HIRA Analysis

7/30/2019 HIRA Analysis

1/55

The Regional Municipality of Durham

HAZARD ANALYSISAND

RISK ASSESSMENTFINAL REPORT

Submitted by:

Stevenato & Associates54 Centre Ave., North York, Ontario, M2M 2L5Phone (416) 229-2115Fax: (416) 229-0068

And

J ohn Newton Associates262 Robert St., Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2K8

Phone (416) 929-3621

Email: [email protected]

J uly, 2002reviewed annually last reviewed November 2008


2/55

Regional Municipality of Durham Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

2002 Stevenato & Associates and J ohn Newton Associates Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose of the Hazard Analysis/Risk Assessment............................................................1

1.2 Overview of the Hazard Analysis/Risk Assessment....................................................2

1.3 Existing Hazards..........................................................................................................2

2.0 Research Design and Implementation.............................................................................................5

2.1 Design of Research Survey.................................................................................................5

2.2 Selection of Recipients........................................................................................................6

2.3 Implementation of Survey...................................................................................................6

2.4 Background Information.....................................................................................................9

3.0 Hazard Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................113.1 Information Provided by Recipients..................................................................................11

3.2 Historical Information on Significant Emergencies.........................................................12

3.3 Potential Natural Hazards..................................................................................................15

3.4 Potential Human-Based Hazards.......................................................................................21

3.5 Potential Technical Hazards..............................................................................................23

3.6 Summary of Hazards by Municipality..............................................................................31

4.0 Risk Assessment.............................................................................................................................35

4.1 Risk Assessment Methodology.........................................................................................35

4.2 Impact Assessment.............................................................................................................36

4.3 Probability Assessment......................................................................................................38

4.4 Calculation of Relative Risk..............................................................................................39

5.0 Hazard Mitigation...........................................................................................................................45

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations..............................................................................................47

6.1 Evolving Hazards...............................................................................................................47

6.2 Summary and Recommendations......................................................................................48

APPENDICES

A. List of Research Recipients...............................................................................................................51B. Information on GIS............................................................................................................................53


3/55



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 AssessmentThe 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

emergencies1. 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.

1 Draft copy of Bill 148, An Act to provide for declarations of death in certain circumstances and to amend theEmergency Plans Act, December 2001, p. i.


4/55


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 highvolumes of traffic and accidents involving multiple vehicles and/or trucks carryinghazardous materials.

(b) Major CN and CP railway lines (two of each) transverse the Region carrying highvolumes of a wide range of industrial goods, many of which are hazardous;

(c)Two commodity pipelines transverse the Region (Trans-Canada Gas Pipeline, Trans-Northern Oil Pipeline);

(d)There are major heavy industrial areas predominantly along the lakeshore communitiesthat process, store and transport large volumes of dangerous goods;

(e)There are the two nuclear generating stations (Pickering Nuclear Generating Station andDarlington Nuclear Generating Station) that pose risks such as radiation releases oremergencies resulting from terrorist activities. A nuclear emergency may result in anevacuation, where the outlying communities may have to prepare to receive a largenumber 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;



5/55


(h)There are numerous flight paths of large aircraft to and from Pearson InternationalAirport;

(i) The Oshawa Airport has had numerous small accidents reported by the TransportationSafety Board since 1976.

(j) The Region has an ever-increasing population and high-density areas. In the last fiveyears, Durham Regions population has grown at an annual growth rate of 2.3% (11,600persons per year), from 472,800 in 1996, to an estimated 531,000 in 2001. The Regionhas estimated that the population will grow to 590,000-610,000 by 2006. Populationgrowth rates are expected to increase significantly after 2006, when additional majorgrowth-related infrastructure is anticipated to be in place (e.g., construction of Highway407 to east of Brock Rd., Highway 401 improvements) and population has grown inresponse. 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-SevernWaterway 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) andseasonal 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 nothigher risks compared to Durham Region. Emergencies occurring in the City of Torontocould also impact Durham Region, either directly or indirectly (i.e., evacuees travellingthrough the Region); and

(p)The Municipality of Clarington has large forested areas that have potential for largeforest fires.



6/55




7/55


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 contactdirectories 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.



8/55


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 SurveyDurham Region Municipalities Durham Region Departments

SurveyReceived

Pickering

Ajax

Whitby

Oshawa

Clarington

Uxbridge

Scugog

Brock

Finance&

Treasur

Health

Emergency

MedicalServices

Planning

SocialServices

Works

Police

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes No



9/55


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

Documents Provided - Municipalities

Pickering

Ajax

Whitby

Oshawa

Clarington

Uxbridge

Scugog

Brock

Reports on Past Significant Emergencies -- H -- -- -- -- -- --Previous Hazard Analyses/Risk Assessments -- H -- -- -- -- -- --Emergency & Contingency Plans Y H Y Y -- C C CMunicipal Official Plan Y Y Y -- Y -- Y YPartnership Towards Safer Communities -- N -- -- -- -- -- --Emergency Contact Directories Y H Y Y -- C C C

Y =Yes, a copy was sent to the consultantsN =No document existsH =the document exists, but a copy was not provided to the consultantsC =consultant already had a copy

Table 3: Documents Provided by Durham Region Departments

Documents Provided Durham Region Dept.

Finance&

Treasury

Health

Emergency

Medical

Planning

Social

Services

Works

Police

DEMO

Reports on Past Significant Emergencies -- H -- -- -- N -- --Previous Hazard Analyses/Risk Assessments -- -- -- -- N -- --Emergency & Contingency Plans -- Y -- -- -- Y -- --Municipal Official Plan N/A N/A N/A Y N/A N/A N/A N/APartnership Towards Safer Communities

documents

-- N -- -- -- N -- --

Emergency Contact Directories -- -- -- -- -- H -- --

Y =Yes N =No H =exists, but not provided N/A=Not Applicable



10/55


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

Records of the following Information Municipalities

Pickering

Ajax

Whitby

Oshawa

Clarington

Uxbridge

Scugog

Brock

Traffic accident locations H H H DK H H N NRoutes for hazardous materials/truck traffic N -- N N H N N NRailway accident locations N N H N H H N NCommunity facilities (e.g., schools, hospitals,etc.)

Y H H H H H DK N

Organizations using List 1 toxic material N H N N H N DK NPopulation density Y H H H H N DK NFloodway & flood prone areas H H H H H H N HGas & oil pipeline locations H H H H H N N NAir flight paths N DK N N N N N NHydroelectric transmission corridors H N H H H N N HWater & sewer systems H H H H H N N HFire prone areas N N N H H N N NOther (street centre line, hydrants,orthophotography)

-- Y -- -- -- -- -- --

Y =Yes N =No DK =dont know 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 provincialand 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.



11/55


Records of the following Information Durham Region Dept.

Finance&

Treasury

Health

Emergency

Medical

services

Planning

Social

Services

Works

Police

DEMO

Traffic accident locations -- DK -- -- -- H -- --

Routes for hazardous materials/truck traffic -- DK -- -- -- H -- --Railway accident locations -- DK -- -- -- H -- --Community facilities (schools, hospitals, etc.) -- H -- -- -- DK -- --Organizations using List 1 toxic material -- DK -- -- DK -- --Population density -- DK -- Y -- H -- --Floodway & flood prone areas -- DK -- -- -- H -- --Gas & oil pipeline locations -- DK -- -- -- N -- --Air flight paths -- DK -- -- -- N -- --Hydroelectric transmission corridors -- DK -- -- -- N -- --Water & sewer systems -- -- -- -- H -- --Fire prone areas -- DK -- -- -- N -- --

Y =Yes N =No DK =dont know 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 pipelineaccidents

(c) Ministry of Transportation statistics on Provincial highway collisions, traffic volumesand 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, populationprojections, water courses/dams, gas and oil pipelines, hydroelectric transmissioncorridors, 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



12/55


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.



13/55


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) historical information on significant emergencies;ii) potential or perceived natural hazards;iii) potential or perceived human-based hazards; and,iv) 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. Someof the possible considerations respondents took into account are listed below in random order.

i) the immediate hazard of emergencies;ii) the level of confidence of municipal responders;iii) the ability to respond;iv) the training and expertise available;v) the equipment and human resources available;vi) mutual aid resources available from neighbouring municipalities;vii) mitigative actions taken; and,viii) 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



14/55



from the Region of Durham departments and as a result, the Durham Region survey results have

been excluded from further analysis and assessment2.

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

2 Should the Region wish to compare the perception of risk expressed by municipalities with that felt by RegionalDepartments, additional information would be required from each of the non-responding departments, eitherthrough completion of the survey or participation in a hazards assessment workshop.


15/55


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 inDurham Region (Chronological) Reported by Municipal Survey Respondents

Jurisdictions Impacted: A =Ajax B =Brock C =Clarington O =OshawaP =Pickering S =Scugog U =Uxbridge W =Whitby

Descriptionof

Emergency

(chronological)

Yearit

Occurred

Jurisdiction

Impacted

Durationof

Impact

(Hours)

#ofInjuries

#ofDeaths

Property

Damage

Environmental

Damage

EconomicLoss

Major Fire, Main St., Beaverton 80 B 24-72 0 0 >$100,000 Minor $100,000-$500,000

Ammonia Leak 82 A 4-24 0 0 $500,000Flash Flood 85 P, U >72 0 0 >$100,000 Moderate >$500,000Small Tornado 89 or 90 C $100,000 Minor $100,000 Minor 72 0 0 72 DK 0 $10,000-

$100,000Moderate DK

Flash Flood July 98 P >72 0 0 >$100,000 Moderate DKHazardous Materials leak 98 W 4-24 0 0 72 0 0 $10,000-

$100,000Minor


16/55


Table 7: Historical Information on significant emergencies over the past 20-25 years in Durham Region(Chronological) Identified Through Research

Jurisdictions Impacted: A =Ajax B =Brock C =Clarington O =OshawaP =Pickering S =Scugog U =Uxbridge W =Whitby

Descriptionof

Emergency

(chronological)

Yearit

Occurred

Jurisdiction

Impacted

Duration

of

Impact

(Hours)

#ofInjuries

#ofDeaths

Property

Damage

Environme

ntal

Damage

EconomicL

oss

Severe thunderstorms struck Torontoand Pickering. Flooding; 149 mm in 4hr.

Sept2/80

P 4-24 DK 2 DK DK DK

11 mm of rain fell on Toronto andneighbouring areas, followed by a fastfreeze during evening rush hour, with100s of accidents.

Dec 9/82 4-24 DK 2 DK DK DK

Winter Storm (Toronto & parts of

Durham) (freezing rain, followed by 25-35 cm of snow; snow emergency)

March

4/85

4-24 0 0 DK DK DK

Rainstorm & high winds in Torontoresulted in power blackouts and floodedstreets and basements. The Don R.almost overflowed

Sept.29/86

4-24 0 0 DK DK DK

Severe thunderstorms struck EastToronto and Pickering, resulting inflooding; 149 mm in four hours)

Aug. 27,28/86

P 24-72 0 0 $2million

DK DK

Winter Storm (Toronto & parts ofDurham) (winds to 100 km/h; multipleaccidents, flight & subway cancellations)

87 24-72 0 0 DK DK DK

5-Day heat wave (Toronto & Durham)

(temp. exceeding 350C; 380C on 7th)

July 6-

10/88

>72 0 0 DK DK DK

CN Train Collision (12 cars derailed, nodangerous good)

Aug. 93 O DK 0 0 DK DK DK

Category 1 emergency at PickeringNuclear Generating Station Reactor 2.Spilled heavy water was contained. Norelease, no off site impact.

Dec.10/94

P 4-24 0 0 0 0 DK

CP Train Derailments (6, 8, 6 carsrespectively, no dangerous goods)

Feb. 95,Feb. 99,June 99

O,railyard

DK 0 0 DK DK DK

CN Train Derailment (6 cars, 1 withdangerous goods release methylmethacrylate)

Sept. 97 O DK 0 0 DK DK DK

CN Train Derailment (15 cars, 51platforms, no dangerous goods)

Nov. 97 B DK 0 0 DK DK DK

Train Derailment (5 cars derailed, 3 withLPG dangerous goods)

Feb. 99 O DK 0 0 DK DK DK

Train Collision/Derailment [18 carsderailed, 8 with dangerous goods(Butadiene, LPG), 5 passenger cars,1500 gal. of fuel spilled, fire - extremepotential for devastation]

Nov. 99 C 24-72 7 0 DK Minor DK



17/55


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:



18/55


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

MunicipalitiesHazards due to Natural Hazards

Pickering

Ajax

Whitby

Oshawa

Clarington

Uxbridge

Scugog

Brock

Ave.Rank

Ice Storm 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2.4Blizzard 3 3 4 3 2 3 2 3 2.9

Tornado 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2.9Electrical Storm/Lightning: Fire 3 3 3 3 2 5 2 3 3.0

Lightning: Electrical Disruption 4 3 3 4 3 3 2 2 3.0Cold Wave 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 4 3.1High Winds (70+mph) 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 3.1

Torrential Rains 2 3 3 5 4 3 4 2 3.3Earthquake (Magnitude 5 or more) 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3.5Flood: Flash 2 4 4 4 3 3 5 3 3.5Heat Wave 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3.6Drought 4 5 4 5 2 4 2 4 3.8Forest Fire / Smoke 5 3 5 5 1 5 3 3 3.8Flood: Predicable/Seasonal 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 4 3.9Fog 4 3 4 5 3 5 4 4 4.0Hurricane/Typhoon 4 5 4 5 4 5 3 2 4.0

Flood: Dam Burst 5 5 4 5 5 3 5 3 4.5Flood: Lake Surges 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 4.5Hail 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4.5Frost 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4.6Crop Failure 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4.8Land Subsidence /Liquefaction 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4.8Landslide/Mudslide 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4.8Avalanche: 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 ofemergency 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).



19/55


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. Interestingly,

municipal respondents ranked blizzards high (2.9).

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.



20/55


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 50mm., 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



21/55



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 orlower) have occurred, on average, slightly more than three times each year. More than75% of the cold spells occur in January.

There is an average of six hot days per year when maximum temperatures reach orexceed 320C.

Heat waves (a period lasting three days or more when maximum temperatures reach atleast 320C) occur, on average, seven times each decade. Heat waves are only slightlymore frequent in July (2.6 days) than June or August. The longest heat wave lasted 10

3 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Canada-Ontario Flood Damage Reduction Program, PublicInformation Flood Risk Map, Beaverton River and Whites Creek (1989)


22/55


days during August and early September 1953, and resulted in a few heat fatalities fromheat prostration.

Freezing precipitation is reported an average of 10 times per year. As one approachesLake Ontario, freezing precipitation becomes less frequent due to the influence of therelatively warm Lake in modifying shallow cold air near the surface.

There have been an average of 15 days per year when precipitation amounts exceed 15mm. 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 mmof 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 every25 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) inexcess of 1600 W/m2 (equivalent temperature of 380), occurs about 8 times per month inJanuary and six times per month in February. Wind chill is most severe during orfollowing 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 highestaverage wind speed occurred on March 5, 1964 when speeds reached 121 km/h. OnJanuary 26, 1978, average winds of 90 km/h occurred, gusting to 126 km/h, andskyscraper windows popped. In summer, the strongest winds were reported on July 1,1956, reaching 134 km/h.

A humidex of 460

C or higher makes activity difficult. On average, values of 400

C orgreater can be expected on two to three days per summer. On September 1, 1953, thehumidex reached 480C.

Dense fog usually occurs during pre-dawn and dawn hours, usually late winter or earlyspring.

Tornadoes arise from severe thunderstorm outbreaks. From 1970-1979, there was anaverage 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 theodds of a damaging tornado hitting the Toronto area once every 20 years. Mosttornadoes 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 damagedue to large hail, strong wind gusts and flooding. Severe thunderstorms on August 27/281976 produced flooding and property damage. On August 19, 1981, a severethunderstorm produced tennis-ball sized hail.



23/55


On average, hurricanes brush only southern Ontario every few years, usually bringingwinds not strong enough to cause significant damage and heavy rains no greater inintensity 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 of24 million dollars.

The Toronto area usually experiences one or two snowstorms per winter when snowfallsexceed 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, andvisibilities reduced to near zero. The storm closed many roads in the vicinity, resulted inover 400 injuries, and caused one woman to die from exposure. Costs for southernOntario were estimated at over 41 million dollars.

Toronto averages about three days a season with a freezing precipitation storm lastingmore than four hours. On December 27, 1959, 30 cm of freezing rain fell northeast ofToronto. On December 9, 1986, 11 mm of rain fell followed by a fast freeze, andresulting 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 perceivedlocally 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



24/55


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

Hazards due to Human-based Hazards -Municipalities

Pickering

Ajax

Whitby

Oshawa

Clarington

Uxbridge

Scugog

Brock

Ave.Rank

Terrorism 2 3 2 4 2 2 2 3 2.5Arson 2 3 3 4 2 4 2 3 2.9Bomb Explosion 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3.1Medical Emergency 4 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 3.1Bomb Hazard 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3.3International Strife 3 3 5 3 3 4 2 4 3.4Vandalism 3 3 4 5 4 3 2 - 3.4

Air Piracy 2 4 2 4 4 3 4 5 3.5Pandemic: Human 3 4 4 5 3 4 2 3 3.5Human Error: Maintenance 4 3 4 5 3 4 3 3 3.6Human Error: Operation 4 3 4 5 3 4 3 3 3.6Human Error: Programmers 4 3 4 5 3 4 3 4 3.8Human Error: Computer Users 4 3 4 5 3 4 3 4 3.8Loss of Key Staff 2 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 3.8Sabotage: Data and Software 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 5 3.8Epidemic: Animal/Insect 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3.9Media Errors 4 4 4 5 4 5 3 3 4.0Riot/Civil Disorder 4 4 4 5 4 3 3 5 4.0Sabotage: Physical 4 4 5 5 2 4 3 5 4.0

Epidemic: Plant 5 4 4 5 4 3 5 3 4.1Labour Dispute/Strike 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 5 4.1Misuse of Resources 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4.1Hostage Taking 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 3 4.3Fraud/Embezzlement 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 3 4.5Other (please specify) bio-terrorism 2Average Rank 3.7


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.



25/55


Table 10: Estimates of Impact of Influenza Pandemic on Durham Region

Totals % of PopulationPeople Infected 390,074 75%

Clinically Ill 78,015 - 197,638 15% - 38%Require Outpatient Care 35,367 - 88,417 6.8% - 17%Hospitalization Required 572 - 1,560 0.1% - 0.3%Deaths 156 - 572 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.



26/55


Table 11: Level of Concern about Technical Hazards Affecting Municipalities

Hazards due to Technical Hazards Municipalities

Pickering

Ajax

Whitby

Oshawa

Clarington

Uxbridge

Scugog

Brock

Ave.

Rank

Fire: Building(s) - Major 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2.5Toxic Spill (enroute) 4 2 3 3 2 1 3 3 2.6Derailment 3 2 3 3 2 1 5 3 2.8

Toxic Gas Release (off site) 4 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 2.8Toxic Gas Release (on site) 4 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 2.8Accidental Explosion 3 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 2.9

Toxic Spills (on site) 4 2 3 3 2 1 4 4 2.9Gas/oil pipeline failure 3 2 3 4 2 4 3 3 3.0Power Outage: Long Term 4 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 3.1Radiological 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 3.1Water: Contamination 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 3.1Aircraft Crash 3 3 3 3 2 5 3 4 3.3Water: Supply Limitation/Failure 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3.3Central Computer Equipment Failure 3 3 4 4 3 5 3 4 3.4Radiological Accident On-Site 3 2 3 4 2 5 5 4 3.5Road Closure 3 2 4 5 3 5 3 3 3.5Structural Failure of Building 5 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3.5Crop Failure 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 4.5Upstream Dam/Reservoir Failure 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 4.6Ice Jams in Shipping Lanes 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4.9Ship Accident 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4.9Mine Failure 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0Average Rank 3.4


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, CNand CP rail lines and the proposed extension for Highway 407);

ii) the transportation of hazardous materials on these routes; and,



27/55


iii) the large concentrations of heavy industry along the Lake Ontario shoreline using andtransporting 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 occurbut 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



28/55


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 1995-1999Highway Length

(Km)

Ave. #

Fatalities

Ave. #

Injuries

Ave. #

Collisions

%

Collisions

Ave.

AnnualDaily

TrafficVolume

#

CommercialVehicles

%

CommercialVehicles

7 67 2.2 38.4 129.2 1.69 7,6567A 23 1.0 23.0 91.4 1.06 8,63012 25 1.8 12.6 52.0 0.59 8,771

35/115 23 0.2 15.0 68.4 0.33 20,59448 8 0.2 5.0 16.2 0.36 4,510

401 59 4.4 208.8 935.2 0.92 101,712TOTAL 205 9.8 302.8 1,292.4 151,873



29/55


Table 12b: Traffic Volume Information System (TVIS) History, 1999Ministry of Transportation Durham Region

1999Highway Length

(Km)#Fatalities

#Injuries #Collisions

%Collisions

Ave.Annual

DailyTrafficVolume

#Commercial

Vehicles

%Commercial

Vehicles

7 67 3 49 131 1.66 7,910 854 10.87A 23 1 23 94 1.06 8,842 681 7.712 25 1 13 60 0.65 9,237 1,219 13.2

35/115 23 0 11 58 0.27 21,614 2,723 12.648 8 0 5 17 0.36 4,675 806 17.3

401 59 5 201 952 0.89 106,800 17,195 16.1TOTAL 205 10 302 1,312 159,078 23,479

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



30/55


of main-track train derailments; more than three-quarters (77%) occur as a result of non-main-

track 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 AverageNumber per Year

1996-2000 %

Accidents Involving Dangerous GoodsMain-track Train Derailments 26 12Crossings 6 3Non-Main-Track Train Collisions 44 21Non-Main-Track Train Derailments 118 56All Others 15 7

TOTAL 209 100

Accidents with a Dangerous Goods Release 6Accidents Involving Passenger Trains 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 10+% of Cars Derailed per Accident Main-Track (Canada 1996-2000 annual average)

39% 10% 5% 4% 22% 20%

% of Cars Derailed per Accident Non-Main-Track TrainCollisions (Canada 1996-2000 annual average)

49% 24% 9% 6% 2% 6%

% of Cars Derailed per Accident Non-Main-Track TrainDerailment (Canada 1996-2000 annual average)

34% 16% 34% 6% 11% 0

There is a large volume and wide range of dangerous goods being transported by rail throughDurham 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.



31/55


Table 15: Number and Type of Dangerous Goods Tanks on CN Rail (more than 1,000 tanks)

Dangerous Tanks on CN Kingston Dangerous Tanks on CN Bala

No. Cars Commodity No. Cars Commodity20,103 Gas Propane 29,545 Sulphuric Acid10,997 Sulphuric Acid 11,423 Al Frt Rte Shpm10,794 Al Frt Rte Shpm 5,280 Vinyl Chloride

8,066 Petro Gas Liquid 3,160 Freight Forward7,753 Butane Gas Liquid 2,741 Gasoline, Nec6,389 Chlorine Gas 2,660 Fuel Oil Distl5,839 Ammonia Anhydrous 2,101 Ammonia Anhydrous5,052 Propylene 1,924 Gas Propane4,404 Caustic Soda, Liquid 1,583 Methanol Methyl3,989 Cyclohexane 1,108 Sulphur Dioxide3,501 Methanol Methyl3,392 Sulphuric Acid3,251 Sodium Chlorate2,394 Hydrogen Peroxide2,388 Fuel Oil Distl2,233 Muriatic Acid1,812 Gasoline, Nec

1,789 Asbestos Articles1,694 Styrene, Liquid1,686 Adiponitrile1,653 Chemicals, Nec1,513 Butane Gas Liquid1,499 Gas Isobutane1,490 Hydrocarbon Gas1,237 Jet Fuels1,049 Hydrogen Peroxide

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



32/55


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 Number of IndustriesAjax 143Whitby 140Oshawa 136Pickering 127Bowmanville 29Uxbridge 28Port Perry 25Courtice 11

TOTAL 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.



33/55


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 veryfew dams, mine failure because there are no mines, avalanche because there are nomountains),

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,



34/55


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 Human-Based Hazards Technical HazardsElectrical storm/lightning: fire Air piracy Central computer equipment failureLightning: electrical disruption Arson

Torrential rains Bomb hazardInternational strifeMedical emergencySabotage: data and softwareVandalism

In Table 17, the hazards of most concern to municipal respondents (i.e. Level 1 and 2) have beenhighlighted using coloured cells. Hazards for which there is extreme concern are in red, and

hazards for which respondents are very concerned are in yellow.



35/55


Table 17: Summary of Hazards by Municipality

MunicipalitiesHazards

Pickering

Ajax

W

hitby

O

shawa

Clarington

Uxbridge

S

cugog

Brock

Av

e.Rank

Natural HazardsIce Storm 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2.4Blizzard 3 3 4 3 2 3 2 3 2.9Tornado 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2.9Cold Wave 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 4 3.1High Winds (70+mph) 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 3.1Earthquake (Magnitude 5 or more) 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3.5Flood: Flash 2 4 4 4 3 3 5 3 3.5Heat Wave 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3.6Drought 4 5 4 5 2 4 2 4 3.8Forest Fire / Smoke 5 3 5 5 1 5 3 3 3.8Flood: Predicable/Seasonal 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 4 3.9

Human-based HazardsTerrorism (NBC) 2 3 2 4 2 2 2 3 2.5Bomb Explosion 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3.1Pandemic: Human 3 4 4 5 3 4 2 3 3.5Epidemic: Animal/Insect 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3.9

Technical HazardsFire: Building(s) - Major 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2.5Toxic Spill (enroute) 4 2 3 3 2 1 3 3 2.6Derailment 3 2 3 3 2 1 5 3 2.8Toxic Gas Release (off site) 4 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 2.8Toxic Gas Release (on site) 4 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 2.8Accidental Explosion 3 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 2.9Toxic 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 3.0Power Outage: Long Term 4 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 3.1Radiological Accident In Transit 3 2 3 4 2 4 4 3 3.1Telecommunications Failure Local 4 2 3 4 3 4 2 3 3.1Telecommunications Failure Regional 4 2 3 4 3 4 2 3 3.1Water: Contamination 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 3.1Aircraft Crash 3 3 3 3 2 5 3 4 3.3Water: Supply Limitation/Failure 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3.3Radiological Accident On-Site 3 2 3 4 2 5 5 4 3.5Road Closure 3 2 4 5 3 5 3 3 3.5Structural Failure of Building 5 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3.5



36/55




37/55


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 collectiveperceptionof 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 subjectiveassessments drawn from interview information, rational observations and experience with

emergency planning in Durham Region and elsewhere. The methodology used employs a risk



38/55



and vulnerability tool4 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)Formula #2: Impact of Hazard (IH) =

Level of Concern (LC)

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.

4 The Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Tool (RAVAT-3) developed by John Newton Associates effectivelycombines probability, impact considerations, hazard characteristics, and local capability and capacity to provide arelative ranking of hazards for organizations, agencies, corporations, and political jurisdictions.


39/55


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.



40/55


Table 18: Calculation of Impact of Hazard

Applicable Natural Hazards LF HF LC Impact of Hazard

Blizzard 10 3 2.9 10.3Cold Wave 10 2 3.1 6.5Drought 12 2 3.8 6.3

Earthquake (Magnitude 5 or more) 16 3 3.5 13.7Flood: Flash 9 3 3.5 7.7Flood: Predicable/Seasonal 7 1 3.9 1.8Forest Fire / Smoke 9 2 3.8 4.7Heat Wave 10 2 3.6 5.6High Winds (70+mph) 9 2 3.1 5.8Ice Storm 14 2 2.4 11.7

Tornado 11 2 2.9 7.6

Applicable Human-based Hazards LF HF LC Impact of Hazard

Bomb Explosion 12 3 3.1 11.6Epidemic: Animal/Insect 11 2 3.9 5.6Pandemic: Human 9 2 3.5 5.1

Terrorism (NBC) 15 4 2.5 24.0Applicable Technical Hazards LF HF LC Impact of Hazard

Accidental Explosion 6 3 2.9 6.2Aircraft Crash 8 3 3.3 7.3Derailment 10 4 2.8 14.3Fire: Building(s) - Major 8 3 2.5 9.6Gas/oil pipeline failure 10 3 3.0 10.0Power Outage: Long Term 10 3 3.1 9.7Radiological Accident On-Site 9 3 3.5 7.7Radiological Accident In Transit 14 3 3.1 13.5Road Closure 7 2 3.5 4.0Structural Failure of Building 7 3 3.5 6.0

Telecommunications Failure Local 6 3 3.1 5.8Telecommunications Failure Regional 11 3 3.1 10.6Toxic Spills (on site) 7 3 2.9 7.2Toxic Spill (enroute) 11 3 2.6 12.7Toxic Gas Release (off site) 14 3 2.8 15.0Toxic Gas Release (on site) 8 3 2.8 8.6Water: Contamination 13 4 3.1 16.8Water: Supply Limitation/Failure 12 2 3.3 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.



41/55


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 valuethat 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 processgiving greater validity and confidence to

the findings.



42/55


Table 19: Calculation of Relative Risk

Applicable Natural Hazards Impact ofHazard

(IH)

Probability ofOccurrence

(PO)

Relative Risk

Blizzard 10.3 5 51.5

Cold Wave 6.5 5 32.5Drought 6.3 3 18.9Earthquake (Magnitude 5 or more) 13.7 1 13.7Flood: Flash 7.7 4 30.8Flood: Predicable/Seasonal 1.8 5 9.0Forest Fire / Smoke 4.7 2 9.4Heat Wave 5.6 5 28.0High Winds (70+mph) 5.8 5 29.0Ice Storm 11.7 2 23.4

Tornado 7.6 2 15.2Applicable Human-based Hazards IH PO Relative Risk

Bomb Explosion 11.6 2 23.2

Epidemic: Animal/Insect 5.6 2 11.2Pandemic: Human 5.1 1 5.1

Terrorism (NBC) 24.0 1 24.0Applicable Technical Hazards IH PO Relative Risk

Accidental Explosion 6.2 3 18.6Aircraft Crash 7.3 1 7.3Derailment 14.3 3 42.9Fire: Building(s) - Major 9.6 5 48.0Gas/oil pipeline failure 10.0 1 10.0Power Outage: Long Term 9.7 2 19.4Radiological Accident On-Site 7.7 1 7.7Radiological Accident In Transit 13.5 1 13.5

Road Closure 4.0 5 20.0Structural Failure of Building 6.0 2 12.0

Telecommunications Failure Local 5.8 3 17.4Telecommunications Failure Regional 10.6 2 21.2Toxic Spills (on site) 7.2 5 36.0Toxic Spill (enroute) 12.7 3 38.1Toxic Gas Release (off site) 15.0 2 30.0Toxic Gas Release (on site) 8.6 3 25.8Water: Contamination 16.8 1 16.8Water: Supply Limitation/Failure 7.3 2 14.6

A basic set of statistical values for the findings is presented in Table 20.



43/55


Table 20: Statistical Data for Relative Risk Findings

Hazards Groups High Low Average Median

Natural 51.5 9.0 21.1 23.4Human-based 24.0 5.1 15.9 17.2

Technical 48.0 7.3 22.2 19.0

Overall Values 51.5 5.1 19.7 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 inclusionof 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.


HIRA Analysis

Documents

Transcript of HIRA Analysis