Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

Social acceptance of the project
impacts of a psychosocial nature. Still others feared the emergence of psychosocial
problems among those living near the project, if it goes ahead.
Social research studies, based on the life experience of residents living near facilities
considered risky, have established a link between the perception of risk and certain
social and psychological consequences arising from controversial projects or
accidents. The Comité de santé environnementale du Québec adds that “anxiety
constitutes one of the most frequent disruptions in mental health among populations
in proximity to a facility or site that they view as risky or undesirable, and some
psychosocial impacts can be imputed to these” 1 . From this perspective, the survey
conducted by the Agences de la santé et des services sociaux claims that 59% of
those surveyed, who live within the 2.5-km perimeter of the proposed project, say that
they feel “enough” or “a lot” of fear related to the project (DB97, p. 17).
Although of a different nature, the rehabilitation and construction of the storage
facilities for the Gentilly 2 nuclear power station is an example of a project where the
public perception of the risk involved and the associated psychosocial impacts were
assessed in an impact study (BAPE Report 207). Moreover, other recent projects,
such as the site of a sanitary landfill or an aluminium smelter, were also the objects of
assessments and follow-up on psychosocial impacts by professionals 2 . According to
Howe, “the public’s perception of risk can be positively influenced through efficient
communication (about risk) 3 .”
The proponent made a commitment to inform the public and the authorities in
advance about any activity likely to cause inconvenience in the surrounding area by
posting signs and issuing news releases. The proponent also made a commitment to
maintain a climate favourable to good relations with the different communities. During
the operation of the LNG terminal, an oversight committee is planned that would stay
abreast of activities to ensure that they are running smoothly and, where necessary,
suggest improvements. Beyond this, the proponent will hold two crisis simulations
annually. One would be theoretical, “a table top exercise”, the other would be more
practical, a full simulation involving regional authorities responsible for security.
Regular follow-up with media would ensure that the project maintains its community
commitment. Also, the proponent would hold an annual open house at its facilities.
(PR3.2, p. 5-6 and 5.7).
1. Comité de santé environnementale du Québec, Introduction à I’évaluation des impacts sociaux, drawn from a
series of introductory texts on the assessment of health impacts of major projects, Québec, 1993, p. 15.
2. N. Caron and M. Simard, Groupe de recherche et d’intervention régionale, Programme de recherche sur la
modélisation du suivi des impacts sociaux du mégacomplexe industriel d’Alcan à Alma, Université du Québec à
Chicoutimi, 2001 [On-line: www.uqac.uQuébec.ca/~msiaa/Rapport%20Final/francais/html/Annexes/Annexe%2011.pdf].
3. H.L. Howe, “A comparison of actual and perceived residential proximitv to toxic waste sites”, Archives of
Environmental Health, 43 (6), November and December 1988, p. 415-419.
178 Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure