Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

Assessing the risks related to the project
The results indicated that building three structures in parallel would slightly increase
the level of risk for individuals living around them. However, the total individual risk
curve remained below the maximum acceptability limit of 10 -4 per annum and would
meet the MIACC’s criteria at all times. However, the proponent specified that his
results would only be valid if effective measures were taken to avoid the spreading of
any accident from one worksite to another. He believed that the most effective
protection would be to implement a distance of 12 m or more between the sites and
that this is the minimal distance used for the TransCanada gas transport network
loop. In this respect, he specified that the separation distance required between the
project’s pipeline and Ultramar’s pipeline would be of 20 m, “which represents a very
safe distance that ensures no chain-reaction accidents will occur should there be a
breakage on either line” (DQ58.8).
♦ Finding — The Panel notes that the analysis results of the project for individual risks
associated with the pipeline project indicated a land use that complied with the criteria
of the Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada. This would be the case even if
the project’s pipeline linking the Cacouna LNG port to Saint-Nicolas, as well as the
Pipeline Saint-Laurent oil pipeline linking Lévis to Montreal-East, were realized in
proximity to the project under review.
♦ Finding — The Panel notes that every project component, as well as its
characteristics, is part of the liquefied natural gas transport and regasification
industries which has a history of industrial security that has been free of major
accidents for close to 50 years.
♦ Opinion 11 — The Panel is of the opinion that the risk assessment carried out for the
project was methodologically in compliance with industry and standard practices,
which are recognized in the field. The conclusions of this assessment were also
compatible with the known history of the liquefied natural gas industry regarding
security, for both the maritime and on-land aspects. On this basis, the Panel deems
the risks associated with the project to appear acceptable.
The seismic risk
The proponent submitted a preliminary local seismic study report and other related
technical reports. Based on these reports, he also committed himself to considering a
seismic scenario in his emergency plan and to building the tanks according to the BS
EN 1473 standard, with a return period of 5,000 years, which was deemed as
acceptable by Natural Resources Canada. According to this department, the seismic
study produced for this project was acceptable (DQ87.2).
Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure 163