The Northvolt company boasts of its desire to act in complete transparency, but it asked the Quebec Ministry of the Environment to hide the details of its factory project and its environmental risks in a document sent to the Duty following a request for access to information. The ministry then asked it to ease the masking of information, but the company refused to provide us with the complete document before having the green light for the construction of the “gigafactory”.
Even before obtaining the right to destroy wetlands and wooded areas on its site on January 8, Northvolt filed a second request for ministerial authorization on December 22. The information available in the ministry’s register only indicates that the company submitted the following request: “construction of a gigafactory for the production of batteries and establishment of a rainwater management system”.
This request is currently being analyzed by the Ministry of the Environment, the Fight against Climate Change, Wildlife and Parks (MELCCFP). It is based on a report prepared by the firm WSP for Northvolt. The ministry refused to send it to us in January, inviting us instead to file a request under the Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information.
The duty finally obtained this 71-page, but heavily redacted, “accompanying technical report” on February 15. The table of contents of this document dated December 21, 2023 allows us to see that it deals with the main issues related to construction.
It is thus indicated, at the beginning of the report, that it includes a “description of the project”, the “stages of implementation”, the measures planned to “minimize the impacts on the environment”, the issues linked to “noise”, the “anticipated impacts on threatened and vulnerable species or their habitats”, but also on “the quality of the landscape” and “on wetlands and water environments”. We also mention an “environmental management plan” presented in the appendix to the report. All this information is redacted.
The MELCCFP confirmed to Duty that the “hidden information” essentially results from “the observations of the authorization applicant concerning confidential information”, therefore from Northvolt. How do we justify redacting this information? This would be a question of “industrial and commercial secrets” which can be “masked” under the Environmental Quality Act, according to details provided by the ministry.
Reduced redaction
After receiving a heavily redacted document, The duty however, contacted the ministry again to try to obtain more information. Following this process, the MELCCFP asked the company to “review its observations”, which allowed us to obtain a document where part of the redactions had disappeared.
It is still not possible to know the “overall project schedule”, which is hidden, but we see that the request concerns the first building of the battery factory, the access paths and the “drainage” system ” of the site. It also specifies that “the operation of the plant”, which should include the pumping and water discharge system into the Richelieu River, will be presented in another upcoming ministerial authorization request.
The document sent to Duty February 29 now specifies that “effluents could come from excavation wastewater” and that this water should be discharged into the Richelieu River, but in compliance with “discharge requirements.” These are redacted. A table further presents a “risk of contamination of a drinking water supply source”, due to the downstream presence of the Otterburn Park filtration plant. However, “mitigation measures” are planned. These are missing from the document.
Contrary to the first report obtained by The duty, this revised version reports “anticipated impacts” on fauna and flora, including “threatened and vulnerable species or their habitats”. We mention the little bittern, the spiny softshell turtle, but also more broadly fish and birds. There is talk of “disturbance”, “habitat loss” and “change in water quality”. We also mention the “risk of loss of the fauna and flora population”, but without giving details. In all cases, the “mitigation measures” are redacted.
Once again, the MELCCFP specifies that these elements can be “masked”, since they would be “industrial and commercial secrets”. However, this information would have all been made public if the developer had had to produce an impact study for the entire project and then submit to a review by the Office of Public Hearings on the Environment.
Refusal
Since several pieces of information are still missing from the document, we also asked Northvolt to send us the full version. The company refused. “The document in question is currently under analysis by the Ministry of the Environment, as part of the process for obtaining the second authorization,” we explained by email.
“Considering that the ministry could formulate additional questions as part of requests for information and in order to let government experts continue their analysis, we prefer to make the document available when the process is finalized and the ministry’s requirements have been met “, also explained Northvolt.
A specialist in the right of access to environmental information, Jean Baril deplores the latitude granted by Quebec legislation to redact information. “The environmental impacts of a project are not industrial secrets. They should therefore not be redacted. It’s totally abnormal,” he emphasizes.
Mr. Baril, but also the Quebec Environmental Law Center, recalls in the same breath that the Quebec government had adopted a legal provision in 2017 which provided for the establishment of a public “register” allowing access to the essential information included in a request for ministerial authorization such as that presented by Northvolt. This register was never established.
In the case of the first authorization request, which concerned the destruction of wetlands and wooded areas, the documents published after the green light from the Legault government demonstrate the “high ecological value” of the lost natural environments.