Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

Opinions of participants
The risk assessment carried out by the proponent
Some participants disagreed with the risk assessment method used by the proponent.
They believed that a probabilistic approach was favoured to the detriment of a
deterministic approach (Mr. Normand Gagnon, DM155, p. 1; Ms. Lise Thibault,
DM436, p. 38; Agences de la santé et des services sociaux de la Chaudière-
Appalaches et de la Capitale-Nationale, DM602, p. 53). For one participant:
There are two possible approaches for this field: the probabilistic approach, which
consists in having a chance in X of a disaster occurring, and waiting for the
disaster to take place before doing something and living with the consequences.
[…] The other approach is the deterministic one, which consists in: let’s be
preventative because an accident may occur. […] Doing what it takes to prevent
something can also mean not building the terminal […].
(Mr. Pierre Blouin, DM621, p. 13)
Several participants believed that the proponent underestimated the risks that
completing the project represents, and the consequences that an accident could have
on the population. For one of them, “the scenarios which were chosen by Rabaska do
not seem to translate the scope of the risks which are inherent in the project”
(Mr. Yves St-Laurent, DM377, p. 96 and 97). Various elements were deemed to not
have been considered adequately when assessing risk, as was the case for terrorist
acts or intentionally caused breaches in an LNG tanker 1 . In this respect, several
questioned the size of the breach that could occur after a possible collision involving an
LNG tanker, and the one which was used by the proponent to assess the consequences
of such an accident. In their view 2 , using a bigger breach would be more realistic and
would result in more serious consequences than those found in the proponent’s
assessment.
Some were also preoccupied by the presence of Hydro-Québec high voltage
transmission lines close to the planned facilities, and feared an incident related to an
electric arc or an electrostatic discharge 3 . Others were worried about the risk of an
earthquake occurring in the Charlevoix-Kamouraska area (Ms. Marie-Hélène Blanchet,
DM416). According to one participant, “this active area is only 70 km to the north-east
of the site being studied. […] A major earthquake could occur in the Lévis region,
1. Mr. Pierre Langlois, DM116, p. 2; Mr. Jacques Jobin, DM18, p. 4; Ms. Michèle Roy and Mr. Ralph H. Nocon,
DM45, p. 5; Mr. Andrew Webb, DM58, p. 23 and 26, 36 and 37; Mr. Yves St-Laurent, DM377, p. 85 and 92;
Mr. Martin Brandl, DM599, p. 1; Ms. Isabelle Pouliot, DM380, p. 10; Mr. Michel Duguay, DM601.
2. Mr. Pierre Langlois, DM116, p. 3 and 4; Mr. Denis Latrémouille, DM462, p. 52 and 53; Mr. Normand Gagnon,
DM155, p. 8; Mr. Louis Duclos, DM458, p. 10; Mr. Michel Duguay, DM601, p. 3; Mr. Yves St-Laurent, Coalition
Rabat-joie, DT19, p. 13.
3. Mr. Jean-Claude Gosselin and Ms. Adèle Bertrand, DM63, p. 6; Mr. Pierre Langlois, DM116, p. 5; Mr. Pierre-
Paul Sénéchal, DM414, p. 17; Mr. Mathieu Boutin, DM305, p. 2; Mr. Gilles Castonguay, DM630, p. 36;
Ms. Lucette Hade, DM559, p. 53; Mr. Gilles Bernier, DM34.
52 Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure