Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

The technological risks
Opinions of participants
The potential risks which could be linked to the project regarding the population’s
security in the event of an accident were the subject of many concerns. Several
participants believed that this was a crucial aspect which must be taken into
consideration: “security is certainly one of the major factors of acceptability for this
project […] it isn’t enough that the facilities be totally safe, this must be proven fully
and completely” (Démocratie Lévis, DM371, p. 6) and, “regarding the population’s
well-being, nothing is more important than protecting it against health and safety risks,
and this to the highest degree possible” (Association des manœuvres
interprovinciaux, DM35, p. 4).
In addition to the general security aspect of area residents and users close to the
planned site when building the LNG terminal and the pipeline, maritime transport was
specifically identified as a source of worry for several participants. The proponent’s
risk assessment and risk management were also aspects which were discussed.
The security of the area’s residents and other users
The project’s potential realization was seen as a “time bomb” or even as a “Sword of
Damocles” hanging over their heads 1 . It also gave some of them a feeling of
helplessness, as they felt that the proponent was deciding their fate: “we are experiencing
a great deal of insecurity at this time over this project, which has poisoned our lives”
(Ms. Annie Lacharité and Mr. Pierre Pinette, DM12).
In spite of the technical sophistication of the facilities and the security measures that
the proponent plans on implementing, several believed 2 that the project will not be free
from human error, technical malfunctions or disasters which could occur. According to
some, “if people have to live while worrying that an accident could occur, then that is no
way to live” (Ms. Johanne Delaunais and Mr. Pierre Martel, DM59). For others, the fact
that their insurance premiums may increase because of the project proved that it
poses a real risk that is not insignificant (Mr. Louis Guilmette, DM10, p. 11;
Mr. François Viger, DM348, p. 2).
Many participants were of the opinion that the project’s planned site is too close to
inhabited areas and that the security or exclusion perimeter established by the
1. Mr. Jacques Jobin, DM18, p. 1; Ms. Francine Robin and Mr. Claude Filion, DM13, p. 2; Mr. Philippe de le Rue,
DM423, p. 4; Ms. Pauline Mercier, DM577, p. 2.
2. Ms. Lucette Hade, DM559, p. 9 and 17; Mr. Benoît Bouffard, DM31, p. 4; Ms. Annie Marcoux and Mr. André
Voros, DM631, p. 12; Mr. Normand Gagnon, DM155, p. 1.
Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure 47