This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
HAZARD ANALYSIS AND RISK ASSESSMENT
Stevenato & Associates 54 Centre Ave., North York, Ontario, M2M 2L5 Phone (416) 229-2115 Fax: (416) 229-0068
John Newton Associates 262 Robert St., Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2K8 Phone (416) 929-3621 Email: email@example.com July, 2002 reviewed annually – last reviewed November 2008
Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.0 Purpose of the Hazard Analysis/Risk Assessment ............................................................1 Overview of the Hazard Analysis/Risk Assessment....................................................2 Existing Hazards ..........................................................................................................2
Research Design and Implementation.............................................................................................5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Design of Research Survey................................................................................................. 5 Selection of Recipients........................................................................................................6 Implementation of Survey...................................................................................................6 Background Information.....................................................................................................9
Hazard Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................11 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Information Provided by Recipients..................................................................................11 Historical Information on Significant Emergencies .........................................................12 Potential Natural Hazards ..................................................................................................15 Potential Human-Based Hazards.......................................................................................21 Potential Technical Hazards ..............................................................................................23 Summary of Hazards by Municipality ..............................................................................31
Risk Assessment .............................................................................................................................35 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Risk Assessment Methodology .........................................................................................35 Impact Assessment.............................................................................................................36 Probability Assessment......................................................................................................38 Calculation of Relative Risk ..............................................................................................39
Hazard Mitigation ...........................................................................................................................45 Conclusions and Recommendations ..............................................................................................47 6.1 6.2 Evolving Hazards ...............................................................................................................47 Summary and Recommendations......................................................................................48 APPENDICES
A. List of Research Recipients ...............................................................................................................51
B. Information on GIS............................................................................................................................53
© 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates
Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment
Section 1 – Introduction
Understanding the hazards to which one is exposed and appreciating one’s existing capability to cope with such hazards, represents an initial step towards preparation for such events. The Regional Municipality of Durham’s Emergency Measures Office (DEMO), in recognizing this need, issued a Request for Proposals, and subsequently retained the team of Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates on September 13, 2001 to prepare a Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment for the Region of Durham.
1.1 Purpose of the Hazard Analysis/Risk Assessment The preparation of a hazard analysis and risk assessment is an important first step in the emergency planning process. The results of this research will be of value in helping Regional staff understand the probability and severity of emergencies that may occur in the Region. With this knowledge, the level of preparedness can be assessed and measures taken to enhance capabilities through training and preparation of a more effective response to such occurrences. Consequently, it is felt that a rigorous hazard analysis and risk assessment process represents a valuable emergency-planning tool for the Region.
Moreover, the passage of Bill 148 through the Ontario Legislature will amend the current Emergency Plans Act to require emergency management activities to include “the identification and assessment of the various risks and hazards to public safety that could give rise to emergencies” 1 . To that end, this document will provide the Region of Durham with an assessment that will likely address this requirement when the legislation is formally approved and implemented. This assessment will also provide a foundation for addressing the emergency management program referred to in the forthcoming legislation.
Draft copy of Bill 148, An Act to provide for declarations of death in certain circumstances and to amend the Emergency Plans Act, December 2001, p. i.
© 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates
Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment
1.2 Overview of the Hazard Analysis/Risk Assessment The approach required to undertake this project involved background research, the design of research tools, identification of appropriate recipients in the Region and other agencies, and the distribution of a self-assessment protocol. Information from background research and the
surveys was combined and then analyzed; resulting in this report. One survey response was received from each municipality and two (2) from Regional Departments (Health and Works – see Table 1). Therefore, the analysis and risk assessment was based on the municipal responses and the background research.
1.3 Existing Hazards The hazards to residents, businesses, the environment and property in Durham Region are significant and abundant, given that:
(a) Highways 401, 35/115, 48, 7, 7A and 12 transect the Region where there are high volumes of traffic and accidents involving multiple vehicles and/or trucks carrying hazardous materials. (b) Major CN and CP railway lines (two of each) transverse the Region carrying high volumes of a wide range of industrial goods, many of which are hazardous; (c) Two commodity pipelines transverse the Region (Trans-Canada Gas Pipeline, TransNorthern Oil Pipeline); (d) There are major heavy industrial areas predominantly along the lakeshore communities that process, store and transport large volumes of dangerous goods; (e) There are the two nuclear generating stations (Pickering Nuclear Generating Station and Darlington Nuclear Generating Station) that pose risks such as radiation releases or emergencies resulting from terrorist activities. A nuclear emergency may result in an evacuation, where the outlying communities may have to prepare to receive a large number of evacuees from the shoreline municipalities of Ajax, Pickering, Whitby, Oshawa and Clarington; (f) There are numerous built-up flood prone areas in floodplains of rivers and creeks; (g) There is an international port in Oshawa where there is potential for shipping accidents and spills;
© 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates
Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment
(h) There are numerous flight paths of large aircraft to and from Pearson International Airport; (i) The Oshawa Airport has had numerous small accidents reported by the Transportation Safety Board since 1976. (j) The Region has an ever-increasing population and high-density areas. In the last five years, Durham Region’s population has grown at an annual growth rate of 2.3% (11,600 persons per year), from 472,800 in 1996, to an estimated 531,000 in 2001. The Region has estimated that the population will grow to 590,000-610,000 by 2006. Population growth rates are expected to increase significantly after 2006, when additional major growth-related infrastructure is anticipated to be in place (e.g., construction of Highway 407 to east of Brock Rd., Highway 401 improvements) and population has grown in response. The Region has estimated that the population will grow to 790,100 by 2011, 874,200 by 2016 and 951,300 by 2021; (k) Water access to Lake Ontario, Lake Simcoe, Lake Scugog and the Trent-Severn Waterway creates unique water based emergency hazards related to commercial shipping, recreational boating, ice fishing, snowmobiling, and beach use; (l) The Region attracts a large number of tourists (to festivals, historic sites, waterways) and seasonal visitors who may be unfamiliar with the area during an evacuation; (m) There are a large number of sensitive facilities found in high-risk locations (i.e., schools, hospitals, recreation facilities, homes for the aged, seniors residences, nursing homes, daycares) (n) Weather conditions can be extreme (e.g., fog and icy roads along Highway 401, storms, etc.); (o) Durham Region borders the City of Toronto to the west where there are equivalent, if not higher risks compared to Durham Region. Emergencies occurring in the City of Toronto could also impact Durham Region, either directly or indirectly (i.e., evacuees travelling through the Region); and (p) The Municipality of Clarington has large forested areas that have potential for large forest fires.
© 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates
Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 4 .
The survey was reviewed with and approved by DEMO before being distributed (mailed) to key representatives of the eight local municipalities and each of Durham Region’s Departments. Wherever possible. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 5 .1 Design of Research Survey The survey tool was designed to facilitate ease of completion in order to obtain the highest possible response rate. The final survey document contained five parts .that are: (A) Administrative Information – basic contact data. human-based and technical hazards and the effectiveness of mitigative measures to address these hazards. 2. reviewed and tested. and. before distribution to selected individuals in key municipal and regional positions.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Section 2 – Research Design & Implementation Acquisition of the information needed to undertake the hazards analysis and risk assessment required that a survey instrument be designed. questions used a “tick box” approach and suggested options and assessment scales were used. Opportunity for open-ended responses was also provided with some questions. as the content and nature of the research tools used contributed significantly to the type and quality of the information collected. The attention devoted to the research design stage should not be underestimated. particularly where responses may require additional detail to explain unique circumstances. (C) Potential Hazards – perception of concern about potential natural. (B) Historical Emergency Information – details on significant recent events . (E) Closing Question – an opportunity to add any other comments. (D) Relevant Material .availability of background material. The content and structure of the survey was designed for use by municipalities in the Region as well as Regional Departments. including emergency contact directories and GIS data management capacity.
that one person was designated to complete the survey on behalf of the municipality. were likely the most knowledgeable about hazards in their area. most often the municipal Fire Chief. 10 were returned (Table 1).e. 2001. Two surveys were received from Durham Region Departments (i. Directors of Public Works and Directors of Planning. and Police. A list of the research recipients can be found in Appendix A. Recipients at the eight local municipalities included CAO’s. the individuals responding. Fire Chiefs. Medical Officer of Health. for a response rate of 25%.3 Implementation of Survey The survey was mailed to the identified contacts in each municipality and Durham Region Department on October 3. so the results represented largely the view of one individual and not the summation of a diversity of views from each jurisdiction. a list of survey recipients was compiled.2 Selection of Recipients In coordination with Durham Emergency Measures Office (DEMO) staff. Social Services. Emergency Medical Services. By early December. 2. Table 1: Municipalities and Regional Departments Responding to Survey Durham Region Municipalities Survey Received Clarington Durham Region Departments Emergency Medical Services Planning Social Services Finance & Treasury Health Pickering Uxbridge Oshawa Whitby Scugog Works Yes Brock Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Police No Ajax Page 6 . it is understood. Nonetheless. Works. In each case. Planning. Recipients were requested to complete and return the survey and any related documents within five days of receipt. Of the 40 surveys distributed (for a list of recipients see App. though not formally documented. Durham Region recipients included the following Department Heads: Finance. They were also requested to coordinate the collection of information within their jurisdiction to limit the duplication of effort and yet provide a comprehensive response of views and perceptions. Works.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment 2. A). Health). one survey had been received from each municipality.
but not provided ---Y -- ---N/A -- N N Y N/A N --H -N/A= Not Applicable © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Police ---N/A -- Brock --C Y -C Ajax Page 7 . Reports on Past Significant Emergencies -H -Previous Hazard Analyses/Risk Assessments --Emergency & Contingency Plans -Y -Municipal Official Plan N/A N/A N/A Partnership Towards Safer Communities -N -documents Emergency Contact Directories ---Y = Yes N = No H = exists. such as emergency contact directories. a copy was sent to the consultants N = No document exists H = the document exists. The null response from many jurisdictions in the areas probed. that may be out-of-date. Table 2: Documents Provided by Municipalities Clarington Pickering Uxbridge Documents Provided . the survey respondents may have chosen not to send documents. particularly emergency response and official land use plans.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Tables 2 and 4 show the availability and provision of specific documents requested from municipal and departmental recipients respectively. does not necessarily mean such documents do not exist. but a copy was not provided to the consultants C = consultant already had a copy ---Y --- --C --C Table 3: Documents Provided by Durham Region Departments Emergency Medical Finance & Treasury Planning Social Services DEMO ---N/A --Health Works Documents Provided – Durham Region Dept.Municipalities Oshawa Whitby Scugog --C Y -C Reports on Past Significant Emergencies -H --Previous Hazard Analyses/Risk Assessments -H --Emergency & Contingency Plans Y H Y Y Municipal Official Plan Y Y Y -Partnership Towards Safer Communities -N --Emergency Contact Directories Y H Y Y Y = Yes. but rather that the person completing the survey may not have had the capacity or authority to release them. Similarly.
regional departments and other relevant provincial and federal organizations and agencies. the layering capacity of GIS applications provide for different layers of information to be combined in ways that aid emergency planners to better appreciate and understand the hazards they must plan for.g. Y etc. hydrants. -orthophotography) Y = Yes N = No DK = don’t know H -N H H H H H DK N H N Y H N H H N H H H N H H N -- DK N N H N H H H N H H H -- H H H H H H H H N H H H -- H N H H N N H N N N N N -- H = exists. Table 4: Additional Information Available/Provided – Municipalities Clarington Pickering Uxbridge Oshawa Whitby Scugog N N N DK DK DK N N N N N N -Records of the following Information – Municipalities Traffic accident locations H Routes for hazardous materials/truck traffic N Railway accident locations N Community facilities (e.. schools.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment The creation of ever-expanding volumes of information relevant to good emergency planning has led to the need for better information management tools and methodologies. Juxtaposition of selected emergency information on events and or hazards can help identify vulnerability and confirm experiential perceptions of risk in the Region. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Brock N N N N N N H N N H H N -- Ajax Page 8 . When the information is of a physically distributed nature. In addition. hospitals. as can be seen from the survey response data presented in Appendix B. but not provided Unfortunately. very little has been placed in GIS tools. it is increasingly being captured in electronic databases and displayed in a more usable form though the use of geographic information systems (GIS).) Organizations using List 1 toxic material N Population density Y Floodway & flood prone areas H Gas & oil pipeline locations H Air flight paths N Hydroelectric transmission corridors H Water & sewer systems H Fire prone areas N Other (street centre line. Table 5: Additional Information Available/Provided – Durham Region Dept. while extensive information on the geographic distribution of hazards in the Region has been collected by municipalities.
hospitals. power generating stations and international ports. The hazard analysis and risk assessment was based on information that was © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates DEMO ------------- Health Works Police Records of the following Information – Durham Region Dept. information requested was not available at the level of detail requested.4 Background Information In addition to the documents and information requested. North Carolina. (a) Hazard analyses and risk assessments from other municipalities (e. railways. City of Victoria) (b) Transportation Safety Board statistics on marine. or would not be provided. industrial land uses. but not provided ------------- 2. In many cases. air and commodity pipeline accidents (c) Ministry of Transportation statistics on Provincial highway collisions. Johnson County. gas and oil pipelines. traffic volumes and proportion of commercial vehicles (d) Conservation Authority floodplain mapping (e) Environment Canada climate information (historical and risk levels) (f) CN Rail dangerous goods commodity volumes (g) Durham Region Influenza Pandemic Contingency Plan (h) Durham Region Emergency Response Procedures – Chemical/Biological Terrorist Incident Plan (i) Durham Region Industries List (j) Municipal and Region information on roads. hydroelectric transmission corridors.. population projections. York Region. Page 9 .g. from local municipal and regional contacts. other sources of emergency-related statistics and data were explored through key informant telephone interviews and Internet searching. The documentation noted below was referred to during this research.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Emergency Medical services Finance & Treasury Planning Social Services Traffic accident locations -Routes for hazardous materials/truck traffic -Railway accident locations -Community facilities (schools.) -Organizations using List 1 toxic material -Population density -Floodway & flood prone areas -Gas & oil pipeline locations -Air flight paths -Hydroelectric transmission corridors -Water & sewer systems -Fire prone areas -Y = Yes N = No DK = don’t know DK DK DK H DK DK DK DK DK DK DK ---H ---H ---H ---DK --DK -Y -H ---H ---N ---N ---N ---H ---N H = exists. railway. etc. water courses/dams.
Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment collected from the sources identified above. The hazard analysis focused on hazards of a scale that would require the implementation of a municipal or regional emergency plan. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 10 .
future potential for an emergency due to increasing risks (i. new highways. the equipment and human resources available. Some of the possible considerations respondents took into account are listed below in random order. the ability to respond. recipients provided basic information on events worthy of note occurring within their jurisdiction over the past 20-25 years. heavy industrial growth).Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Section 3 – Hazard Data Analysis Through the survey document. The survey results are presented and analysed in Sections 3. mitigative actions taken. one survey from each municipality was received. the level of confidence of municipal responders.. potential or perceived technical hazards. potential or perceived human-based hazards. and. the training and expertise available.1 Information Provided by Recipients The core questions in the survey asked recipients to consider the hazards that have in the past. potential or perceived natural hazards. Insufficient data (two surveys) was received © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 11 . i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) vii) viii) the immediate hazard of emergencies. As previously discussed.2 to 3. they would nonetheless likely weigh a number of factors in deciding on their level of concern.e. Each recipient provided information about hazards in four areas: i) ii) iii) iv) historical information on significant emergencies. and.7. While respondents were not asked to consider and rank specific aspects of each hazard. or might in the future affect their municipality. A simple estimate of the level of concern felt by the respondent was given for a wide range of potential hazards. 3. These responses were analysed in a preliminary manner to provide direct local input to the risk assessment. mutual aid resources available from neighbouring municipalities.
© 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 12 . however for the individual perception and reality are virtually synonymous. and among others. Five of the 20 (25%) emergencies reported were the result of natural disasters. And whether under day-to-day conditions or during an emergency people will make decisions based on their perception of the situation. based on their years of experience. an individual’s perception combined with their values and beliefs forms the foundation. Most of the train derailments occurred at the Oshawa marshalling yards. Most of the emergencies reported in recent years have been technical events. As well. which includes the best information available at the time. air and pipeline accident data) over the past 20-25 years is presented in Tables 6 and 7 respectively. In making decisions. The information collected represents the perception of risk by the respondents. Consequently. Train derailments were the most frequently reported emergencies (although 4 of the 7 accidents were identified through the TSB data and not by survey respondents. marine.2 Historical Information on Significant Emergencies A summary of the significant emergencies that were reported by municipalities and collected from research sources (such as the Transportation Safety Board for rail. it is important to note that from the perspective of an external observer there will be a gap between an individual’s perception and the full reality of a situation.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment from the Region of Durham departments and as a result. additional information would be required from each of the non-responding departments. in this project the information received from respondents is considered the best available at this time. however this may be due to the fact that more recent emergencies are also more easily remembered or the individual’s 2 Should the Region wish to compare the perception of risk expressed by municipalities with that felt by Regional Departments. pre-1997. which guides their actions. The number of emergencies reported tends to be higher post-1997 vs. the remaining 75% were technical emergencies. followed by chemical-related emergencies (4 occurrences) and major flooding (3 occurrences). either through completion of the survey or participation in a hazards assessment workshop. 3. the factors listed above. introducing a bias). the Durham Region survey results have been excluded from further analysis and assessment 2 . however the most serious events occurred at level crossings throughout the Region.
000 >$100. Environmental damage reported was minimal except for a few emergencies involving chemicals.C. Property damage.000 $500.P..000 $100. 92 98 July 98 98 99 99 2000 2000 B A U P.000 >$100.000$100. U C B All C P W C A B.000 Minor <$100.000Minor <$100. snowfall Oil Spill.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment personal experience in the Region may have been limited.000 None <$100.S.000 © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Property Damage . Main St.000 DK Minor DK $10.000 Moderate DK <$10.000 >$100. depending on the scale of the emergency. The natural disasters tended to result in more than $100.000 Minor <$100. environmental damage and economic loss varied.000 >$100.000 Minor <$100. indicating either a lack of large serious events or of readily available data on events causing injury or death.000. Beaverton Harbour 450 mm. primarily due to the geographic scope of such events.000 >$100.000 in property damage.O . Beaverton Ammonia Leak Train Derailment Flash Flood Small Tornado Major Flooding. Table 6: Historical Information on significant emergencies over the past 20-25 years in Durham Region (Chronological) – Reported by Municipal Survey Respondents Jurisdictions Impacted: A = Ajax P = Pickering B = Brock S = Scugog C = Clarington U = Uxbridge O = Oshawa W = Whitby Environmental Damage Minor Economic Loss Page 13 Description of Emergency (chronological) # of Injuries Jurisdiction Impacted Duration of Impact (Hours) # of Deaths 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Year it Occurred Major Fire. Goodyear Plant Flash Flood Hazardous Materials leak Train Derailment Mall Evacuation Boil Water Advisories (several) Chemical Leak 80 82 83 85 89 or 90 90 Dec.000 <$10.000 Moderate <$100.000 <$10.000 Moderate >$500.Moderate DK $100. The emergencies tended to be restricted to within the respondent’s municipality. The emergencies identified over the last 20-25 years resulted in no deaths and only seven injuries.000Minor $100.000 <$10.U A 24-72 4-24 >72 >72 <4 24-72 >72 >72 >72 4-24 24-72 >72 >72 4-24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DK 0 0 DK DK 0 0 $100.000$500. Duration tended to be less than 72 hours. all of which occurred in a 1999 train derailment.000 Minor DK $10.000 $10.000 DK None >$500.
Feb. followed by a “fast freeze” during evening rush hour. with 100’s of accidents. rail yard O DK 0 DK 0 B O C DK DK 24-72 0 0 7 © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates . no dangerous goods) Train Derailment (5 cars derailed. Flooding. 1 with dangerous goods release – methyl methacrylate) CN Train Derailment (15 cars. no dangerous good) Category 1 emergency at Pickering Nuclear Generating Station – Reactor 2. CP Train Derailments (6. followed by 2535 cm of snow. no off site impact. 8. 99 derailed. no dangerous goods) Sept 2/80 Dec 9/82 P 4-24 DK 4-24 DK March 4/85 Sept. Spilled heavy water was contained.extreme potential for devastation] Feb. 8 with dangerous goods (Butadiene. 28/86 87 P 24-72 0 24-72 0 July 610/88 Aug. 99 LPG dangerous goods) Train Collision/Derailment [18 cars Nov. almost overflowed Severe thunderstorms struck East Toronto and Pickering. 95. 6 cars respectively. flight & subway cancellations) 5-Day heat wave (Toronto & Durham) (temp. 149 mm in 4 hr. 97 O.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Table 7: Historical Information on significant emergencies over the past 20-25 years in Durham Region (Chronological) – Identified Through Research Jurisdictions Impacted: Description of Emergency (chronological) A = Ajax P = Pickering B = Brock S = Scugog Jurisdiction Impacted Year it Occurred C = Clarington U = Uxbridge # of Injuries Duration of Impact (Hours) O = Oshawa W = Whitby Environmental Damage DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK 0 DK DK DK DK Minor Economic Loss DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK Page 14 # of Deaths Property Damage 2 DK 2 DK 0 DK 0 DK 0 $2 million DK 0 0 0 0 DK DK 0 0 DK 0 DK 0 0 0 DK DK DK Severe thunderstorms struck Toronto and Pickering. of fuel spilled. exceeding 350C. fire . snow emergency) Rainstorm & high winds in Toronto resulted in power blackouts and flooded streets and basements. 10/94 >72 O P DK 4-24 0 0 0 CN Train Derailment (6 cars. No release. LPG). 97 platforms. 99. 93 Dec. 27. 51 Nov. The Don R. 3 with Feb. 11 mm of rain fell on Toronto and neighbouring areas. 380C on 7th) CN Train Collision (12 cars derailed. resulting in flooding. June 99 Sept. Winter Storm (Toronto & parts of Durham) (freezing rain. 149 mm in four hours) Winter Storm (Toronto & parts of Durham) (winds to 100 km/h. 5 passenger cars. multiple accidents. 1500 gal. 29/86 4-24 0 4-24 0 Aug.
of snow on Durham Region over two days. Electrical Storm/Lightning: Fire. the most serious emergencies in Durham Region between 1980 and 2001 were: • • • • • 1980: Fire in Beaverton 1983: Train derailment in Uxbridge 1985: Flash flood in Pickering and Uxbridge 1997: Train derailment outside of Beaverton 1999: Train Collision/Derailment in Clarington 3. 16 1954. but are not limited to: © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 15 . Blizzard. a blizzard dumped 57 cm. An analysis of the survey results. Possible factors influencing this perception include.3 Level of Concern for Potential Natural Hazards Survey respondents were asked to rank their level of concern for 24 different types of natural hazards that could impact their municipality.3 billion in property damage in southern Ontario. On October 15. Hurricane Hazel impacted the entire Region with extreme wind speeds of 90 km/h with gusts to 126 km/h caused property damage and torrential rains with 200 mm accumulations producing severe flooding of rivers and creeks. and. Tornado. Electrical storm. In 1944. Eight-one people died.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Two large-scale emergencies occurring prior to 1980 were not mentioned. Based on the information provided by survey respondents and background research. presented in order from the natural hazard of most concern to the natural hazard of least concern can be found in Table 8.0 (concerned) or higher were: • • • • • • Ice storm. Lightning: electrical disruption. The survey results demonstrate that there is particular concern about extreme weather emergencies that occur very quickly and can have a severe impact. 20 bridges were destroyed and there was $1. The natural hazards that on average ranked 3. resulting in twenty-one deaths.
6 Drought 4 5 4 5 2 4 2 4 3.0 Hurricane/Typhoon 4 5 4 5 4 5 3 2 4.5 Flood: Flash 2 4 4 4 3 3 5 3 3.4 Blizzard 3 3 4 3 2 3 2 3 2. particularly with municipalities that have older (fire-prone) structures..9 Electrical Storm/Lightning: Fire 3 3 3 3 2 5 2 3 3. 5: not concerned Clearly. repair costs).3 Earthquake (Magnitude 5 or more) 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3. 4: somewhat concerned.0 Average Rank 3. the environment and the economy can be extreme.9 Tornado 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2.5 Heat Wave 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment i) there is little time to prepare to respond.0 Cold Wave 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 4 3. Concern about blizzards and cold waves can also be linked to the ice storm experience. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates . and.8 Avalanche: Rock/Debris 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.8 Flood: Predicable/Seasonal 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 4 3.5 Flood: Lake Surges 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 4. are natural events that can result in major fires and utility failures (electrical storm and lightning).6 Crop Failure 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4. ii) the potential for injuries.8 Land Subsidence /Liquefaction 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4.e.0 Lightning: Electrical Disruption 4 3 3 4 3 3 2 2 3.1 High Winds (70+ mph) 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 3.5 Hail 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4.0 Flood: Dam Burst 5 5 4 5 5 3 5 3 4. Rank Page 16 Uxbridge Oshawa Scugog Brock Ice Storm 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2.1 Torrential Rains 2 3 3 5 4 3 4 2 3.8 Forest Fire / Smoke 5 3 5 5 1 5 3 3 3.9 Fog 4 3 4 5 3 5 4 4 4. 2: very concerned. loss of life and damage to property.8 Scale: 1: extremely concerned. the recent ice storm that hit Eastern Ontario and Québec in 1998 is still on the minds of emergency responders as such an event was ranked highly.8 Landslide/Mudslide 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4. Also of concern. Table 8: Level of Concern about Natural Hazards Affecting Municipalities Hazards due to Natural Hazards Pickering Whitby Ajax Municipalities Clarington Ave. iii) long-term impacts can result (i.5 Frost 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4. 3: concerned.
Environment Canada concurs. Blizzards Blizzards. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 17 . as the required combination of very cold temperatures. are rare in Durham Region.2. as Durham Region has been placed in a “moderate risk zone” for tornadoes. municipal respondents ranked blizzards high (2. as defined by Environment Canada. which was not as highly ranked by other municipalities. Hurricanes are “very rare” in Durham Region. and the Fire Department. Two primarily rural municipalities.0). even Hurricane Hazel in October 1954. There have been no blizzard warnings for Durham Region in the last ten years. which is largely volunteer. was actually downgraded to a tropical storm by the time it reached Ontario. Tornadoes Municipal respondents ranked tornadoes quite high (2. Clarington and Scugog. seldom occur together. For example. possibly involving dangerous commodities. Hurricanes Hurricanes were ranked low (4. Clarington ranked forest fires “1” while other municipalities did not perceive this as a high risk. Interestingly.9). For example.8-1. as their energy is greatly diminished over land. with an average annual frequency of 0. In Clarington. and this is also reflected in information provided by Environment Canada. there is the Ganaraska Forest as well as the Kendal and Orono Forestry Lands which cause serious concern for the Clarington Fire Department because the potential for a massive fire is real. high winds and snow. were very concerned about drought. is not well trained in forest fire fighting. Some regional anomalies appear in the data.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Many of the concerns with weather emergencies are focused on the potential impacts on Highway 401 and the potential for multiple vehicle accidents.9).
on June 27. there were eight occurrences of one-day rainfall greater than 50 mm. Lake Scugog (Nonquon River.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Heavy Precipitation Although blizzards are rare. Soper creek. The flood plain delineates the area that would be inundated if the river flooded its banks during a 100-year flood. Harmony Creek. Public Information Flood Risk Maps. East Cross Creek). Farewell Creek. The watersheds for the river systems draining into Lake Simcoe are located in extremely broad. Carruthers Creek. Cauker’s Creek. it is surprising that flooding was ranked quite low. 1971. There are three main watersheds in Durham Region that drain into: • • • Lake Simcoe (Pefferlaw Brook.. there were 18 occurrences of a one-day snowfall greater than 15 cm. However there are a number of communities © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 18 . Much of these flood plains consist of swamp and marshland. equivalent to a 0. 1984: 71 mm. Between 1981-2000. The Conservation Authority Canada-Ontario Flood Damage Reduction Program. On three other occasions during this period. Similarly. Uxbridge Brook. Graham Creek and Ganaraska River). (1995: 100 mm. Oshawa Creek. flat flood plains.. Black Creek. Wilmot Creek. the highest daily precipitation recorded was 145 mm. Layton River. for a 0. 1986: 81 mm. Bowmanville Creek.. Beaverton River. heavy snowfall is not. Whites Creek). illustrates the flood plains for various water systems throughout Durham Region. Lake Ontario (Duffin Creek. Lynde Creek.1% frequency rate. Uxbridge and Brock. a value greater than a 100-year storm. daily precipitation exceeded 70 mm.. between 1981-2000. Structures and property within the flood plain may be susceptible to damage in the event of flooding.) Flooding Given the history of flooding in parts of Pickering. resulting in potentially large areas being flooded and an increased likelihood of flooding compared to the river systems draining into Lake Ontario and Lake Scugog.2% frequency. Perhaps past experience has built a strong capability to cope with floods in these municipalities. Since 1969.
Public Information Flood Risk Map. More than 75% of the cold spells occur in January. washing out area bridges and roads. the large amount of rain and resulting floods caused severe damage to roads. The autumn had been particularly wet.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment in the northern part of Durham Region where there are structures on the floodplains. Atmospheric Environment Service (1989). Beaverton River and White’s Creek (1989) © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 19 . bridges. resulting in a saturated ground surface. provides historical information for Metropolitan Toronto from 1951-1980. Heat waves are only slightly more frequent in July (2. In 1929. the Brookdale Dam weakened by heavy rains. Numerous residences and businesses were also flooded. by Environment Canada.” 3 Climate Data for City of Toronto Limited climate data was available for Durham Region. on average. The following summarizes historical information on climate extremes: • Cold spells (a period of at least three days when minimum temperature falls to –150C or lower) have occurred. and when Hurricane Hazel hit the area. Canada-Ontario Flood Damage Reduction Program. 1954 during Hurricane Hazel. a report entitled “The Climate of Metropolitan Toronto”. 1965.6 days) than June or August. The longest heat wave lasted 10 • • 3 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. slightly more than three times each year. They are: • • • • Udora: approximately 100 structures (Pefferlaw Brook) Uxbridge: approximately 40 buildings (Uxbridge Brook) Beaverton: approximately 70 structures (Beaverton River) East of Beaverton: approximately 60 structures (Whites Creek) There have been very few significant floods in Durham Region. “a severe storm moved over the watersheds. and would reflect the climate of the neighbouring Durham Region. and dams. There is an average of six hot days per year when maximum temperatures reach or exceed 320C. Extensive flooding occurred on October 15 and 16. breached and flooded downtown Uxbridge. which would be prone to damage in the event of a flood. Roads were washed out and businesses were flooded. on average. However. Heat waves (a period lasting three days or more when maximum temperatures reach at least 320C) occur. as well as public and private buildings. seven times each decade. a portion of the Canadian National Railway line and a mill dam in Beaverton. On April 15.
with an average of five to six thunderstorm days per month. occurs about 8 times per month in January and six times per month in February. Most tornadoes occur during the afternoon and early evening and during the months from May through August. values of 400C or greater can be expected on two to three days per summer. once every two years.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment days during August and early September 1953. a severe thunderstorm produced “tennis-ball” sized hail. a majority occurring in southwestern Ontario. average winds of 90 km/h occurred. but it has been estimated that the odds of a damaging tornado hitting the Toronto area once every 20 years. On August 19. Severe thunderstorms can cause limited damage due to large hail. precipitation occurs more often in winter. Wind chill (a measurement of the rate at which heat is lost from an exposed object) in excess of 1600 W/m2 (equivalent temperature of –380). There have been an average of 15 days per year when precipitation amounts exceed 15 mm. 1953. there was an average of 14. The summer of 1988 was the last dry spell. High wind speeds are usually associated with winter storm passages. As one approaches Lake Ontario. 1981. On January 26. Tornadoes arise from severe thunderstorm outbreaks. Normally. 1964 when speeds reached 121 km/h. In summer. however. On September 1. A wind chill in excess of 1900 W/m2 is rare. Prolonged wet weather (precipitation lasting at least one week with a minimum of 2 mm of rain per day) only occurs once every couple of years. A humidex of 460C or higher makes activity difficult. and skyscraper windows popped. Thunderstorms occur most frequently during June. gusting to 126 km/h. • • • • • • • • • • © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 20 .5 tornadoes in Ontario. Severe thunderstorms on August 27/28 1976 produced flooding and property damage. the strongest winds were reported on July 1. The highest average wind speed occurred on March 5. reaching 134 km/h. the days with heavier precipitation are confined to summer and autumn. A rainfall intensity of 25 mm in a 10-minute period has occurred. 1978. July and August. • Freezing precipitation is reported an average of 10 times per year. on average. on average. the humidex reached 480C. From 1970-1979. strong wind gusts and flooding. Dry spells (periods lasting at least 15 days without measurable rain) occur. Wind chill is most severe during or following a significant winter storm. freezing precipitation becomes less frequent due to the influence of the relatively warm Lake in modifying shallow cold air near the surface. Weak tornadoes have touched down in the Toronto area. and resulted in a few heat fatalities from heat prostration. 1956. Dense fog usually occurs during pre-dawn and dawn hours. usually late winter or early spring. once every 25 years. usually during spring or fall. On average.
a “blizzard” struck Toronto with 16 cm of snow. 1986. On December 27. partially because it abuts the City of Toronto where terrorist activity is felt most likely to occur. On January 26 and 27. can be found in Table 9. with uncertain ramifications for Pickering. Clearly. The storm closed many roads in the vicinity. presented in order from the hazard of most concern to the hazard of least concern. The Toronto area usually experiences one or two snowstorms per winter when snowfalls exceed 15 cm.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment • On average. hurricanes brush only southern Ontario every few years. Hurricane Hazel. The City of Pickering ranked all terrorist type activity very high. The Durham Region Emergency Response Procedure. 30 cm of freezing rain fell northeast of Toronto. Toronto averages about three days a season with a freezing precipitation storm lasting more than four hours.Chemical/Biological Terrorist (Bioterrorist) Incident Plan © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 21 . often accompanied by blowing and drifting snow. resulted in over 400 injuries. 2001 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York has influenced the decisions of survey respondents as ‘Terrorism’ was the number one ranked concern and ’Bomb Explosion’ was ranked third. An analysis of the survey results. 11 mm of rain fell followed by a “fast freeze”. is the exception. and. The types of hazards of most concern tended to be related to external factors (i. Costs for southern Ontario were estimated at over 41 million dollars. usually bringing winds not strong enough to cause significant damage and heavy rains no greater in intensity than heavy thunderstorm downpours. On December 9. and visibilities reduced to near zero. winds gusting to 90 km/h. terrorism) where there is little control.e.0 (concerned) or higher were: • • Terrorism. and caused one woman to die from exposure.4 Level of Concern for Potential Human-Based Hazards Survey respondents were asked to rank their level of concern for 24 different types of human-based hazards that could impact their municipality.. The human-based hazards that on average ranked 3. that are perceived locally to be prime targets for such activity. • • 3. on October 15-16. bombing or sabotage hazards at the Pickering and Darlington Nuclear Generating Stations or major industries. Arson. scores of injuries and two fatalities. and resulting in hundreds of accidents.. 1954. 1978. Many of the lakeshore municipalities are particularly concerned about terrorist. 1959. The Humber River Valley area had 80 fatalities and property damage of 24 million dollars. the September 11.
8 Human Error: Computer Users 4 3 4 5 3 4 3 4 3. Using a Centre for Disease Control software program.1 Labour Dispute/Strike 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 5 4.6 Human Error: Operation 4 3 4 5 3 4 3 3 3. 3: concerned.0 Riot/Civil Disorder 4 4 4 5 4 3 3 5 4. based on a Durham Region population of 520. Table 10 estimates the impact. for example.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment states.4 Air Piracy 2 4 2 4 4 3 4 5 3. and can result in a large number of death. 2: very concerned.1 Misuse of Resources 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4.6 Human Error: Programmers 4 3 4 5 3 4 3 4 3. 5: not concerned In addition to the ‘terrorist-type’ human-based emergencies. can cause sudden. pandemic was ranked high. pervasive illness in all age groups. Influenza pandemic.1 Hostage Taking 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 3 4. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Ajax .099 in 2001. an event cannot be ruled out.4 Vandalism 3 3 4 5 4 3 2 3.3 Fraud/Embezzlement 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 3 4. However.8 Loss of Key Staff 2 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 3.8 Sabotage: Data and Software 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 5 3.5 Arson 2 3 3 4 2 4 2 3 2.1 Medical Emergency 4 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 3.7 Scale: 1: extremely concerned.3 International Strife 3 3 5 3 3 4 2 4 3. extensive workplace absenteeism and a severe strain on medical services.5 Human Error: Maintenance 4 3 4 5 3 4 3 3 3.9 Media Errors 4 4 4 5 4 5 3 3 4. Some experts predict that we are due for the next influenza pandemic.9 Bomb Explosion 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3. and municipalities across the country have prepared pandemic contingency plans to prepare for such as event.” Table 9: Level of Concern about Human-Based Hazards Affecting Municipalities Clarington Ave.8 Epidemic: Animal/Insect 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3.5 Pandemic: Human 3 4 4 5 3 4 2 3 3. 4: somewhat concerned. “the threat from an actual chemical/biological terrorist incident in Durham Region is assessed to be low.0 Sabotage: Physical 4 4 5 5 2 4 3 5 4.1 Bomb Hazard 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3.5 Other (please specify) – bio-terrorism 2 Average Rank 3.0 Epidemic: Plant 5 4 4 5 4 3 5 3 4. Rank Page 22 Pickering Uxbridge Oshawa Whitby Scugog Brock Hazards due to Human-based Hazards Municipalities Terrorism 2 3 2 4 2 2 2 3 2.
074 78. An analysis of the survey results. Toxic gas release offsite. Accidental explosion.0 (concerned) or higher were: • • • • • • • • Major building fires.88. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 23 .Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Table 10: Estimates of Impact of Influenza Pandemic on Durham Region People Infected Clinically Ill Require Outpatient Care Hospitalization Required Deaths` Totals 390. Derailment. Toxic spills enroute.1.5 Level of Concern for Potential Technical Hazards Survey respondents were asked to rank their level of concern for 24 different types of technical hazards that could impact their municipality.015 . presented in order from the hazard of most concern to the hazard of least concern.638 35. major industrial areas using dangerous goods.17% 0.1% The human-based hazards of most concern are those related to the nuclear generating stations.197.3% 0. The technical hazards that on average ranked 3. can be found in Table 11. and utilities. 3.0.367 .1% .04% .417 572 .560 156 . Toxic spills onsite.0.8% . Toxic gas release onsite.38% 6. major transportation routes (Highway 401 and main railway lines).572 % of Population 75% 15% . and. Gas/oil pipeline failure.
0 Power Outage: Long Term 4 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 3.1 Telecommunications Failure – Regional 4 2 3 4 3 4 2 3 3. Highways 401 and 35/115. 4: somewhat concerned.e.4 Scale: 1: extremely concerned.5 Structural Failure of Building 5 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3.9 Mine Failure 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5. CN and CP rail lines and the proposed extension for Highway 407).9 Toxic Spills (on site) 4 2 3 3 2 1 4 4 2.5 Upstream Dam/Reservoir Failure 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 4. ii) the transportation of hazardous materials on these routes. and.9 Ship Accident 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4.4 Radiological Accident – On-Site 3 2 3 4 2 5 5 4 3.1 Telecommunications Failure – Local 4 2 3 4 3 4 2 3 3.5 Crop Failure 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 4. 3: concerned.3 Central Computer Equipment Failure 3 3 4 4 3 5 3 4 3.1 Radiological Accident – In Transit 3 2 3 4 2 4 4 3 3.6 Derailment 3 2 3 3 2 1 5 3 2.8 Toxic Gas Release (on site) 4 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 2.1 Water: Contamination 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 3.8 Toxic Gas Release (off site) 4 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 2. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates .5 Toxic Spill (enroute) 4 2 3 3 2 1 3 3 2.6 Ice Jams in Shipping Lanes 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4. Fires are of particular concern in many of the older. in transit (rail and road) or onsite] are the main areas of concern among municipalities.8 Accidental Explosion 3 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 2. Municipalities in Durham Region are understandably concerned about toxic releases resulting from accidents given: i) the major transportation routes traversing the Region (i.0 Average Rank 3. high-density neighbourhoods where structures are not as fire resistant as today’s buildings and fires not suppressed immediately can spread very quickly and easily. fires and toxic releases [liquid and gas.5 Road Closure 3 2 4 5 3 5 3 3 3..Major 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2. 2: very concerned.3 Water: Supply Limitation/Failure 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3.9 Gas/oil pipeline failure 3 2 3 4 2 4 3 3 3. Rank Page 24 Pickering Uxbridge Oshawa Whitby Scugog Brock Ajax Hazards due to Technical Hazards – Municipalities Fire: Building(s) .Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Table 11: Level of Concern about Technical Hazards Affecting Municipalities Clarington Ave. 5: not concerned Clearly.1 Aircraft Crash 3 3 3 3 2 5 3 4 3.
municipalities are more concerned generally about technical hazards. Clarington and Uxbridge were particularly concerned about technical hazards.” The somewhat lower ranking of these events may be indicative of a confidence in current preparedness activities by the facility owners and/or their municipalities. Such failures also can have severe impacts on local and regional economic activity. The hazard of a telecommunications failure is a concern of municipalities partly because it severely hampers the ability of a municipality to function on a daily basis or to communicate in a major emergency. 300 injuries and 10 deaths on Provincial highways in Durham Region per year. As the chart indicates.4 for technical hazards. As well. The municipalities of Ajax. there are about 1. the Darlington and Pickering nuclear generating stations pose potential hazards through an on-site or in transit radioactive release into the air or water that are highly unlikely to occur but potentially devastating. as suggested by the average ranking of all hazards in each of the three classifications (3. There was no information available regarding how many of these collisions involved commercial vehicles © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 25 .7 for human-based hazards and 3. Compared to natural and human-based hazards.8 for natural hazards). The Royal Society of Canada and Canadian Academy of Engineering report to the Ministry of the Environment and Energy (1996) states “We recommend that detailed emergency planning should be done for accidents resulting from a credible series of events which could occur with a probability of approximately 10 to the minus 7/reactor year (once in ten million years per reactor).Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment iii) the large concentrations of heavy industry along the Lake Ontario shoreline using and transporting toxic materials.300 collisions. creating additional burden on citizens and municipal finances. Highway Table 12 provides a summary of Ministry of Transportation motor vehicle data for Provincial highways in Durham Region. Each of the main modes of transport and storage of toxic materials are described below. 3.
# Injuries Ave.2 91.92 © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 26 . # Collisions % Collisions Ave.630 8.0 208. weekday volume is higher than weekend volume) and location on the highways (i.4 52.2 0.594 4.0 5.2 935.5%) than other portions of the Highway (average 16%).. As well. a significant proportion (a % was not available) of which are expected to be carrying hazardous materials that could result in an emergency situation if one was to be involved in a collision. Ministry of Transportation – Durham Region Average 1995-1999 Highway Length (Km) Ave.e.8 0.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment and/or hazardous materials. # Fatalities Ave. Table 12a: Traffic Volume Information System (TVIS) History. Annual Daily Traffic Volume 7.36 0. and an accident involving dangerous goods would likely require an evacuation of a large number of people from the emergency area.4 16.6 15.59 0.69 1.-401 and Mill St.4 9.4 1.0 68.-401 intersections on Highway 401 in Clarington is significantly higher (33.292.06 0. and actual number of commercial vehicles may not necessarily be higher than other sections of Highway 401. the proportion of commercial vehicles in the vicinity of the Newtonville Rd.4 23.33 0.2 4. Highway 401 dissects heavily populated areas.712 151.000 vehicles travelling on Durham Region Provincial highways per day.873 # Commercial Vehicles % Commercial Vehicles 7 7A 12 35/115 48 401 TOTAL 67 23 25 23 8 59 205 2.656 8. These figures do not take into consideration factors such as season (summer volume is higher than winter volume.771 20. Interestingly. although with volumes increasing towards Toronto.2 1.2 1.510 101. of which 67% are travelling on Highway 401. there is an average of about 160.000 of these are commercial vehicles.8 302.0 12. Close to 25. as one travels towards Toronto on Highway 401. Average 1995-1999.0 1. the volume of vehicles increases).8 38.8 129.
800 159.27 0. running northeast through Uxbridge Most railway accidents in Durham Region occur in the GM Oshawa marshalling yard and are minor due to the slow movement of tank cars.723 806 17. 1999 Ministry of Transportation – Durham Region 1999 Highway Length (Km) # Fatalities # Injuries # Collisions % Collisions Ave. running parallel to Lake Ontario CP Belleville. The proportion of crossing accidents is generally higher during winter months. The most significant railway accidents in Durham Region are reported in Section 3. 1996-2000 average).06 0. 45% of railway accidents occur in marshalling yards (1996-2000 average).6 17.65 0. running parallel to Lake Ontario CP Havelock.312 1.195 23.078 # Commercial Vehicles % Commercial Vehicles 7 7A 12 35/115 48 401 TOTAL 67 23 25 23 8 59 205 3 1 1 0 0 5 10 49 23 13 11 5 201 302 131 94 60 58 17 952 1.36 0.8 7. 1996-2000 average). two Canadian National lines and two Canadian Pacific lines.89 854 681 1. As the table indicates. running east-west.910 8.479 10. Annual Daily Traffic Volume 7. Percentages have been provided to indicate the types of accidents involving dangerous goods that are more likely to occur in Durham Region. or an accident at a crossing (25% in Canada.1 Rail There are four railway lines transversing Durham Region. In Canada. where there is more likely to be a multiple-car derailment (see Table 14).3 16. north of Regional Road 5 CN Bala.2: Historical Information on Significant Emergencies. Table 13 provides a summary of Transportation Safety Board of Canada Railway Occurrence and Casualty Statistics for Canada 1996-2000.675 106.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Table 12b: Traffic Volume Information System (TVIS) History.237 21.7 13.66 1. only 12% of accidents involving dangerous goods in Canada are the result © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 27 .219 2.614 4. They are: • • • • CN Kingston. More serious accidents usually involve a main-track train derailment (14% in Canada.2 12.842 9.
Number of Cars Involved in Train Derailments. Railway Occurrence and Casualty Statistics for Canada 1996-2000 1996-2000 Average 1996-2000 % Number per Year Accidents Involving Dangerous Goods Main-track Train Derailments 26 12 Crossings 6 3 Non-Main-Track Train Collisions 44 21 Non-Main-Track Train Derailments 118 56 All Others 15 7 TOTAL 209 100 Accidents with a Dangerous Goods Release Accidents Involving Passenger Trains 6 53 Table 14: Transportation Safety Board. The CN and CP east-west railway lines transport a significantly larger volume of dangerous goods compared to the railway lines running north-south.e. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 28 .Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment of main-track train derailments. The CN Kingston line dissect heavily populated areas. and a derailment involving dangerous goods would likely require an evacuation of a large number of people from the emergency area. Canada 1996-2000 Number of Cars 1 2 3 4 5-10 % of Cars Derailed per Accident – Main-Track (Canada 199639% 10% 5% 4% 22% 2000 annual average) % of Cars Derailed per Accident – Non-Main-Track Train 49% 24% 9% 6% 2% Collisions (Canada 1996-2000 annual average) % of Cars Derailed per Accident – Non-Main-Track Train 34% 16% 34% 6% 11% Derailment (Canada 1996-2000 annual average) 10+ 20% 6% 0 There is a large volume and wide range of dangerous goods being transported by rail through Durham Region. more than three-quarters (77%) occur as a result of non-maintrack train collisions or derailments (i.. Table 15 provides a list of commodities in which more than 1. in marshalling yards). Table 13: Transportation Safety Board.000 tanker cars were transported in Durham Region in 2001 along CN rail lines (no data was available from CP Rail).
052 4. many of the © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 29 .501 3. The only large aircraft accidents have occurred at Pearson International Airport in Brampton. potential for a large aircraft crash in Durham Region as a number of flight paths are situated over the Region in which aircraft are either descending to or ascending from Pearson. Liquid Cyclohexane Methanol Methyl Sulphuric Acid Sodium Chlorate Hydrogen Peroxide Fuel Oil Distl Muriatic Acid Gasoline.103 10. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada has reported a significant number of minor accidents since 1976. There is. a regional facility accommodating small aircraft.066 7. in Oshawa.392 3.499 1. resulting in a plane crash. The likelihood of a large aircraft accident in Durham Region is very low. Cars Commodity 29. is located in Durham Region on Stevenson Rd.839 5.686 1.513 1.233 1.989 3. west of Durham Region.660 2. or the number of planes using them. Nec Butane Gas Liquid Gas Isobutane Hydrocarbon Gas Jet Fuels Hydrogen Peroxide Dangerous Tanks on CN Bala No.394 2. NavCanada would not identify the location of these flight paths.160 2.753 6.388 2. Nec Fuel Oil Distl Ammonia Anhydrous Gas Propane Methanol Methyl Sulphur Dioxide Aircraft The Transportation Safety Board of Canada has reported no large aircraft accidents in Durham Region since 1976.583 1.694 1.997 10. however. for security reasons. Because Oshawa Airport is a training facility. Ontario.049 Gas Propane Sulphuric Acid Al Frt Rte Shpm Petro Gas Liquid Butane Gas Liquid Chlorine Gas Ammonia Anhydrous Propylene Caustic Soda.741 2. Liquid Adiponitrile Chemicals.000 tanks) Dangerous Tanks on CN Kingston No.237 1.653 1.545 11. Cars Commodity 20.389 5.101 1.251 2. Nec Asbestos Articles Styrene.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Table 15: Number and Type of Dangerous Goods Tanks on CN Rail (more than 1.812 1.490 1.789 1.924 1.404 3.794 8.423 5. A great majority of these accidents occurred during landing procedures and in most cases the problem arose from malfunctioning landing gear.280 3. Oshawa Airport.108 Sulphuric Acid Al Frt Rte Shpm Vinyl Chloride Freight Forward Gasoline.
PPG and General Motors. and are being processed and stored on site. Clarington. There are some very large industries in Durham Region. There have been other incidents involving fires. Table 16: Number of Industries in Durham Region. Most of the incidents reported occurred in Oshawa and Whitby Harbours during docking and manoeuvring of vessels. 2001 Municipality Ajax Whitby Oshawa Pickering Bowmanville Uxbridge Port Perry Courtice TOTAL Number of Industries 143 140 136 127 29 28 25 11 639 Although this table does not identify the size of the industries. There were serious injuries in only two cases since 1976. Table 16 provides the number of industries per municipality (10 or more industries). Ajax. Oshawa and to a lesser extent.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment accidents involved flying students. or whether they use hazardous materials (this information was not available). Whitby. Industrial – on site Durham Region is home to large industrialized areas in the Lake Ontario communities of Pickering. The volume of commercial vehicle and rail traffic through the Region suggests that significant amounts of dangerous goods are transported to and from these industries. Marine The Transportation Safety Board reports no significant marine accidents involving commercial vessels since 1975. in Durham Region (2001). There are only a few sites classified as MIACC Level 1 or 2. grounding with vessel damage. including Dupont.2: historical information on emergencies. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 30 . The most significant incidents are reported in Section 3. and minor vessel collisions. Heavy industry is located primarily along the Highway 401 / CN Kingston railway line corridor. it does indicate the shear volume of industries in Durham Region.
again until it reaches Clarington. where it also runs on a southeast diagonal. The Trans-Canada Gas Pipeline also runs east-west through the Region. if they did occur the impact would be minimal. mine failure because there are no mines. where it runs on a southeast diagonal. create less concern as the damaged area can be isolated (shut-off up-line). north of Taunton Rd.6 Summary of Hazards by Municipality Table 17 provides a summary of the hazards identified by municipalities for which there is concern.. Only the types of hazards that were ranked. • • In addition to hazards that were ranked low. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 31 . on average. parallel to the Trans-Northern Oil Pipeline..e. by municipal respondents. such as natural gas lines to residential areas. labour dispute/strike). The Trans-Northern Oil Pipeline runs east-west through Durham Region. the gas can be burned off in a controlled burn and repairs can be made. 3. a number of additional hazards that were ranked from 1-3 were removed from this summary list that were deemed to be a ‘cause’ of a hazard. frost. 2 (very concerned) or 3 (concerned) are included in Table 17. until it reaches Clarington. dam failure because there are very few dams. fog. hostage taking. avalanche because there are no mountains). Low pressure transmission lines. between the proposed route for Highway 407 and Regional Road 5.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Commodity Pipeline There are two commodity pipelines running through Durham Region. The types of hazards that received an average ranking of 4 (somewhat concerned) or 5 (not concerned) have been eliminated and will not be considered in the risk assessment analysis because of the lack of perceived risk of these hazards.e. Many of the hazards that have been eliminated were ranked low because: • the chance of them occurring may be very low (i. High-pressure transmission lines (the main lines) are a concern because of the potential for explosion if there is a rupture. or the municipality may feel confident in its ability to respond to the hazard (i. hail. as 1 (extremely concerned).
© 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 32 .e. whereas the hazard actually is fire. the hazards of most concern to municipal respondents (i. and hazards for which respondents are very concerned are in yellow.major”). arson is a cause. (For example. These ‘causes of hazards’ threats have been removed from the risk assessment analysis. Level 1 and 2) have been highlighted using coloured cells.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment rather than the hazard itself or they were not the type of threat that would activate the Regional Emergency Plan. They include: Natural Hazards Electrical storm/lightning: fire Lightning: electrical disruption Torrential rains Human-Based Hazards Air piracy Arson Bomb hazard International strife Medical emergency Sabotage: data and software Vandalism Technical Hazards Central computer equipment failure In Table 17. which is captured under “Fire. Hazards for which there is extreme concern are in red.
Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Table 17: Summary of Hazards by Municipality Hazards Pickering Oshawa Whitby Ajax Municipalities Clarington Ave.3 3.8 3.4 2.9 2.9 2.6 3.8 2.8 2.3 3.5 3.5 2.5 3.9 2.1 3.6 2.5 Uxbridge Scugog 2 2 3 2 3 3 5 3 2 3 5 2 3 2 4 2 3 5 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 5 3 3 Brock 2 3 2 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 Natural Hazards Ice Storm Blizzard Tornado Cold Wave High Winds (70+ mph) Earthquake (Magnitude 5 or more) Flood: Flash Heat Wave Drought Forest Fire / Smoke Flood: Predicable/Seasonal 3 3 4 3 3 4 2 4 4 5 4 2 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 3 4 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 2 3 4 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 5 5 4 4 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 5 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 2 4 3 4 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 4 3 4 4 5 3 2 4 4 4 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 2 4 4 4 3 5 3 5 5 4 Human-based Hazards Terrorism (NBC) Bomb Explosion Pandemic: Human Epidemic: Animal/Insect Technical Hazards Fire: Building(s) .5 3.Major Toxic Spill (enroute) Derailment Toxic Gas Release (off site) Toxic Gas Release (on site) Accidental Explosion Toxic Spills (on site) Gas/oil pipeline failure Power Outage: Long Term Radiological Accident – In Transit Telecommunications Failure – Local Telecommunications Failure – Regional Water: Contamination Aircraft Crash Water: Supply Limitation/Failure Radiological Accident – On-Site Road Closure Structural Failure of Building © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 33 .9 3.1 3.1 3.9 3.9 2.5 3.1 3.5 3.1 3.1 3.5 3.1 3.8 2.0 3.8 3.1 3. Rank 2.
Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 34 .
those with experience will rank the risk lower. Consequently. In the absence of extensive historical data. examines the probability of occurrence of credible worst case scenarios and determines the potential adverse effects on a community through consideration of various direct and indirect impacts resulting from the occurrence of a hazard. and more than a personal feeling. It is valuable to appreciate that risk is not an absolute indeterminate value. risk is much more an individual. in the context of this research. not ultimately more helpful than a relative relationship. The diversity of input. The process used in this assessment combines approaches used by other jurisdictions and in the related field of business impact analysis. And while numerical analysis is used. requires a systematic and rigorous process. the objective here is to understand and appreciate risk in a particular geographic region. but rather to underscore the tendency of society to expect the exactness of scientific results. The methodology used employs a risk © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 35 . While most people will recognize some situations. such as bungee jumping. and the scope of interpretation of that input means the resulting risk profiles are relative rather than absolute. or as in this case. the assessment of risk. the assessment of risk is largely a subjective exercise. rational observations and experience with emergency planning in Durham Region and elsewhere. a collective perception of vulnerability under a given set of circumstances. where such results are neither possible. not determine precise values.1 Risk Assessment Methodology Risk assessment. 4. handling explosives or scuba diving as high-risk activities. probabilities and impacts are subjective assessments drawn from interview information.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Section 4 – Risk Assessment Outside of highly controlled experiments or the use of significant data sets. This observation is not meant to infer a reduced value in the resultant risk profile for Durham Region. to be a meaningful exercise.
Based on these values. The relationship between these considerations. yet directly affect the immediate quality of life of residents in the affected area. Life Factors (LF) x Hazard Factors (HF) Level of Concern (LC) Formula #2: Impact of Hazard (IH) = Life Factors (LF): Life factors address indirect implications of incidents that are often neglected or given cursory consideration. given the rating schemes used. Formula #1: Relative Risk = Impact of Hazard (IH) x Probability of Occurrence (PO) As well. agencies. hazard characteristics.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment and vulnerability tool 4 customized to allow an interaction of factors that balance key influences and yet permit the hazards of greatest risk to be clearly identified. impact considerations.2 Impact Assessment The occurrence of a hazard can have vastly different impacts. and local capability and capacity to provide a relative ranking of hazards for organizations. subjective assessments were made about the potential impact of each hazard and on the probability of occurrence of each hazard. Areas of impact considered under life factors include environmental. from those that may go largely unnoticed to those that make the front page of the morning newspapers across the country. For each of the selected hazards considered by the eight local municipalities (see Table 17). a relative risk number was calculated for each hazard (see Formula #1) and the hazards ranked accordingly. The magnitude of the impact is dependent on a variety of life and hazard factors and the level of concern of the jurisdiction or organization involved. social. The Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Tool (RAVAT-3™) developed by John Newton Associates effectively combines probability. corporations. and political jurisdictions. 4. and economic implications. political. 4 © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 36 . the relationship of impact to probability is explored in a risk matrix to better understand the groupings of hazards that warrants attention and will be of most interest to DEMO. is presented in Formula #2.
The combined average rankings obtained through the survey were calculated and presented in Table 17. While some hazards may have unique measurement criteria (e. forewarning and duration. To obtain a more detailed verification of these characteristics.g. Level of Concern (LC): The respondent for each of the eight municipalities in Durham Region was asked to rank the level of concern they felt about each of the hazards affecting their municipality. Richter or Mercilli scales for earthquakes. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 37 . F rating for tornadoes). a 4 or 5). Where these characteristics are strong. various capabilities and capacities such as the level of confidence.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Hazard Factors (HF): Each hazard will have different characteristics that affect its impact. 2: very concerned. the rank given to the level of concern by each respondent (see scale below) is felt to incorporate a number of characteristics and feelings that the responsible parties in a municipality have about each hazard. The results of this calculation are presented in Table 18..e. a 1 or 2) will likely be selected. technical skills. then a high level of concern (i. This value is used as the regional level of concern for each applicable hazard. analysis of these values is not warranted. readiness. 4: somewhat concerned. While not specifically probed in the survey. 5: not concerned For example. more in-depth interviews would be required to complement the self-assessment surveys. three basic parameters are used here to assess the relative impact of a hazard. The hazard factors considered are speed of onset.e. As the impact values represent an interim step in the risk assessment. whereas if some characteristics are felt to be weak. Calculation of the Impact of Hazard: Based on various Life and Hazard Factors and the Level of Concern selected. the impact can be calculated for each hazard using Formula #2. 3: concerned. and experience in handling emergencies are all felt to be embedded in the level of concern selected. the level of concern will be low (i. Scale: 1: extremely concerned.
9 3.6 2.5 2.6 5.1 3.5 3.6 10.5 6.3 9.7 7.8 3.1 3.0 Impact of Hazard 6.5 3.8 7.1 24.8 11.0 3.Major Gas/oil pipeline failure Power Outage: Long Term Radiological Accident – On-Site Radiological Accident – In Transit Road Closure Structural Failure of Building Telecommunications Failure – Local Telecommunications Failure – Regional Toxic Spills (on site) Toxic Spill (enroute) Toxic Gas Release (off site) Toxic Gas Release (on site) Water: Contamination Water: Supply Limitation/Failure LF 10 10 12 16 9 7 9 10 9 14 11 LF 12 11 9 15 LF 6 8 10 8 10 10 9 14 7 7 6 11 7 11 14 8 13 12 HF 3 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 HF 3 2 2 4 HF 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 LC 2.0 5.6 5.5 LC 2.3 Impact of Hazard 10.9 3. To explore the probability of each applicable hazard occurring in the Region of Durham would require complete long term historical information and detailed investigations beyond the scope of this project.1 2.1 3.6 16.7 7.7 5.5 3.5 3.8 4.5 3. However. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 38 .8 2.7 1.1 3.3 Probability Assessment (Probability of Occurrence or PO) The determination of the probability that a particular event will occur can be extremely complex and in some disciplines. is a dedicated area of focus.8 10.5 3.8 3.8 2.3 2. there are other methods available to gain a reasonable estimate of the probability of events occurring without the use of statistical analysis.2 12.5 4.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Table 18: Calculation of Impact of Hazard Applicable Natural Hazards Blizzard Cold Wave Drought Earthquake (Magnitude 5 or more) Flood: Flash Flood: Predicable/Seasonal Forest Fire / Smoke Heat Wave High Winds (70+ mph) Ice Storm Tornado Applicable Human-based Hazards Bomb Explosion Epidemic: Animal/Insect Pandemic: Human Terrorism (NBC) Applicable Technical Hazards Accidental Explosion Aircraft Crash Derailment Fire: Building(s) .9 3.0 9.0 8.9 LC 3.6 5.6 Impact of Hazard 11.4 2.6 7.1 3.3 13. such as life insurance.1 3.3 4.3 14.7 7.1 2.7 15.3 6.7 13.8 3.6 3.2 7.0 6.9 2.9 3.
It is wise to remember that it will not be the occurrence of a particular hazard that requires a change in the PO Value. A good risk assessment involves a number of independent decisions that. but rather a change in the frequency of a hazard from that anticipated. For example. For hazards where more complete information is available. the combination of impact and probability tend to provide a more balanced perspective on each hazard than either characteristic does independently. we assess the likelihood. In this manner. the probability is low relative to other hazards and thus terrorism does not rank as high in relative risk. It is recommended that the probability selection be revisited briefly each year to incorporate the most recent year’s experience and refine the PO Values accordingly. on a scale of 1-5 (i.4 Calculation of Relative Risk The Relative Risk is calculated using Formula #1 for each applicable hazard and the results presented in Table 19. 5 is high). © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 39 . that an event will occur within a reasonable planning time frame of 3-5 years. while terrorism (NBC) ranks highest on the impact scale. This criterion is applied to each of the applicable hazards and the appropriate Probability of Occurrence (PO) Value assigned. the results.e. It is. one of the most significant Human-based hazards.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment For this project. nonetheless. better judgements of probability can be made. As can be seen in Table 19. as shown in Table 19 are the outcome of a robust process giving greater validity and confidence to the findings. 4. when combined. produces a relative risk value that could not be anticipated based on any one of the decisions.
6 A basic set of statistical values for the findings is presented in Table 20.7 5.1 24.8 11.8 9.8 4.5 4.7 1.5 32.6 10.7 7.3 6.0 9.7 30.6 5.4 15.3 14.4 28.7 7.6 7.6 5.2 5.7 7.6 7.5 18.3 42.4 21.6 IH 11.6 5.8 14.8 16.9 48.0 IH 6.7 15.0 8.0 29.7 13.0 12. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 40 .2 Relative Risk 23.0 9.0 Relative Risk 18.Major Gas/oil pipeline failure Power Outage: Long Term Radiological Accident – On-Site Radiological Accident – In Transit Road Closure Structural Failure of Building Telecommunications Failure – Local Telecommunications Failure – Regional Toxic Spills (on site) Toxic Spill (enroute) Toxic Gas Release (off site) Toxic Gas Release (on site) Water: Contamination Water: Supply Limitation/Failure 51.1 24.1 30.3 Probability of Occurrence (PO) 5 5 3 1 4 5 2 5 5 2 2 PO 2 2 1 1 PO 3 1 3 5 1 2 1 1 5 2 3 2 5 3 2 3 1 2 Relative Risk Blizzard Cold Wave Drought Earthquake (Magnitude 5 or more) Flood: Flash Flood: Predicable/Seasonal Forest Fire / Smoke Heat Wave High Winds (70+ mph) Ice Storm Tornado Applicable Human-based Hazards Bomb Explosion Epidemic: Animal/Insect Pandemic: Human Terrorism (NBC) Applicable Technical Hazards Accidental Explosion Aircraft Crash Derailment Fire: Building(s) .2 11.0 5.5 6.3 13.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Table 19: Calculation of Relative Risk Applicable Natural Hazards Impact of Hazard (IH) 10.0 19.0 25.0 17.2 36.4 7.2 12.8 7.0 38.9 13.2 7.3 9.6 16.0 23.0 6.7 13.8 10.0 10.5 20.
0 51. whereas the high relative risk value for the human-based hazard group is significantly lower (by half).4 17. this observation on the data set would indicate that there has not been a strong tendency to consistently assign high or low values during the assessment. ranked by descending relative risk values (see Table 21). indicating a tendency towards inclusion of a few lower than average risk values in those groups.2 19.1 7. the medians and average values are acceptably close. The list of hazards for Durham Region. This does not mean that all values assigned have a greater accuracy.5 Low 9. indicating that values at either extreme of the scale do not dominate the findings.5 24. Nonetheless. The low relative risk values for each of the hazard groups are in the same general range.7 Median 23.2 19.9 The statistical information calculated in Table 20 based on the full data set does not identify any significant anomalies. In the context of this analysis. confirms this view as the relative risk values drop off sharply from the highest value in each grouping.1 15.0 5.0 48.9 22.1 Average 21.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Table 20: Statistical Data for Relative Risk Findings Hazards Groups Natural Human-based Technical Overall Values High 51. but that there would appear to have been a lack of any identifiable bias in the data. The high relative risk values for the natural and technical hazard groups are very close to one another.0 19. the average risk values were slightly lower than the median values. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 41 .3 5. With the exception of the Technical Hazard Group.
and Technical (5).8 29.3 12.3 Probability of Occurrence (PO) 5 5 4 5 5 2 3 2 1 2 5 PO 1 2 2 1 PO 5 3 3 5 2 3 2 5 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 Relative Risk Blizzard Cold Wave Flood: Flash High Winds (70+ mph) Heat Wave Ice Storm Drought Tornado Earthquake (Magnitude 5 or more) Forest Fire / Smoke Flood: Predicable/Seasonal Applicable Human-based Hazards Terrorism (NBC) Bomb Explosion Epidemic: Animal/Insect Pandemic: Human Applicable Technical Hazards Fire: Building(s) .2 15.3 All the findings in Table 21 will be of interest and assistance in preparing emergency plans and determining the type of training and exercises that will prove most beneficial.0 7.7 7.0 11.6 14.5 6. it is felt that these hazards have the greatest likelihood of occurrence within the next few years.1 36.7 7.0 30.7 4.4 18.0 23.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Table 21: Hazard Ranking by Relative Risk Applicable Natural Hazards Impact of Hazard (IH) 10. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 42 .8 21.0 Relative Risk 24.4 9.0 8.6 5.0 10.4 16.7 9. Based on the assessment.1 Relative Risk 48.7 6.3 7.0 42.2 13.6 10.6 13.7 1.7 7.5 30.5 12.4 18.7 5.1 IH 9.6 13.6 4.9 15.3 6.0 28. However.6 17.0 7. As can be seen from Table 22.7 6.8 5.2 20.0 10.2 5.8 14.8 IH 24.0 19. the hazards with the highest relative risk for the Region deserve special attention.8 7.Major Derailment Toxic Spill (enroute) Toxic Spills (on site) Toxic Gas Release (off site) Toxic Gas Release (on site) Telecommunications Failure – Regional Road Closure Power Outage: Long Term Accidental Explosion Telecommunications Failure – Local Water: Contamination Water: Supply Limitation/Failure Radiological Accident – In Transit Structural Failure of Building Gas/oil pipeline failure Radiological Accident – On-Site Aircraft Crash 51.6 11.0 9.3 13.5 7.5 32. the Top 10 includes hazards from two of the three groups – Natural (5).0 23.9 38.0 25.8 16.2 11.2 5.6 5.
5 48.8 30. these hazards are in the same general area of the matrix as hazards with higher relative risks and therefore warrant consideration during the emergency planning stage given the likelihood the Region will experience them within the next 3-5 years. as some hazards with a high to very high probability of occurrence did not make the Top 10 listing. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 43 . Blizzard Fire: Building(s) . or Flood: Predictable/seasonal. 9. 6. However.0 42. but rather that initial energy and effort might be best directed to the hazards with the highest probability of occurrence and greatest impact. The matrix does not mean that any of the hazards should be ignored. 3.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Table 22: Top 10 overall hazard ranking by relative risk Rank Applicable Hazards 1. 5. such as Road Closure. 8.5 30. The hazards listed in the upper left boxes will be of greatest concern. This matrix is worthy of close examination. 10.1 36.9 38. 7. 4.0 29.0 32. 2.Major Derailment Toxic Spill (enroute) Toxic Spills (on site) Cold Wave Flood: Flash Toxic Gas Release (off site) High Winds (70+ miles/hour) Heat Wave Relative Risk 51. The matrix underscores the interdependency of probability and impact and the misperceptions that can result from a limited consideration of a hazard’s characteristics and the area it might affect in a worst-case situation.0 To help build a more thorough appreciation of the applicable hazards. while those to the lower right of the matrix will be of lesser concern.0 28. a matrix is presented in Table 23 to allow for the comparison of probability and impact.
9 – 17. Flood: Predicable/Seasonal. Telecommunications Failure – Regional Earthquake (Magnitude 5 or more).9.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Table 23: Relationship between impact and probability for applicable hazards Probability of a Hazard Occurring Very High 24. Road Closure. Forest Fire / Smoke. High Winds (70+ mph). Gas/oil pipeline failure. Ice Storm. Water: Supply Limitation/Failure Accidental Explosion. Power Outage: Long Term. Tornado. Fire: Building(s) – Major Cold Wave. Water: Contamination © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 44 . Toxic Spills (on site) Flood: Flash. Toxic Gas Release (on site) Epidemic: Animal/Insect. Drought.9 – 0. Heat Wave.0 Blizzard.0 Impact Factor of a Hazard Occurring 16. Structural Failure of Building. Pandemic: Human. Radiological Accident – In Transit. Telecommunications Failure – Local. High Medium Toxic Gas Release (off site) Derailment Toxic Spill (enroute) Low Negligible Terrorism (NBC) Bomb Explosion. Aircraft Crash. Radiological Accident – On-Site.9 .0 8.
2: very effective.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Section 5 – Hazard Mitigation Survey respondents were asked to identify mitigative measures effective in addressing potential hazards.4 Scale: 1: extremely effective. Table 24: Mitigative Measures Most Effective in Addressing Potential Hazards Affecting Municipalities Ave.3 3. The results. Respondents were provided with a list of possible mitigative measures and asked to rank them with respect to their perceived effectiveness for their municipality.1 3.9 2.0 3.8 2.9 3. there is increased interest in improving the level of © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 45 .4 2. Rank Claringto n Pickering Uxbridge Oshawa Whitby Scugog Potential Hazard Mitigation Measures – Municipalities Coordination of emergency response Crisis communication capacity Emergency exercises and training Emergency planning Emergency responder training Improved fire prevention practices/resistant materials Public education Environmental audits Building codes By-laws Safety inspections of systems.9 2.4 2. 5: not effective Survey respondents generally felt that.4 3.3 2. 3: effective.4 2.6 2. 4: somewhat effective.1 2. as a result of the September 11/01 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon buildings. are provided in Table 24. buildings and structures Business continuity planning Resource allocation (purchase equipment & supplies) Land use planning Storm water management planning Flood plain mapping and implementation Zoning 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 2 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 2 2 3 3 3 2 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 Brock Ajax 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 2.4 2. in order from the most effective to the least effective mitigative measure.3 3.
was also ranked high (3.0). While municipalities have performed many of the activities now listed under the “mitigation” label for some time. emergency exercises (2.4) and emergency responder training (2. emergency planning (2.1). they are now receiving added attention and profile. this aspect of emergency management will increasingly have an integral role in local level emergency planning. crisis communication capacity (2.3). This is clearly illustrated in Table 24 as the top five most effective mitigative measures were related to emergency preparedness [coordination of emergency response (2. With new legislation in Ontario and Québec including reference to mitigation and efforts by the federal government to establish a National Disaster Mitigation Strategy. In the last few years the concept and application of mitigation as a means to reduce losses has grown significantly. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 46 . Almost all of the mitigative measures listed in Table 24 above were felt to be of importance. The other emergency preparedness related mitigative measure. business continuity planning.4).Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment emergency preparedness and increased security levels to help prevent and minimize the impacts of terrorist activities. first in the United States and now in Canada and elsewhere. Beginning to consider mitigative opportunities now will place the Durham Region in the forefront of this aspect of a rapidly evolving discipline.4)].
As well. tornadoes and ice storms. (e) Influenza pandemic (f) Bio-terrorism (g) Computer viruses (h) Possible increased potential for power outages due to privatization of electrical utilities (i) Water contamination due to relaxed monitoring and policing of water utilities © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 47 .1 Evolving Hazards Durham Region must also plan and prepare for evolving hazards that will increase or decrease in risk in the future due to a range of factors. major industries such as Dupont or General Motors and key government facilities. Evolving hazards in Durham Region include things such as: (a) Heavy industry expansion and use of dangerous goods. For example. hurricanes. it is recommended that the probability selection be revisited briefly each year to incorporate the most recent year’s experience and refine the PT values accordingly. completion 2010) and the related transportation of dangerous goods. when additional information on hazards becomes available. heat waves. (d) Global warming and the increased related risk for weather extremes causing events such as drought. The close proximity to the City of Toronto in itself creates an added terrorism risk. flooding. This hazard analysis and risk assessment must therefore be reviewed and revised periodically to ensure that the information available on hazards is up-to-date and that the degree of risk for the various hazards has not changed. it can be incorporated into the hazard analysis and risk assessment so that better judgements of probability can be made.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Section 6 – Conclusions & Recommendations 6. (b) 407 extension (est. (c) Acts of terrorism related to nuclear generating stations.
the average risk values were slightly lower than the median values. the assessment of risk of the hazards is largely subjective and relative rather than absolute. The findings in Table 21. With the exception of the Technical Hazard Group. Still. The risk assessment examined the probability of occurrence of credible worst-case scenarios and determined the potential adverse effects on a community through consideration of various direct and indirect impacts resulting from an emergency.2 Summary and Recommendations Due to the restricted scope of this project with respect to collecting detailed data on various types of hazards from a wide range of sources. whereas the high relative risk value for the human-based hazard group is significantly lower (by half). The formula used to calculate the risk of each hazard scoring an average of greater than four from the survey data and for which emergency plans would be activated was: Relative Risk = Impact of Hazard x Probability of Occurrence The results of the Relative Risk calculation indicates that the high relative risk values for the natural and technical hazard groups are very close to one another. the results are valuable in providing with a reasonable estimate of the level of risk of various hazards in Durham Region. The low relative risk values for each of the hazard groups are in the same general range.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment 6. page 39 provide guidance in preparing its non-nuclear emergency plan and identifying the types of training and exercises that will be most beneficial. indicating a tendency towards a few lower than average risk values. The top ten hazards ranked by relative risk are: (1) Blizzard (2) Fire: building(s) – major (3) Derailment (4) Toxic spill (enroute) (5) Toxic spill (on site) (6) Cold wave (7) Flood: flash (8) Toxic gas release (off site) (9) High winds (70+ miles per hour) (10) Heat wave © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 48 .
etc.. how to prepare for and what to do in the event of power outages and natural weather extremes such as blizzards. extreme cold. CP and large manufacturers using dangerous goods • • • • © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 49 .. Therefore.). specialty training for weather extremes. sandbags for flooding prevention. key Durham Region facilities such as Public Works yards. media and public communication (i.e.) providing public education programs (i.e. flooding and extreme cold) letters of agreement and/or coordination with external agencies such as CN.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment The Relative Risk for each hazard was then presented in a risk matrix to further define the hazards that warrant the greatest attention. training staff (i. fire prevention.e. clear and concise instructions during power outages and natural weather extremes such as blizzards. Health Dept.e. it is recommended that the Region focus particularly on the above types of hazards with respect to the development of the non-nuclear emergency plan. flooding. It should also make sure these same hazards are addressed when conducting the following: • • • • • • designing emergency planning exercises (design exercises that involve one or more of the above hazards). refrigeration centres.) developing expertise (i. arson and bomb threat staff training or arrangements with external agencies with expertise) purchasing or emergency arrangements for specialty equipment and supplies (i.. explosions.e. train derailments. etc.. toxic spills/releases. upgrading communications and ensuring secure back-up communications systems are in place (ideally compatible communications between the Region and member municipalities). evacuation centres. ‘Flooding’ (predictable/seasonal) and ‘Road Closures’ are additional hazards that need careful consideration given the likelihood that the Region will experience them within the next 3-5 years. defining and equipping evacuation centres. etc. spill control equipment and supplies). purchasing or arranging for back-up generators at key locations such as designate and back-up EOC’s.
at least over the short term (via measures like increased security). for example. many of the suggestions above are partially municipal responsibilities. it is recommended that the above hazards be addressed first. However. the other high-ranking hazards. Other hazards that are not identified in the top ten list above are also important to consider during the various phases of preparing for emergencies. that hazards such as terrorism and bio-terrorism will be given significant attention. It is expected. or be given higher priority. however the Region may take on a coordinating role to ensure that the municipalities are prepared in these areas.. Clearly. vs.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment • • developing business continuity plans for critical Regional services. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 50 .e. and coordinating GIS and other data collection systems so that the Region and the member municipalities collect similar data in the same format (i. GIS) so that it can be consolidated and used effectively in emergency situations. due to the present level of public awareness of these issues and the political need to address public concern.
Director of Planning & Development City of Oshawa John Brown. Director of Emergency Medical Services Alexander Georgieff. Dept. Kyle. CAO Mike Creighton. Clerk Administrator Bob Graham. Commissioner of Planning Gary Cubitt. Fire Chief Ted Goodchild. Commissioner. Fire Chief Judy Avery. Armstrong. R. Director of Emergency Measures Town of Ajax Richard Parisotto. of Developmental Services Stephen Bedford. of Operational Services © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 51 . Director of Operations & Environmental Services Township of Brock George Graham. Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health R.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Appendices Appendix A: List of Research Recipients Durham Region James Clapp.J. CAO & Acting Commissioner of Social Services Jack McCorkell. Fire Chief Leo DeLoyde. Director of Public Works David Crome. CAO Randy Wilson. Fire Chief Stephen Vokes. Chief of Police Ivan Ciuciura. Commissioner. Commissioner of Finance & Treasurer Dr. Commissioner of Works Kevin McAlpine. Public Works Municipality of Clarington Frank Wu. Dept. City Manager Milt Wilson. Director of Planning & Development Services Brian Skinner.
Fire Chief Wayne Hancock. Director of Public Works Neil Carroll. Director of Public Works Robert Short. Director of Planning Township of Scugog Yvonne de Wit. Director of Public Works Township of Uxbridge Alex Grant. Administrator Kent MacCarl. Director of Planning © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 52 . Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer Richard Holborn. Fire Chief Ben Kester. Director of Public Works Blain Lalonde. CAO Richard Miller. Fire Chief Terry Carson. Fire Chief Gilles Paterson. CAO Tony Peck. CAO Bill Douglas. Chief Building Official Town of Whitby Al Claringbold.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment City of Pickering Tom Quinn.
) Organizations using toxic materials (List 1) Population density Floodway & flood prone areas Gas & oil pipeline locations Air flight paths Hydroelectric transmission corridors Water & sewer systems Fire prone areas Y = Yes N = No N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y N N Y N Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y DK = don’t know Municipalities have different levels of information available in different formats. hospitals.Municipalities To assist DEMO with the process of reviewing and revising its emergency plan and continually improving the level of emergency preparedness of the Region and its member municipalities. Some have GIS databases with pertinent information for future use by the Region. and if so.g.Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Appendix B: Information on GIS . schools. It would be preferable that Durham Region and the member municipalities collect similar data in the same format (preferably GIS) so that it can be consolidated and used effectively in emergency situations. © 2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Brock N N N N N N Y N N Y N N Page 53 Ajax . The results are provided in the table below. what type of information. etc. Information on GIS – Municipalities Clarington Pickering Uxbridge Oshawa Whitby Scugog N N N N N N N N N N N N Information on GIS – Municipalities Traffic accident locations Routes for hazardous materials/truck traffic Railway accident locations Community facilities (e. survey respondents were asked to identify if they have data/information on GIS..