22.08.2013 Views

Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Assessing the risks related to the project<br />

affected by sensations or burns of varying degrees, according to the distance and<br />

length of exposure. For example, after 40 seconds, a person who is exposed to a<br />

5-kW/m 2 thermal radiation 1 level can suffer second-degree burns. When selecting<br />

sites for industrial facilities that could be the source of fires, this is the level of<br />

radiation used to delimit the area where individuals could suffer serious injuries 2 . A<br />

13-kW/m 2 thermal radiation can result in death after 30 seconds of exposure.<br />

According to the proponent, the exclusion area calculations are based on the<br />

Canadian (CSA 3 Z276-01 4 ) and US (NFPA 5 59A-01) standards, which use the<br />

5-kW/m 2 threshold value as exposure criterion for the public, in addition to the<br />

37.5-kW/m 2 threshold value in regard to the integrity of exposed structures. The BS<br />

EN 1473 European standard of 1997 takes into account various thermal radiation<br />

thresholds which exclude solar thermal radiation. Outside of property limits within<br />

urban areas, the standard uses the 5-kW/m 2 threshold to establish exclusion areas for<br />

project implementations.<br />

According to the proponent and Natural Resources Canada the CSA Z276-01<br />

standard is currently under review, and the new version slated to be published in June<br />

of 2007. According to the proponent, this review will take into account, among other<br />

things, the review done in 2006 of the NFPA 59A-01 US standard. Moreover, he<br />

believed that this new version will not result in any changes to the exclusion area<br />

definition. Lastly, he specified that the final terminal engineering would be made<br />

according to the standards in force at the time.<br />

However, for Mannan et al 6 , the exposure criteria used in the current approach do not<br />

take sufficiently into account more vulnerable individuals (children, the elderly or<br />

individuals with a mobility impairment), and do not provide a large enough margin to<br />

take into account the consequences of the surprise effect which could prolong the<br />

reaction time of some individuals, thereby hampering their ability to look for and find<br />

shelter in time 7 . They also referred to the recommendation of the Society of Fire<br />

1. Solar radiation in the month of June is evaluated at about 1 kW/m 2 at noontime (Mr. François Desbiens, DT26,<br />

p. 64).<br />

2. 49-CFR-193, Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities; Federal Safety Standards [3] and NFPA-59A, Production, Storage<br />

and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) [4]; 49-CFR-193 Standard is the U.S. federal government<br />

regulation, whereas NFPA-59A is an industry consensus standard; EN 1473 for Europe.<br />

3. Canadian Standards Association.<br />

4. Canadian Standards Association, Z276-01, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) – Production, Storage, and Handling,<br />

2001, 78 p.<br />

5. National Fire Protection Association.<br />

6. Sam Mannan, Jane Y. Wang and Harry H. West, “LNG Safety – An Update on Recent Issues”, LNG Review,<br />

2005 [On-line: www.touchoilandgas.com/safety-update-recent-issues-2469-1.html].<br />

7. Aspect covered by several briefs: <strong>Agence</strong>s de santé et des services sociaux de la Chaudière-Appalaches et de<br />

la Capitale-Nationale, DM602A, p. 55; Mr. Gaétan Paradis, DM590, p. 4 to 8.<br />

Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure 127

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!