Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

Opinions of participants
Some participants 1 were especially concerned by the air quality aspect during the
construction phase, and its impacts on their health. They believed that the project will
suspend dust and fine particulates in the air through the intensive movement of
machinery, as well as by emitting GHGs, toxic substances and other contaminants.
Furthermore, these concerns were also expressed by the Agences de la santé et des
services sociaux de Chaudière-Appalaches et de la Capitale-Nationale, who thought
that “one of the project’s health risks is the dispersal of breathable particles stemming
from dust which could be suspended in the air during the construction phase” (DM602,
p. 42). More specifically, some residents living nearby were preoccupied by the impact
of emissions from the flarestack, and the risks to human health (Ms. Hélène
Létourneau and Mr. Daniel Cantin, DM27, p. 2; Ms. Edna Cantin, DM38, p. 1).
One participant also feared the impacts from the blasting slated for the construction
phase:
I am very worried about the various work planned if such a project is given the
green light, among others the blasting and its impacts on our residences (the
structure, the foundations), as well as the quality of water in our artesian wells,
our septic tanks, our agricultural drains, the ambient air and noise levels.
(Ms. Lucie Létourneau, DM200, p. 2)
Some residents were also opposed to the building of the project’s planned
waterworks. This possible mitigation measure was contested by some participants,
who highlighted the current quality of the water coming from their personal wells
(Ms. Josée Belles-Isles, DM421; Ms. Fabienne Gagné, DM376, p. 2; Ms. Pierrette
Bélanger, DM302, p. 56). Furthermore, several residents wanted this privilege to be
maintained:
The citizens from Lévis east don’t need the waterworks wanted by Lévis to
accommodate Rabaska, as 84 of 101 owners signed a petition against the
waterworks promised by Lévis in the memorandum of understanding signed with
the proponent. Only 15 owners did not sign it, including four individuals who are
having problems with their wells.
(Mr. Martin Arsenault, DM629, p. 6)
Psychosocial impacts
Some participants 2 stated that building the project close to their residences would result
in anxiety and stress, because of the negative perception of the terminal’s security
1. Ms. Annie Marcoux and Mr. André Voros, DM631, p. 5 and 6; Ms. Lucie Létourneau, DM200, p. 3; Les AmiEs de
la terre de Québec, DM625, p. 51 to 63; Ms. Louise Maranda, DM596, p. 15; Ms. Jocelyne Leclerc, DM429, p. 3.
2. Ms. Fabienne Gagné, DM376, p. 1; Ms. Denise Carpentier and Mr. Normand W. Ouellet, DM192, p. 1;
Ms. Michelle and Mr. Pierre Lamoureux, DM586, p. 3; Mr. Louis Guilmette, DM10, p. 12; Ms. Louise Maranda,
DM596, p. 7; Ms. Annie Lord, DM266, p. 2.
56 Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure