HIRA Analysis

The Regional Municipality of Durham
HAZARD ANALYSIS AND RISK ASSESSMENT

FINAL REPORT
Submitted by:
Stevenato & Associates 54 Centre Ave., North York, Ontario, M2M 2L5 Phone (416) 229-2115 Fax: (416) 229-0068
And
John Newton Associates 262 Robert St., Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2K8 Phone (416) 929-3621 Email: j.newton@utoronto.ca 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
3.0
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
4.0
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
5.0 6.0
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
Page 1
Section 1 Introduction
Understanding the hazards to which one is exposed and appreciating ones existing capability to cope with such hazards, represents an initial step towards preparation for such events. The Regional Municipality of Durhams 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.
Page 1
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;
Page 2
(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 Regions 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.
Page 3
Page 4
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, reviewed and tested, before distribution to selected individuals in key municipal and regional positions. The attention devoted to the research design stage should not be underestimated, as the content and nature of the research tools used contributed significantly to the type and quality of the information collected.
2.1 Design of Research Survey The survey tool was designed to facilitate ease of completion in order to obtain the highest possible response rate. Wherever possible, 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, particularly where responses may require additional detail to explain unique circumstances. The content and structure of the survey was designed for use by municipalities in the Region as well as Regional Departments. The final survey document contained five parts .that are:
(A) Administrative Information basic contact data; (B) Historical Emergency Information details on significant recent events ; (C) Potential Hazards perception of concern about potential natural, human-based and technical hazards and the effectiveness of mitigative measures to address these hazards; (D) Relevant Material - availability of background material, including emergency contact directories and GIS data management capacity; and, (E) Closing Question an opportunity to add any other comments.
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 Regions Departments.
Page 5
2.2 Selection of Recipients In coordination with Durham Emergency Measures Office (DEMO) staff, a list of survey recipients was compiled. Recipients at the eight local municipalities included CAOs, Fire Chiefs, Directors of Public Works and Directors of Planning. Durham Region recipients
included the following Department Heads: Finance, Medical Officer of Health, Emergency Medical Services, Planning, Social Services, Works, and Police. A list of the research recipients can be found in Appendix A.
2.3 Implementation of Survey The survey was mailed to the identified contacts in each municipality and Durham Region Department on October 3, 2001. Recipients were requested to complete and return the survey and any related documents within five days of receipt. 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.
By early December, one survey had been received from each municipality. In each case, it is understood, though not formally documented, that one person was designated to complete the survey on behalf of the municipality, so the results represented largely the view of one individual and not the summation of a diversity of views from each jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the individuals responding, most often the municipal Fire Chief, were likely the most knowledgeable about hazards in their area. Of the 40 surveys distributed (for a list of recipients see App. A), 10 were returned (Table 1), for a response rate of 25%. Two surveys were received from Durham Region Departments (i.e. Works, Health).
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
Police No
Ajax
Page 6
Tables 2 and 4 show the availability and provision of specific documents requested from municipal and departmental recipients respectively. The null response from many jurisdictions in the areas probed, does not necessarily mean such documents do not exist, particularly emergency response and official land use plans, but rather that the person completing the survey may not have had the capacity or authority to release them. Similarly, the survey respondents may have chosen not to send documents, such as emergency contact directories, that may be out-of-date.
Table 2: Documents Provided by Municipalities

Clarington Pickering Uxbridge Documents Provided - 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, a copy was sent to the consultants N = No document exists H = the document exists, 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.
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, but not provided
---Y --
---N/A --
N N Y N/A N
--H -N/A= Not Applicable
Police
---N/A --
Brock --C Y -C
Ajax
Page 7
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. When the information is of a physically distributed nature, it is increasingly being captured in electronic databases and displayed in a more usable form though the use of geographic information systems (GIS). In addition, 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. Juxtaposition of selected emergency information on events and or hazards can help identify vulnerability and confirm experiential perceptions of risk in the Region.
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.g., schools, hospitals, Y etc.) 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, hydrants, -orthophotography) Y = Yes N = No DK = dont 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, but not provided
Unfortunately, while extensive information on the geographic distribution of hazards in the Region has been collected by municipalities, regional departments and other relevant provincial and federal organizations and agencies, very little has been placed in GIS tools, as can be seen from the survey response data presented in Appendix B.
Table 5: Additional Information Available/Provided Durham Region Dept.
Brock N N N N N N H N N H H N --
Ajax
Page 8
Emergency Medical services
Finance & Treasury
Planning
Social Services
Traffic accident locations -Routes for hazardous materials/truck traffic -Railway accident locations -Community facilities (schools, hospitals, etc.) -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 = dont 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, but not provided
-------------
2.4 Background Information In addition to the documents and information requested, 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. (a) Hazard analyses and risk assessments from other municipalities (e.g., York Region, Johnson County, North Carolina, City of Victoria) (b) Transportation Safety Board statistics on marine, railway, air and commodity pipeline accidents (c) Ministry of Transportation statistics on Provincial highway collisions, 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, railways, industrial land uses, population projections, water courses/dams, gas and oil pipelines, hydroelectric transmission corridors, power generating stations and international ports. In many cases, information requested was not available at the level of detail requested, or would not be provided. The hazard analysis and risk assessment was based on information that was
DEMO -------------
Health
Works
Police
Records of the following Information Durham Region Dept.
Page 9
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.
Page 10
Section 3 Hazard Data Analysis

Through the survey document, recipients provided basic information on events worthy of note occurring within their jurisdiction over the past 20-25 years. A simple estimate of the level of concern felt by the respondent was given for a wide range of potential hazards. These responses were analysed in a preliminary manner to provide direct local input to the risk assessment.
3.1 Information Provided by Recipients The core questions in the survey asked recipients to consider the hazards that have in the past, or might in the future affect their municipality. Each recipient provided information about hazards in four areas: i) ii) iii) iv) historical information on significant emergencies; potential or perceived natural hazards; potential or perceived human-based hazards; and, potential or perceived technical hazards.
While respondents were not asked to consider and rank specific aspects of each hazard, they would nonetheless likely weigh a number of factors in deciding on their level of concern. Some of the possible considerations respondents took into account are listed below in random order. i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) vii) viii) the immediate hazard of emergencies; the level of confidence of municipal responders; the ability to respond; the training and expertise available; the equipment and human resources available; mutual aid resources available from neighbouring municipalities; mitigative actions taken; and, future potential for an emergency due to increasing risks (i.e., new highways, heavy industrial growth).
The survey results are presented and analysed in Sections 3.2 to 3.7. As previously discussed, one survey from each municipality was received. Insufficient data (two surveys) was received
Page 11
from the Region of Durham departments and as a result, the Durham Region survey results have been excluded from further analysis and assessment 2 .
The information collected represents the perception of risk by the respondents, based on their years of experience, and among others, the factors listed above. In making decisions, an individuals perception combined with their values and beliefs forms the foundation, which guides their actions. As well, it is important to note that from the perspective of an external observer there will be a gap between an individuals perception and the full reality of a situation, however for the individual perception and reality are virtually synonymous. And whether under day-to-day conditions or during an emergency people will make decisions based on their perception of the situation, which includes the best information available at the time. Consequently, in this project the information received from respondents is considered the best available at this time.
3.2 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, marine, air and pipeline accident data) over the past 20-25 years is presented in Tables 6 and 7 respectively.
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, introducing a bias), followed by chemical-related emergencies (4 occurrences) and major flooding (3 occurrences). Most of the train derailments occurred at the Oshawa marshalling yards, however the most serious events occurred at level crossings throughout the Region. Five of the 20 (25%)
emergencies reported were the result of natural disasters; the remaining 75% were technical emergencies. Most of the emergencies reported in recent years have been technical events. The number of emergencies reported tends to be higher post-1997 vs. pre-1997, however this may be due to the fact that more recent emergencies are also more easily remembered or the individuals
Should the Region wish to compare the perception of risk expressed by municipalities with that felt by Regional Departments, additional information would be required from each of the non-responding departments, either through completion of the survey or participation in a hazards assessment workshop.
Page 12
personal experience in the Region may have been limited. The emergencies tended to be restricted to within the respondents municipality. Duration tended to be less than 72 hours.
The emergencies identified over the last 20-25 years resulted in no deaths and only seven injuries, all of which occurred in a 1999 train derailment, indicating either a lack of large serious events or of readily available data on events causing injury or death. Property damage,
environmental damage and economic loss varied, depending on the scale of the emergency. The natural disasters tended to result in more than $100,000 in property damage, primarily due to the geographic scope of such events. Environmental damage reported was minimal except for a few emergencies involving chemicals.
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, Main St., Beaverton Ammonia Leak Train Derailment Flash Flood Small Tornado Major Flooding, Beaverton Harbour 450 mm. snowfall Oil Spill, 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. 92 98 July 98 98 99 99 2000 2000
B A U P, U C B All C P W C A B,C,O ,P,S,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$500,000 <$10,000 Minor <$100,000 DK None >$500,000 >$100,000 Moderate >$500,000 >$100,000 Minor <$100,000 >$100,000 Minor <$100,000 <$10,000 Minor DK $10,000- Moderate DK $100,000 >$100,000 Moderate DK <$10,000 Moderate <$100,000 DK Minor DK $10,000Minor $100,000$100,000 $500,000 $10,000Minor <$100,000 $100,000 <$10,000 None <$100,000
>$100,000
Property Damage
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. Flooding; 149 mm in 4 hr. 11 mm of rain fell on Toronto and neighbouring areas, followed by a fast freeze during evening rush hour, with 100s of accidents. Winter Storm (Toronto & parts of Durham) (freezing rain, followed by 2535 cm of snow; snow emergency) Rainstorm & high winds in Toronto resulted in power blackouts and flooded streets and basements. The Don R. almost overflowed Severe thunderstorms struck East Toronto and Pickering, resulting in flooding; 149 mm in four hours) Winter Storm (Toronto & parts of Durham) (winds to 100 km/h; multiple accidents, flight & subway cancellations) 5-Day heat wave (Toronto & Durham) (temp. exceeding 350C; 380C on 7th) CN Train Collision (12 cars derailed, no dangerous good) Category 1 emergency at Pickering Nuclear Generating Station Reactor 2. Spilled heavy water was contained. No release, no off site impact. CP Train Derailments (6, 8, 6 cars respectively, no dangerous goods)
Sept 2/80 Dec 9/82
4-24
DK
4-24
DK
March 4/85 Sept. 29/86
4-24
4-24
Aug. 27, 28/86 87
24-72
24-72
July 610/88 Aug. 93 Dec. 10/94
>72 O P DK 4-24
0 0 0
CN Train Derailment (6 cars, 1 with dangerous goods release methyl methacrylate) CN Train Derailment (15 cars, 51 Nov. 97 platforms, no dangerous goods) Train Derailment (5 cars derailed, 3 with Feb. 99 LPG dangerous goods) Train Collision/Derailment [18 cars Nov. 99 derailed, 8 with dangerous goods (Butadiene, LPG), 5 passenger cars, 1500 gal. of fuel spilled, fire - extreme potential for devastation]
Feb. 95, Feb. 99, June 99 Sept. 97
O, rail yard O
DK
DK
B O C
DK DK 24-72
0 0 7
Two large-scale emergencies occurring prior to 1980 were not mentioned. In 1944, a blizzard dumped 57 cm. of snow on Durham Region over two days, resulting in twenty-one deaths. On October 15, 16 1954, 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. Eight-one people died, 20 bridges were destroyed and there was $1.3 billion in property damage in southern Ontario.
Based on the information provided by survey respondents and background research, 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
3.3 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. An analysis of the survey results, presented in order from the natural hazard of most concern to the natural hazard of least concern can be found in Table 8. The natural hazards that on average ranked 3.0 (concerned) or higher were: Ice storm; Blizzard; Electrical storm; Tornado; Electrical Storm/Lightning: Fire; and, 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. Possible factors influencing this perception include, but are not limited to:
Page 15
i) there is little time to prepare to respond; ii) the potential for injuries, loss of life and damage to property, the environment and the economy can be extreme; and, iii) long-term impacts can result (i.e., repair costs). Table 8: Level of Concern about Natural Hazards Affecting Municipalities
Hazards due to Natural Hazards Pickering Whitby Ajax Municipalities Clarington Ave. Rank Page 16 Uxbridge Oshawa Scugog Brock
Ice Storm 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2.4 Blizzard 3 3 4 3 2 3 2 3 2.9 Tornado 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2.9 Electrical Storm/Lightning: Fire 3 3 3 3 2 5 2 3 3.0 Lightning: Electrical Disruption 4 3 3 4 3 3 2 2 3.0 Cold Wave 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 4 3.1 High Winds (70+ mph) 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 3.1 Torrential Rains 2 3 3 5 4 3 4 2 3.3 Earthquake (Magnitude 5 or more) 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3.5 Flood: Flash 2 4 4 4 3 3 5 3 3.5 Heat Wave 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3.6 Drought 4 5 4 5 2 4 2 4 3.8 Forest Fire / Smoke 5 3 5 5 1 5 3 3 3.8 Flood: Predicable/Seasonal 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 4 3.9 Fog 4 3 4 5 3 5 4 4 4.0 Hurricane/Typhoon 4 5 4 5 4 5 3 2 4.0 Flood: Dam Burst 5 5 4 5 5 3 5 3 4.5 Flood: Lake Surges 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 4.5 Hail 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4.5 Frost 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4.6 Crop Failure 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4.8 Land Subsidence /Liquefaction 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4.8 Landslide/Mudslide 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4.8 Avalanche: Rock/Debris 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0 Average Rank 3.8 Scale: 1: extremely concerned; 2: very concerned; 3: concerned; 4: somewhat concerned; 5: not concerned
Clearly, the recent ice storm that hit Eastern Ontario and Qubec in 1998 is still on the minds of emergency responders as such an event was ranked highly. Concern about blizzards and cold waves can also be linked to the ice storm experience. Also of concern, particularly with municipalities that have older (fire-prone) structures, are natural events that can result in major fires and utility failures (electrical storm and lightning).
Many of the concerns with weather emergencies are focused on the potential impacts on Highway 401 and the potential for multiple vehicle accidents, possibly involving dangerous commodities.
Some regional anomalies appear in the data. For example, Clarington ranked forest fires 1 while other municipalities did not perceive this as a high risk. In Clarington, 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, and the Fire Department, which is largely volunteer, is not well trained in forest fire fighting. Two primarily rural municipalities, Clarington and Scugog, were very concerned about drought, which was not as highly ranked by other municipalities.
Tornadoes Municipal respondents ranked tornadoes quite high (2.9). Environment Canada concurs, as Durham Region has been placed in a moderate risk zone for tornadoes, with an average annual frequency of 0.8-1.2.
Blizzards Blizzards, as defined by Environment Canada, are rare in Durham Region, as the required combination of very cold temperatures, high winds and snow, seldom occur together. There have been no blizzard warnings for Durham Region in the last ten years. municipal respondents ranked blizzards high (2.9). Interestingly,
Hurricanes Hurricanes were ranked low (4.0), and this is also reflected in information provided by Environment Canada. Hurricanes are very rare in Durham Region, as their energy is greatly diminished over land. For example, even Hurricane Hazel in October 1954, was actually
downgraded to a tropical storm by the time it reached Ontario.
Page 17
Heavy Precipitation Although blizzards are rare, heavy snowfall is not. Between 1981-2000, there were 18
occurrences of a one-day snowfall greater than 15 cm., equivalent to a 0.2% frequency. Similarly, between 1981-2000, there were eight occurrences of one-day rainfall greater than 50 mm., for a 0.1% frequency rate. Since 1969, the highest daily precipitation recorded was 145 mm. on June 27, 1971, a value greater than a 100-year storm. On three other occasions during this period, daily precipitation exceeded 70 mm. (1995: 100 mm., 1986: 81 mm., 1984: 71 mm.)
Flooding Given the history of flooding in parts of Pickering, Uxbridge and Brock, it is surprising that flooding was ranked quite low. Perhaps past experience has built a strong capability to cope with floods in these municipalities.
The Conservation Authority Canada-Ontario Flood Damage Reduction Program, Public Information Flood Risk Maps, illustrates the flood plains for various water systems throughout Durham Region. The flood plain delineates the area that would be inundated if the river flooded its banks during a 100-year flood. Structures and property within the flood plain may be susceptible to damage in the event of flooding. There are three main watersheds in Durham Region that drain into: Lake Simcoe (Pefferlaw Brook, Beaverton River, Uxbridge Brook, Whites Creek), Lake Scugog (Nonquon River, Caukers Creek, East Cross Creek), Lake Ontario (Duffin Creek, Carruthers Creek, Lynde Creek, Layton River, Oshawa Creek, Harmony Creek, Farewell Creek, Black Creek, Bowmanville Creek, Soper creek, Wilmot Creek, Graham Creek and Ganaraska River).
The watersheds for the river systems draining into Lake Simcoe are located in extremely broad, flat flood plains, 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. Much of these flood plains consist of swamp and marshland. However there are a number of communities
Page 18
in the northern part of Durham Region where there are structures on the floodplains, which would be prone to damage in the event of a flood. 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. In 1929, a severe storm moved over the watersheds, washing out area bridges and roads, a portion of the Canadian National Railway line and a mill dam in Beaverton. Numerous residences and businesses were also flooded. Extensive flooding occurred on October 15 and 16, 1954 during Hurricane Hazel. The autumn had been particularly wet, resulting in a saturated ground surface, and when Hurricane Hazel hit the area, the large amount of rain and resulting floods caused severe damage to roads, bridges, and dams, as well as public and private buildings. On April 15, 1965, the Brookdale Dam weakened by heavy rains, breached and flooded downtown Uxbridge. Roads were washed out and businesses were flooded. 3
Climate Data for City of Toronto Limited climate data was available for Durham Region. However, a report entitled The Climate of Metropolitan Toronto, by Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service (1989), provides historical information for Metropolitan Toronto from 1951-1980, and would reflect the climate of the neighbouring Durham Region. 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, on average, slightly more than three times each year. More than 75% of the cold spells occur in January. There is an average of six hot days per year when maximum temperatures reach or exceed 320C. Heat waves (a period lasting three days or more when maximum temperatures reach at least 320C) occur, on average, seven times each decade. Heat waves are only slightly more frequent in July (2.6 days) than June or August. The longest heat wave lasted 10
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Canada-Ontario Flood Damage Reduction Program, Public Information Flood Risk Map, Beaverton River and Whites Creek (1989)
Page 19
days during August and early September 1953, and resulted in a few heat fatalities from heat prostration. Freezing precipitation is reported an average of 10 times per year. As one approaches Lake Ontario, freezing precipitation becomes less frequent due to the influence of the relatively warm Lake in modifying shallow cold air near the surface. There have been an average of 15 days per year when precipitation amounts exceed 15 mm. Normally, the days with heavier precipitation are confined to summer and autumn, however, precipitation occurs more often in winter. 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, usually during spring or fall. A rainfall intensity of 25 mm in a 10-minute period has occurred, on average, once every 25 years. Dry spells (periods lasting at least 15 days without measurable rain) occur, on average, once every two years. The summer of 1988 was the last dry spell. 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), occurs about 8 times per month in January and six times per month in February. Wind chill is most severe during or following a significant winter storm. A wind chill in excess of 1900 W/m2 is rare. High wind speeds are usually associated with winter storm passages. The highest average wind speed occurred on March 5, 1964 when speeds reached 121 km/h. On January 26, 1978, average winds of 90 km/h occurred, gusting to 126 km/h, and skyscraper windows popped. In summer, the strongest winds were reported on July 1, 1956, reaching 134 km/h. A humidex of 460C or higher makes activity difficult. On average, values of 400C or greater can be expected on two to three days per summer. On September 1, 1953, the humidex reached 480C. Dense fog usually occurs during pre-dawn and dawn hours, usually late winter or early spring. Tornadoes arise from severe thunderstorm outbreaks. From 1970-1979, there was an average of 14.5 tornadoes in Ontario, a majority occurring in southwestern Ontario. Weak tornadoes have touched down in the Toronto area, but it has been estimated that the odds of a damaging tornado hitting the Toronto area once every 20 years. Most tornadoes occur during the afternoon and early evening and during the months from May through August. Thunderstorms occur most frequently during June, July and August, with an average of five to six thunderstorm days per month. Severe thunderstorms can cause limited damage due to large hail, strong wind gusts and flooding. Severe thunderstorms on August 27/28 1976 produced flooding and property damage. On August 19, 1981, a severe thunderstorm produced tennis-ball sized hail.
Page 20
On average, hurricanes brush only southern Ontario every few years, usually bringing winds not strong enough to cause significant damage and heavy rains no greater in intensity than heavy thunderstorm downpours. Hurricane Hazel, on October 15-16, 1954, is the exception. The Humber River Valley area had 80 fatalities and property damage of 24 million dollars. The Toronto area usually experiences one or two snowstorms per winter when snowfalls exceed 15 cm., often accompanied by blowing and drifting snow. On January 26 and 27, 1978, a blizzard struck Toronto with 16 cm of snow, winds gusting to 90 km/h, and visibilities reduced to near zero. The storm closed many roads in the vicinity, resulted in over 400 injuries, and caused one woman to die from exposure. Costs for southern Ontario were estimated at over 41 million dollars. Toronto averages about three days a season with a freezing precipitation storm lasting more than four hours. On December 27, 1959, 30 cm of freezing rain fell northeast of Toronto. On December 9, 1986, 11 mm of rain fell followed by a fast freeze, and resulting in hundreds of accidents, scores of injuries and two fatalities.
3.4 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. An analysis of the survey results, presented in order from the hazard of most concern to the hazard of least concern, can be found in Table 9. The human-based hazards that on average ranked 3.0 (concerned) or higher were: Terrorism; and, Arson.
The types of hazards of most concern tended to be related to external factors (i.e., terrorism) where there is little control. Clearly, the September 11, 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. Many of the lakeshore municipalities are particularly concerned about terrorist, bombing or sabotage hazards at the Pickering and Darlington Nuclear Generating Stations or major industries; that are perceived locally to be prime targets for such activity. The City of Pickering ranked all terrorist type activity very high, partially because it abuts the City of Toronto where terrorist activity is felt most likely to occur, with uncertain ramifications for Pickering. The Durham Region
Emergency Response Procedure- Chemical/Biological Terrorist (Bioterrorist) Incident Plan
Page 21
states, the threat from an actual chemical/biological terrorist incident in Durham Region is assessed to be low. However, an event cannot be ruled out.
Table 9: Level of Concern about Human-Based Hazards Affecting Municipalities Clarington Ave. 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 2.5 Arson 2 3 3 4 2 4 2 3 2.9 Bomb Explosion 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3.1 Medical Emergency 4 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 3.1 Bomb Hazard 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3.3 International Strife 3 3 5 3 3 4 2 4 3.4 Vandalism 3 3 4 5 4 3 2 3.4 Air Piracy 2 4 2 4 4 3 4 5 3.5 Pandemic: Human 3 4 4 5 3 4 2 3 3.5 Human Error: Maintenance 4 3 4 5 3 4 3 3 3.6 Human Error: Operation 4 3 4 5 3 4 3 3 3.6 Human Error: Programmers 4 3 4 5 3 4 3 4 3.8 Human Error: Computer Users 4 3 4 5 3 4 3 4 3.8 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 3.8 Epidemic: Animal/Insect 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3.9 Media Errors 4 4 4 5 4 5 3 3 4.0 Riot/Civil Disorder 4 4 4 5 4 3 3 5 4.0 Sabotage: Physical 4 4 5 5 2 4 3 5 4.0 Epidemic: Plant 5 4 4 5 4 3 5 3 4.1 Labour Dispute/Strike 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 5 4.1 Misuse of Resources 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4.1 Hostage Taking 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 3 4.3 Fraud/Embezzlement 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 3 4.5 Other (please specify) bio-terrorism 2 Average Rank 3.7 Scale: 1: extremely concerned; 2: very concerned; 3: concerned; 4: somewhat concerned; 5: not concerned
In addition to the terrorist-type human-based emergencies, pandemic was ranked high. Influenza pandemic, for example, can cause sudden, pervasive illness in all age groups, and can result in a large number of death, extensive workplace absenteeism and a severe strain on medical services. Some experts predict that we are due for the next influenza pandemic, and municipalities across the country have prepared pandemic contingency plans to prepare for such as event. Using a Centre for Disease Control software program, Table 10 estimates the impact, based on a Durham Region population of 520,099 in 2001.
Ajax
Table 10: Estimates of Impact of Influenza Pandemic on Durham Region People Infected Clinically Ill Require Outpatient Care Hospitalization Required Deaths` Totals 390,074 78,015 - 197,638 35,367 - 88,417 572 - 1,560 156 - 572 % of Population 75% 15% - 38% 6.8% - 17% 0.1% - 0.3% 0.04% - 0.1%
The human-based hazards of most concern are those related to the nuclear generating stations, major transportation routes (Highway 401 and main railway lines), major industrial areas using dangerous goods, and utilities.
3.5 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. An analysis of the survey results, presented in order from the hazard of most concern to the hazard of least concern, can be found in Table 11. The technical hazards that on average ranked 3.0 (concerned) or higher were: Major building fires; Toxic spills enroute; Derailment; Toxic gas release offsite; Toxic gas release onsite; Accidental explosion; Toxic spills onsite; and, Gas/oil pipeline failure.
Page 23
Table 11: Level of Concern about Technical Hazards Affecting Municipalities

Clarington Ave. Rank Page 24 Pickering Uxbridge Oshawa Whitby Scugog Brock Ajax Hazards due to Technical Hazards Municipalities
Fire: Building(s) - Major 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2.5 Toxic Spill (enroute) 4 2 3 3 2 1 3 3 2.6 Derailment 3 2 3 3 2 1 5 3 2.8 Toxic Gas Release (off site) 4 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 2.8 Toxic Gas Release (on site) 4 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 2.8 Accidental Explosion 3 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 2.9 Toxic Spills (on site) 4 2 3 3 2 1 4 4 2.9 Gas/oil pipeline failure 3 2 3 4 2 4 3 3 3.0 Power Outage: Long Term 4 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 3.1 Radiological Accident In Transit 3 2 3 4 2 4 4 3 3.1 Telecommunications Failure Local 4 2 3 4 3 4 2 3 3.1 Telecommunications Failure Regional 4 2 3 4 3 4 2 3 3.1 Water: Contamination 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 3.1 Aircraft Crash 3 3 3 3 2 5 3 4 3.3 Water: Supply Limitation/Failure 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3.3 Central Computer Equipment Failure 3 3 4 4 3 5 3 4 3.4 Radiological Accident On-Site 3 2 3 4 2 5 5 4 3.5 Road Closure 3 2 4 5 3 5 3 3 3.5 Structural Failure of Building 5 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3.5 Crop Failure 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 4.5 Upstream Dam/Reservoir Failure 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 4.6 Ice Jams in Shipping Lanes 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4.9 Ship Accident 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4.9 Mine Failure 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0 Average Rank 3.4 Scale: 1: extremely concerned; 2: very concerned; 3: concerned; 4: somewhat concerned; 5: not concerned
Clearly, fires and toxic releases [liquid and gas, in transit (rail and road) or onsite] are the main areas of concern among municipalities. Fires are of particular concern in many of the older, high-density neighbourhoods where structures are not as fire resistant as todays buildings and fires not suppressed immediately can spread very quickly and easily.
Municipalities in Durham Region are understandably concerned about toxic releases resulting from accidents given: i) the major transportation routes traversing the Region (i.e., Highways 401 and 35/115, CN and CP rail lines and the proposed extension for Highway 407); ii) the transportation of hazardous materials on these routes; and,
iii) the large concentrations of heavy industry along the Lake Ontario shoreline using and transporting toxic materials. As well, 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. 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). 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.
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. Such failures also can have severe impacts on local and regional economic activity, creating additional burden on citizens and municipal finances.
Compared to natural and human-based hazards, municipalities are more concerned generally about technical hazards, as suggested by the average ranking of all hazards in each of the three classifications (3.4 for technical hazards, 3.7 for human-based hazards and 3.8 for natural hazards). The municipalities of Ajax, Clarington and Uxbridge were particularly concerned about technical hazards.
Each of the main modes of transport and storage of toxic materials are described below.
Highway Table 12 provides a summary of Ministry of Transportation motor vehicle data for Provincial highways in Durham Region. As the chart indicates, there are about 1,300 collisions, 300 injuries and 10 deaths on Provincial highways in Durham Region per year. There was no information available regarding how many of these collisions involved commercial vehicles
Page 25
and/or hazardous materials. As well, there is an average of about 160,000 vehicles travelling on Durham Region Provincial highways per day, of which 67% are travelling on Highway 401. Close to 25,000 of these are commercial vehicles, 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. These figures do not take into consideration factors such as season (summer volume is higher than winter volume, weekday volume is higher than weekend volume) and location on the highways (i.e., as one travels towards Toronto on Highway 401, the volume of vehicles increases). Interestingly, the
proportion of commercial vehicles in the vicinity of the Newtonville Rd.-401 and Mill St.-401 intersections on Highway 401 in Clarington is significantly higher (33.5%) than other portions of the Highway (average 16%), although with volumes increasing towards Toronto, and actual number of commercial vehicles may not necessarily be higher than other sections of Highway 401. Highway 401 dissects heavily populated areas, and an accident involving dangerous goods would likely require an evacuation of a large number of people from the emergency area.
Table 12a: Traffic Volume Information System (TVIS) History, Average 1995-1999, Ministry of Transportation Durham Region
Average 1995-1999 Highway Length (Km) Ave. # Fatalities Ave. # Injuries Ave. # Collisions % Collisions Ave. Annual Daily Traffic Volume 7,656 8,630 8,771 20,594 4,510 101,712 151,873 # Commercial Vehicles % Commercial Vehicles
7 7A 12 35/115 48 401 TOTAL
67 23 25 23 8 59 205
2.2 1.0 1.8 0.2 0.2 4.4 9.8
38.4 23.0 12.6 15.0 5.0 208.8 302.8
129.2 91.4 52.0 68.4 16.2 935.2 1,292.4
1.69 1.06 0.59 0.33 0.36 0.92
Page 26
Table 12b: Traffic Volume Information System (TVIS) History, 1999 Ministry of Transportation Durham Region
1999 Highway Length (Km) # Fatalities # Injuries # Collisions % Collisions Ave. Annual Daily Traffic Volume 7,910 8,842 9,237 21,614 4,675 106,800 159,078 # 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 1,312
1.66 1.06 0.65 0.27 0.36 0.89
854 681 1,219 2,723 806 17,195 23,479
10.8 7.7 13.2 12.6 17.3 16.1
Rail There are four railway lines transversing Durham Region; two Canadian National lines and two Canadian Pacific lines. They are: CN Kingston, running parallel to Lake Ontario CP Belleville, running parallel to Lake Ontario CP Havelock, running east-west, north of Regional Road 5 CN Bala, 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. In Canada, 45% of railway accidents occur in marshalling yards (1996-2000 average). More serious accidents usually involve a main-track train derailment (14% in Canada, 1996-2000 average), or an accident at a crossing (25% in Canada, 1996-2000 average), where there is more likely to be a multiple-car derailment (see Table 14). The proportion of crossing accidents is generally higher during winter months. The most significant railway accidents in Durham Region are reported in Section 3.2: 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. Percentages have been provided to indicate the types of accidents involving dangerous goods that are more likely to occur in Durham Region. As the table indicates, only 12% of accidents involving dangerous goods in Canada are the result
Page 27
of main-track train derailments; more than three-quarters (77%) occur as a result of non-maintrack train collisions or derailments (i.e., in marshalling yards).
Table 13: Transportation Safety Board, 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, Number of Cars Involved in Train Derailments, 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. Table 15 provides a list of commodities in which more than 1,000 tanker cars were transported in Durham Region in 2001 along CN rail lines (no data was available from CP Rail). The CN and CP east-west railway lines transport a significantly larger volume of
dangerous goods compared to the railway lines running north-south. 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.
Page 28
Table 15: Number and Type of Dangerous Goods Tanks on CN Rail (more than 1,000 tanks) Dangerous Tanks on CN Kingston No. Cars Commodity
20,103 10,997 10,794 8,066 7,753 6,389 5,839 5,052 4,404 3,989 3,501 3,392 3,251 2,394 2,388 2,233 1,812 1,789 1,694 1,686 1,653 1,513 1,499 1,490 1,237 1,049 Gas Propane Sulphuric Acid Al Frt Rte Shpm Petro Gas Liquid Butane Gas Liquid Chlorine Gas Ammonia Anhydrous Propylene Caustic Soda, Liquid Cyclohexane Methanol Methyl Sulphuric Acid Sodium Chlorate Hydrogen Peroxide Fuel Oil Distl Muriatic Acid Gasoline, Nec Asbestos Articles Styrene, Liquid Adiponitrile Chemicals, Nec Butane Gas Liquid Gas Isobutane Hydrocarbon Gas Jet Fuels Hydrogen Peroxide
Dangerous Tanks on CN Bala No. Cars Commodity

29,545 11,423 5,280 3,160 2,741 2,660 2,101 1,924 1,583 1,108 Sulphuric Acid Al Frt Rte Shpm Vinyl Chloride Freight Forward Gasoline, 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. The only large aircraft accidents have occurred at Pearson International Airport in Brampton, Ontario, west of Durham Region. There is, however, 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. NavCanada would not identify the location of these flight paths, or the number of planes using them, for security reasons. The likelihood of a large aircraft accident in Durham Region is very low.
Oshawa Airport, a regional facility accommodating small aircraft, is located in Durham Region on Stevenson Rd. in Oshawa. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada has reported a significant number of minor accidents since 1976. A great majority of these accidents occurred during landing procedures and in most cases the problem arose from malfunctioning landing gear, resulting in a plane crash. Because Oshawa Airport is a training facility, many of the
Page 29
accidents involved flying students. There were serious injuries in only two cases since 1976. The most significant incidents are reported in Section 3.2: historical information on emergencies.
Marine The Transportation Safety Board reports no significant marine accidents involving commercial vessels since 1975. Most of the incidents reported occurred in Oshawa and Whitby Harbours during docking and manoeuvring of vessels. There have been other incidents involving fires, grounding with vessel damage, and minor vessel collisions.
Industrial on site Durham Region is home to large industrialized areas in the Lake Ontario communities of Pickering, Ajax, Whitby, Oshawa and to a lesser extent, Clarington. Heavy industry is located primarily along the Highway 401 / CN Kingston railway line corridor. Table 16 provides the
number of industries per municipality (10 or more industries), in Durham Region (2001).
Table 16: Number of Industries in Durham Region, 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, or whether they use hazardous materials (this information was not available), it does indicate the shear volume of industries in Durham Region. 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, and are being processed and stored on site. There are some very large industries in Durham Region, including Dupont, PPG and General Motors. There are only a few sites classified as MIACC Level 1 or 2.
Page 30
Commodity Pipeline There are two commodity pipelines running through Durham Region. The Trans-Northern Oil Pipeline runs east-west through Durham Region, north of Taunton Rd. until it reaches Clarington, where it runs on a southeast diagonal. The Trans-Canada Gas Pipeline also runs east-west through the Region, between the proposed route for Highway 407 and Regional Road 5, again until it reaches Clarington, where it also runs on a southeast diagonal, parallel to the Trans-Northern Oil Pipeline.
High-pressure transmission lines (the main lines) are a concern because of the potential for explosion if there is a rupture. Low pressure transmission lines, such as natural gas lines to residential areas, create less concern as the damaged area can be isolated (shut-off up-line), the gas can be burned off in a controlled burn and repairs can be made.
3.6 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, on average, by municipal respondents, as 1 (extremely concerned), 2 (very concerned) or 3 (concerned) are included in Table 17. 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. Many of the hazards that have been eliminated were ranked low because: the chance of them occurring may be very low (i.e., dam failure because there are very few dams, mine failure because there are no mines, avalanche because there are no mountains), if they did occur the impact would be minimal, or the municipality may feel confident in its ability to respond to the hazard (i.e., fog, hail, frost, hostage taking, labour dispute/strike).
In addition to hazards that were ranked low, 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,
Page 31
rather than the hazard itself or they were not the type of threat that would activate the Regional Emergency Plan. (For example, arson is a cause, whereas the hazard actually is fire, which is captured under Fire- major). These causes of hazards threats have been removed from the risk assessment analysis. 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, the hazards of most concern to municipal respondents (i.e. Level 1 and 2) have been highlighted using coloured cells. Hazards for which there is extreme concern are in red, and hazards for which respondents are very concerned are in yellow.
Page 32
Table 17: Summary of Hazards by Municipality

Hazards Pickering Oshawa Whitby Ajax Municipalities Clarington Ave. Rank 2.4 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.9 2.5 3.1 3.5 3.9 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.5 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) - 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
Page 33
Page 34
Section 4 Risk Assessment

Outside of highly controlled experiments or the use of significant data sets, the assessment of risk is largely a subjective exercise. The diversity of input, and the scope of interpretation of that input means the resulting risk profiles are relative rather than absolute. This observation is not meant to infer a reduced value in the resultant risk profile for Durham Region, but rather to underscore the tendency of society to expect the exactness of scientific results, where such results are neither possible, not ultimately more helpful than a relative relationship. It is valuable to appreciate that risk is not an absolute indeterminate value; risk is much more an individual, or as in this case, a collective perception of vulnerability under a given set of circumstances.
While most people will recognize some situations, such as bungee jumping, handling explosives or scuba diving as high-risk activities, those with experience will rank the risk lower. Consequently, the assessment of risk, to be a meaningful exercise, and more than a personal feeling, requires a systematic and rigorous process. 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, the objective here is to understand and appreciate risk in a particular geographic region, not determine precise values.
4.1 Risk Assessment Methodology Risk assessment, in the context of this research, 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. In the absence of extensive historical data, probabilities and impacts are subjective assessments drawn from interview information, rational observations and experience with emergency planning in Durham Region and elsewhere. The methodology used employs a risk
Page 35
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.
For each of the selected hazards considered by the eight local municipalities (see Table 17), subjective assessments were made about the potential impact of each hazard and on the probability of occurrence of each hazard. Based on these values, a relative risk number was calculated for each hazard (see Formula #1) and the hazards ranked accordingly.
Formula #1: Relative Risk = Impact of Hazard (IH) x Probability of Occurrence (PO)
As well, 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.
4.2 Impact Assessment The occurrence of a hazard can have vastly different impacts, from those that may go largely unnoticed to those that make the front page of the morning newspapers across the country. 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. The relationship between these considerations, given the rating schemes used, is presented in Formula #2. 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, yet directly affect the immediate quality of life of residents in the affected area. Areas of impact considered under life factors include environmental, social, political, and economic implications.
The Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Tool (RAVAT-3) developed by John Newton Associates effectively combines probability, impact considerations, hazard characteristics, and local capability and capacity to provide a relative ranking of hazards for organizations, agencies, corporations, and political jurisdictions.
Page 36
Hazard Factors (HF): Each hazard will have different characteristics that affect its impact. While some hazards may have unique measurement criteria (e.g., Richter or Mercilli scales for earthquakes, F rating for tornadoes), three basic parameters are used here to assess the relative impact of a hazard. The hazard factors considered are speed of onset, forewarning and duration.
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. The combined average rankings obtained through the survey were calculated and presented in Table 17. This value is used as the regional level of concern for each applicable hazard.
While not specifically probed in the survey, 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. Scale: 1: extremely concerned; 2: very concerned; 3: concerned; 4: somewhat concerned; 5: not concerned For example, various capabilities and capacities such as the level of confidence, readiness, technical skills, and experience in handling emergencies are all felt to be embedded in the level of concern selected. Where these characteristics are strong, the level of concern will be low (i.e. a 4 or 5), whereas if some characteristics are felt to be weak, then a high level of concern (i.e. a 1 or 2) will likely be selected. To obtain a more detailed verification of these characteristics, more in-depth interviews would be required to complement the self-assessment surveys.
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. The results of this calculation are presented in Table 18. As the impact values represent an interim step in the risk assessment, analysis of these values is not warranted.
Page 37
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) - 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 2.9 3.1 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.1 2.4 2.9 LC 3.1 3.9 3.5 2.5 LC 2.9 3.3 2.8 2.5 3.0 3.1 3.5 3.1 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.1 3.3 Impact of Hazard 10.3 6.5 6.3 13.7 7.7 1.8 4.7 5.6 5.8 11.7 7.6 Impact of Hazard 11.6 5.6 5.1 24.0 Impact of Hazard 6.2 7.3 14.3 9.6 10.0 9.7 7.7 13.5 4.0 6.0 5.8 10.6 7.2 12.7 15.0 8.6 16.8 7.3
4.3 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, such as life insurance, is a dedicated area of focus. 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. However, there are other methods available to gain a reasonable estimate of the probability of events occurring without the use of statistical analysis.
Page 38
For this project, we assess the likelihood, on a scale of 1-5 (i.e. 5 is high), that an event will occur within a reasonable planning time frame of 3-5 years. This criterion is applied to each of the applicable hazards and the appropriate Probability of Occurrence (PO) Value assigned.
It is recommended that the probability selection be revisited briefly each year to incorporate the most recent years experience and refine the PO Values accordingly. It is wise to remember that it will not be the occurrence of a particular hazard that requires a change in the PO Value, but rather a change in the frequency of a hazard from that anticipated. For hazards where more complete information is available, better judgements of probability can be made.
4.4 Calculation of Relative Risk The Relative Risk is calculated using Formula #1 for each applicable hazard and the results presented in Table 19. As can be seen in Table 19, the combination of impact and probability tend to provide a more balanced perspective on each hazard than either characteristic does independently. For example, while terrorism (NBC) ranks highest on the impact scale, the probability is low relative to other hazards and thus terrorism does not rank as high in relative risk. It is, nonetheless, one of the most significant Human-based hazards. A good risk assessment involves a number of independent decisions that, when combined, produces a relative risk value that could not be anticipated based on any one of the decisions. In this manner, the results, as shown in Table 19 are the outcome of a robust process giving greater validity and confidence to the findings.
Page 39
Table 19: Calculation of Relative Risk

Applicable Natural Hazards Impact of Hazard (IH) 10.3 6.5 6.3 13.7 7.7 1.8 4.7 5.6 5.8 11.7 7.6 IH 11.6 5.6 5.1 24.0 IH 6.2 7.3 14.3 9.6 10.0 9.7 7.7 13.5 4.0 6.0 5.8 10.6 7.2 12.7 15.0 8.6 16.8 7.3 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) - 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
51.5 32.5 18.9 13.7 30.8 9.0 9.4 28.0 29.0 23.4 15.2 Relative Risk 23.2 11.2 5.1 24.0 Relative Risk 18.6 7.3 42.9 48.0 10.0 19.4 7.7 13.5 20.0 12.0 17.4 21.2 36.0 38.1 30.0 25.8 16.8 14.6
A basic set of statistical values for the findings is presented in Table 20.
Page 40
Table 20: Statistical Data for Relative Risk Findings

Hazards Groups Natural Human-based Technical Overall Values High 51.5 24.0 48.0 51.5 Low 9.0 5.1 7.3 5.1 Average 21.1 15.9 22.2 19.7 Median 23.4 17.2 19.0 19.9
The statistical information calculated in Table 20 based on the full data set does not identify any significant anomalies. The high relative risk values for the natural and technical hazard groups are very close to one another, whereas the high relative risk value for the human-based hazard group is significantly lower (by half). The low relative risk values for each of the hazard groups are in the same general range. With the exception of the Technical Hazard Group, the average risk values were slightly lower than the median values, indicating a tendency towards inclusion of a few lower than average risk values in those groups. The list of hazards for Durham Region, ranked by descending relative risk values (see Table 21), confirms this view as the relative risk values drop off sharply from the highest value in each grouping. Nonetheless, the medians and average values are acceptably close, indicating that values at either extreme of the scale do not dominate the findings. In the context of this analysis, 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. This does not mean that all values assigned have a greater accuracy, but that there would appear to have been a lack of any identifiable bias in the data.
Page 41
Table 21: Hazard Ranking by Relative Risk

Applicable Natural Hazards Impact of Hazard (IH) 10.3 6.5 7.7 5.8 5.6 11.7 6.3 7.6 13.7 4.7 1.8 IH 24.0 11.6 5.6 5.1 IH 9.6 14.3 12.7 7.2 15.0 8.6 10.6 4.0 9.7 6.2 5.8 16.8 7.3 13.5 6.0 10.0 7.7 7.3 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) - 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
51.5 32.5 30.8 29.0 28.0 23.4 18.9 15.2 13.7 9.4 9.0 Relative Risk 24.0 23.2 11.2 5.1 Relative Risk 48.0 42.9 38.1 36.0 30.0 25.8 21.2 20.0 19.4 18.6 17.4 16.8 14.6 13.5 12.0 10.0 7.7 7.3
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. However, the hazards with the highest relative risk for the Region deserve special attention. Based on the assessment, it is felt that these hazards have the greatest likelihood of occurrence within the next few years. As can be seen from Table 22, the Top 10 includes hazards from two of the three groups Natural (5), and Technical (5).
2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 42
Table 22: Top 10 overall hazard ranking by relative risk

Rank Applicable Hazards 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Blizzard Fire: Building(s) - 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 51.5 48.0 42.9 38.1 36.0 32.5 30.8 30.0 29.0 28.0
To help build a more thorough appreciation of the applicable hazards, a matrix is presented in Table 23 to allow for the comparison of probability and impact. The hazards listed in the upper left boxes will be of greatest concern, while those to the lower right of the matrix will be of lesser concern. The matrix does not mean that any of the hazards should be ignored, 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 underscores the interdependency of probability and impact and the misperceptions that can result from a limited consideration of a hazards characteristics and the area it might affect in a worst-case situation.
This matrix is worthy of close examination, as some hazards with a high to very high probability of occurrence did not make the Top 10 listing, such as Road Closure, or Flood: Predictable/seasonal. However, 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.
Page 43
Table 23: Relationship between impact and probability for applicable hazards Probability of a Hazard Occurring Very High 24.9 17.0 Impact Factor of a Hazard Occurring 16.9 - 9.0 8.9 0.0
Blizzard; Fire: Building(s) Major Cold Wave; Flood: Predicable/Seasonal; Heat Wave; High Winds (70+ mph); Road Closure; Toxic Spills (on site) Flood: Flash; Water: Supply Limitation/Failure Accidental Explosion; Drought; Telecommunications Failure Local; Toxic Gas Release (on site) Epidemic: Animal/Insect; Forest Fire / Smoke; Structural Failure of Building; Tornado. Aircraft Crash; Pandemic: Human; Radiological Accident On-Site.
High Medium
Toxic Gas Release (off site)
Derailment Toxic Spill (enroute)
Low
Negligible
Terrorism (NBC)
Bomb Explosion; Ice Storm; Power Outage: Long Term; Telecommunications Failure Regional Earthquake (Magnitude 5 or more); Gas/oil pipeline failure; Radiological Accident In Transit; Water: Contamination
Page 44
Section 5 Hazard Mitigation

Survey respondents were asked to identify mitigative measures effective in addressing potential hazards. Respondents were provided with a list of possible mitigative measures and asked to rank them with respect to their perceived effectiveness for their municipality. The results, in order from the most effective to the least effective mitigative measure, are provided in Table 24.
Table 24: Mitigative Measures Most Effective in Addressing Potential Hazards Affecting Municipalities
Ave. 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, 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
2.1 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4
Scale: 1: extremely effective; 2: very effective; 3: effective; 4: somewhat effective; 5: not effective
Survey respondents generally felt that, as a result of the September 11/01 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon buildings, there is increased interest in improving the level of
2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates Page 45
emergency preparedness and increased security levels to help prevent and minimize the impacts of terrorist activities. This is clearly illustrated in Table 24 as the top five most effective mitigative measures were related to emergency preparedness [coordination of emergency response (2.1), crisis communication capacity (2.3), emergency exercises (2.4), emergency planning (2.4) and emergency responder training (2.4)]. The other emergency preparedness related mitigative measure, business continuity planning, was also ranked high (3.0). Almost all of the mitigative measures listed in Table 24 above were felt to be of importance.
While municipalities have performed many of the activities now listed under the mitigation label for some time, they are now receiving added attention and profile. In the last few years the concept and application of mitigation as a means to reduce losses has grown significantly, first in the United States and now in Canada and elsewhere. With new legislation in Ontario and Qubec including reference to mitigation and efforts by the federal government to establish a National Disaster Mitigation Strategy, this aspect of emergency management will increasingly have an integral role in local level emergency planning. Beginning to consider mitigative opportunities now will place the Durham Region in the forefront of this aspect of a rapidly evolving discipline.
Page 46
Section 6 Conclusions & Recommendations

6.1 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. 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. For example, it is recommended that the probability selection be revisited briefly each year to incorporate the most recent years experience and refine the PT values accordingly. As well, when additional information on hazards becomes available, it can be incorporated into the hazard analysis and risk assessment so that better judgements of probability can be made.
Evolving hazards in Durham Region include things such as: (a) Heavy industry expansion and use of dangerous goods, (b) 407 extension (est. completion 2010) and the related transportation of dangerous goods, (c) Acts of terrorism related to nuclear generating stations, major industries such as Dupont or General Motors and key government facilities. The close proximity to the City of Toronto in itself creates an added terrorism risk. (d) Global warming and the increased related risk for weather extremes causing events such as drought, flooding, heat waves, hurricanes, 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
Page 47
6.2
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, the assessment of risk of the hazards is largely subjective and relative rather than absolute. Still, the results are valuable in providing with a reasonable estimate of the level of risk of various hazards in Durham Region. 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. 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, whereas the high relative risk value for the human-based hazard group is significantly lower (by half). The low relative risk values for each of the hazard groups are in the same general range. With the exception of the Technical Hazard Group, the average risk values were slightly lower than the median values, indicating a tendency towards a few lower than average risk values. The findings in Table 21, page 39 provide guidance in preparing its non-nuclear emergency plan and identifying the types of training and exercises that will be most beneficial. 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
Page 48
The Relative Risk for each hazard was then presented in a risk matrix to further define the hazards that warrant the greatest attention. 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.
Therefore, 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. 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), training staff (i.e., specialty training for weather extremes, toxic spills/releases, train derailments, explosions, etc.) developing expertise (i.e., arson and bomb threat staff training or arrangements with external agencies with expertise) purchasing or emergency arrangements for specialty equipment and supplies (i.e. sandbags for flooding prevention, spill control equipment and supplies), defining and equipping evacuation centres, upgrading communications and ensuring secure back-up communications systems are in place (ideally compatible communications between the Region and member municipalities), purchasing or arranging for back-up generators at key locations such as designate and back-up EOCs, evacuation centres, key Durham Region facilities such as Public Works yards, Health Dept. refrigeration centres, etc.) providing public education programs (i.e., fire prevention, how to prepare for and what to do in the event of power outages and natural weather extremes such as blizzards, flooding, extreme cold, etc.), media and public communication (i.e., clear and concise instructions during power outages and natural weather extremes such as blizzards, flooding and extreme cold) letters of agreement and/or coordination with external agencies such as CN, CP and large manufacturers using dangerous goods
Page 49
developing business continuity plans for critical Regional services, and coordinating GIS and other data collection systems so that the Region and the member municipalities collect similar data in the same format (i.e., GIS) so that it can be consolidated and used effectively in emergency situations.
Clearly, many of the suggestions above are partially municipal responsibilities, however the Region may take on a coordinating role to ensure that the municipalities are prepared in these areas.
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. However, it is recommended that the above hazards be addressed first, or be given higher priority, vs. the other high-ranking hazards. It is expected, for example, that hazards such as terrorism and bio-terrorism will be given significant attention, at least over the short term (via measures like increased security), due to the present level of public awareness of these issues and the political need to address public concern.
Page 50
Appendices
Appendix A: List of Research Recipients

Durham Region James Clapp, Commissioner of Finance & Treasurer Dr. R.J. Kyle, Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health R. Armstrong, Director of Emergency Medical Services Alexander Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning Gary Cubitt, CAO & Acting Commissioner of Social Services Jack McCorkell, Commissioner of Works Kevin McAlpine, Chief of Police Ivan Ciuciura, Director of Emergency Measures Town of Ajax Richard Parisotto, CAO Randy Wilson, Fire Chief Leo DeLoyde, Director of Planning & Development Services Brian Skinner, Director of Operations & Environmental Services Township of Brock George Graham, Clerk Administrator Bob Graham, Fire Chief Judy Avery, Public Works Municipality of Clarington Frank Wu, CAO Mike Creighton, Fire Chief Stephen Vokes, Director of Public Works David Crome, Director of Planning & Development City of Oshawa John Brown, City Manager Milt Wilson, Fire Chief Ted Goodchild, Commissioner, Dept. of Developmental Services Stephen Bedford, Commissioner, Dept. of Operational Services
Page 51
City of Pickering Tom Quinn, CAO Bill Douglas, Fire Chief Gilles Paterson, Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer Richard Holborn, Director of Public Works Neil Carroll, Director of Planning Township of Scugog Yvonne de Wit, CAO Richard Miller, Fire Chief Terry Carson, Director of Public Works Township of Uxbridge Alex Grant, CAO Tony Peck, Fire Chief Ben Kester, Director of Public Works Blain Lalonde, Chief Building Official Town of Whitby Al Claringbold, Administrator Kent MacCarl, Fire Chief Wayne Hancock, Director of Public Works Robert Short, Director of Planning
Page 52
Appendix B: Information on GIS - 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, survey respondents were asked to identify if they have data/information on GIS, and if so, what type of information. The results are provided in the table below. 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.g., schools, hospitals, etc.) 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
Y Y Y
DK = dont know
Municipalities have different levels of information available in different formats. Some have GIS databases with pertinent information for future use by the Region. 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.
Brock N N N N N N Y N N Y N N
Page 53
Ajax

HIRA Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HIRA Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Regional Municipality of Durham

HAZARD ANALYSIS AND RISK ASSESSMENT

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

A. List of Research Recipients ...............................................................................................................51

2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

Section 2 Research Design & Implementation

2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

Table 1: Municipalities and Regional Departments Responding to Survey

Finance & Treasury Health

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

Table 2: Documents Provided by Municipalities

Table 3: Documents Provided by Durham Region Departments

--H -N/A= Not Applicable

2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

Table 4: Additional Information Available/Provided Municipalities

H = exists, but not provided

Table 5: Additional Information Available/Provided Durham Region Dept.

2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

Emergency Medical services

Finance & Treasury

2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates

Records of the following Information Durham Region Dept.

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

Section 3 Hazard Data Analysis

2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

Description of Emergency (chronological)

Duration of Impact (Hours)

80 82 83 85 89 or 90 90 Dec. 92 98 July 98 98 99 99 2000 2000

B A U P, U C B All C P W C A B,C,O ,P,S,U A

2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

Sept 2/80 Dec 9/82

March 4/85 Sept. 29/86

Aug. 27, 28/86 87

July 610/88 Aug. 93 Dec. 10/94

Feb. 95, Feb. 99, June 99 Sept. 97

2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

downgraded to a tropical storm by the time it reached Ontario.

2002 Stevenato & Associates and John Newton Associates

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment