"We can't allow things that are inaccurate to stand." — The Word of Our Dan, February 19, 2008.

Thursday, November 04, 2010

Back to the drawing board

Apparently, the Joint Review Panel for the imaginary Lower Churchill Project got wind of Our Dear Speech at The Party's recent convention. In a letter to Nalco(r) on Tuesday, the Panel says:

The Joint Review Panel (the Panel) for the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation project (the Project) has reviewed the information submitted by Nalcor in response to Round 4 Information Requests (IR) and the comments received from participants.

The Panel is also aware of comments from Premier Williams reported in various media on October 25, 2010 regarding a possible change in the sequencing of Project phases where Muskrat Falls would be constructed first, followed by Gull Island at some indeterminate time in the future. If the preferred Project phasing i.e. the construction of Gull Island followed by Muskrat Falls at a fixed interval after, with an overlap in the construction of the 2 generating facilities, has changed, Nalcor is requested to inform the Panel as soon as possible.

In light of these comments from Premier Williams and of your response to the Panel’s IR JRP.147, the Panel has determined that Nalcor must assess the implications of each possible alternative means of carrying out the Project as per the Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines (section in order for the Panel to determine sufficiency. In particular, the Panel is asking Nalcor to provide the following information:

IR # JRP.165 – Alternative means of carrying out the Project

Provide an assessment of the bio-physical and socio-economic effects of changes in the sequencing of Project phases and other alternatives and alternative means of carrying out the project involving generating facilities at Muskrat Falls and Gull Island identified by Nalcor, including (a) the development of Muskrat Falls followed by Gull Island at a fixed time interval (overlap of construction of the 2 generating facilities), and (b) the development of Muskrat Falls followed by Gull Island at an indeterminate time later (no overlap in the construction of the 2 generating facilities). For preferred sequencing and the potential alternative means, issues to be addressed should include, but not be limited to:

a. Changes to the project description, construction (including schedule) and operation;
b. Transmission interconnection lines;
c. Changes to accommodation facilities;
d. New cost estimates;
e. New socio-economic data and timing, particularly employment, work scheduling approach, labour requirements, goods and services;
f. Changes to reservoir clearing and impoundment and validity of model results (mercury, flow, ice modeling, etc.);
g. Harmful alteration, disruption and destruction of fish habitat and implications for the proposed Fish Habitat Compensation Plan;
h. Potential aquatic and terrestrial impacts;
i. Traditional land use and Aboriginal issues;
j. Any other relevant information.
Also, please provide a description of the implications of the construction and operation of either Muskrat Falls or Gull Island as stand alone projects in the event that, subsequent to the construction of the first generating facility, market conditions or any other factors affect the feasibility of the second generating facility.



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home