such soil removal really an option at this late stage of the project or was everybody going through the motions, notwithstanding the “unequivocal” assurance from Gilbert Bennett that water levels could be lowered to “natural conditions”? This goes back to the site occupation in October 2016 and the agreement reached on October 26, 2016 to create the IEAC in order to end both the site occupation and the hunger strike.

Then there is the issue of the water management agreement. The Quebec Superior Court told us in August 2016 that the system of debits and credits on which Nalcor relied was not available. If the river banks are sensitive to raising and lowering water levels then the small reservoir at Muskrat Falls may offer little opportunity to manage power production at the generation site. SNC Lavalin, in their reply to the Premier, advises that occasional flooding may not saturate the river bank but lowering the water table when the river banks are fully saturated may trigger landslides. How can one reach any conclusion other than that we cannot manage water flows at Muskrat Falls?

Underlying these concerns are the soil conditions which prompted Dr. Gregory Brooks of the Geological Survey of Canada to recommend that “Nalcor establish a procedure for drawing down the Muskrat Falls reservoir to minimize the chance of triggering a large-scale earth flow.” It appears that SNC Lavalin had offered the Premier a comforting assurance “that this has no ramifications respecting the North Spur.”

Remember that it was the Premier who released the “secret” SNC Lavalin Report a year ago. It was that same Premier who reached out to SNC Lavalin in October of 2017 for advice on riverbank stability. The disturbing SNC Lavalin risk assessment report of April 2013 refers to the need for further geo-scientific information to guide remedial measures and assess overall safety and stability. In April of 2013, four months after project sanction, SNC Lavalin rated the risk as “very high.” Whether Nalcor has successfully remediated these risks over the period from April 2013 to the present is as yet unknown.

In his interpretation of his terms of reference Commissioner Richard LeBlanc said, (in paragraph 41 of his decision) the SNC Lavalin report:

will merit particular attention by the Commission. As well, I must consider whether appropriate or proper consideration was given and actions taken regarding potential risk to the environment, human safety and property related to the stability of the North Spur and methylmercury contamination. How these reports or assessments were received by Nalcor and whether they were made available to the Board of Nalcor as well as the Government will also be a part of the investigation to be conducted.

In paragraph 54 he goes on to say:

I will also investigate what analyses, risk assessments, etc., were done as regards environmental concerns and whether these were appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances based upon accepted industry standards and the knowledge that the parties had at the various times when the analyses or risk assessments were completed. Included in this will be a review of the measures taken, if any, to address any legitimate environmental concerns.

We have to entertain the possibility that the natural dam at the North Spur is not safe and cannot be remediated. This would be the worst case and most unthinkable scenario, requiring that the province write off its full investment at the generation site. In this context it is important that the research be updated as soon as possible. It will take the work of an independent expert panel, appointed by government and not by Nalcor, to determine whether these risks have been reduced or indeed whether they can be mitigated or eliminated.

Isn’t the North Spur really the elephant in the room?

David Vardy