Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

Opinions of participants
proponent is much too restricted 1 . They believed that the project should not be built
close to Levis, the île d’Orléans or the city of Québec, and that it should be located
several kilometres from these urban and semi-urban agglomerations. It was also
suggested that such projects be built at sea, at a distance from the shores
(Ms. Fabienne Gagné, DM376, p. 3; Mr. Bernard Vachon, DM427, p. 3; Ms. Line
Caron, DT21, p. 18). The planned pipeline was also a source of concern for the
Comité Gare au gazoduc which feared “the devastating effect that an explosion could
have in a populated area like ours” (DM589, p. 2).
Many questioned the use of the 5 kW/m 2 thermal radiation level in the event of a fire
as a criterion to establish the exclusion area around the project’s facilities. For one
participant: “the public’s exposure criteria should instead reflect a thermal radiation
level that doesn’t result in any detrimental effects, even if someone is exposed in a
continuous fashion” (Mr. Gaétan Paradis, DM590, p. 4). In this respect, they believed 2
that a lower thermal radiation level should be used in order to obtain a greater
exclusion area. Regarding the pipeline, the Agences de la santé et des services
sociaux de la Chaudière-Appalaches et de la Capitale-Nationale recommended that
its layout be modified so that the surrounding residences be “sheltered from the
domino effect area in the event of a major break followed by fire”, which would
correspond to the limit of the 8 kW/m 2 thermal radiation level (DM602, p. 31).
Some recalled that Cacouna Energy, the proponent of another LNG terminal project,
had rejected the project site studied for security reasons, and as such did not
understand why Rabaska had chosen it (Mr. Pierre-Paul Sénéchal, DM414, p. 26;
Mr. Mathieu Boutin, DM305, p. 2; Ms. Louise Maranda, DM596, p. 5). Others were of
the opinion that the City of Lévis already has enough facilities which represent high
risks for its population, specifically the Ultramar refinery (Comité Gare au gazoduc,
DM589, p. 1; Mr. Benoît Bouffard, DT18, p. 49).
One participant asked: “would it not be commendable to build the first project far from
residences and wait a few years to see what the real impacts are […]. We could then
assess the relevance of this type of project for the province and implement adequate
regulation to protect its citizens” (Mr. Louis Bastien, DM108, p. 3). The Alliance pour
1. Mr. Louis Guilmette, DM10, p. 7 and 12; Ms. Caroline Mongeau, DM30, p. 6; Mr. Jean-Marc Létourneau, DM37;
Mr. Michel Arsenault, DM604, p. 4; Mr. Gaétan Paradis, DM590, p. 2; Mr. Dominic Boutin, DM198; Ms. Lucie
Létourneau, DM200, p. 4; Ms. Diane Martel, DM205, p. 3; Ms. Suzanne Rochon, DM536, p. 5; Ms. Micheline
Gagné, DM287, p. 8; Ms. Céline Drouin, DM362; Ms. Sandra Bouchard, DM367; Mr. Rogers Gonthier and
Ms. Aline Provençal, DM390; Ms. Josée Belles-Isles, DM421; Ms. Chantal Gilbert, DM432; Ms. Claire Pageau,
DM563, p. 4; Ms. Michèle Lépine and Mr. André Dubois, DM573, p. 3; Mr. Hans Brandl, DM550, p. 3 and 5;
Mr. Jean-Christian Roy and Ms. Guylaine Piché, DM617, p. 1; Ms. Chantale Jean, Mr. Olivier Lajoie and
Mr. Gaétan Lajoie, DM60, p. 1; Mr. Benoît Grenier, DM363; Mr. Roger Boutin, DM698.
2. Ms. Pierrette Bélanger, DM302, p. 24 and 25; Association pour la protection de l’environnement de Lévis,
DM459, p. 14; Mr. Sylvain Castonguay, DM578, p. 8; Agences de la santé et des services sociaux de la
Chaudière-Appalaches et de la Capitale-Nationale, DM602, p. 57 and 82.
48 Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure