Edmonton (Alta.) - 1997 - Development of separation distances and transition zones between heavy...

•

samossam somas mmgm EE

EE

A

• • The Development of '.

Separation Distances and Transition Zones Between

•

Heavy Industry and 0

Other Land Uses in Edmonton

0

•

0 0

City of Edmonton

g`•

January 29, 1997

•

Table of Contents 1.0 PURPOSE

1

2.0 WHAT IS "RISK"?

2.1 DEFINITIONS OF RISK 2.2 PERSPECTIVES ON "RISK" 3.0 RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT 3.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF RISK 3.2 VALUES ABOUT RISK 4.0 RISK MODELS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR EDMONTON 4.1 BACKGROUND 4.2 MIACC RISK MANAGEMENT MODEL 4.3 THE MIACC RISK MANAGEMENT MODEL: EDMONTON VERSION 5.0 EVALUATION SUMMARY OF MIACC LAND USE ELEMENT 5.1 LAND USE IN THE MIACC MODEL 5.2 LAND USE IN THE 'EDMONTON VERSION' 5.3 SUMMARY

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 KEY FINDINGS 6.2 COST AND BENEFIT PERSPECTIVE 6.3 CONCLUSIONS 6.4 ACTION PLAN

Bibliography

Appendix 1 Terms of Reference Appendix 2 Evaluation Criteria

8 11

14 14 15 29

38 38 42 45

46 46 47 47 48

•

1.0 PURPOSE

This report results from directions from the December 7, 1994, Executive Committee meeting where approval was given to the terms of reference for a study to examine the components of risk management as put forward by the Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada (or MIACC). The project evaluates the feasibility and appropriateness of a risk management approach for resolving issues associated with heavy industrial separation distances in the city of Edmonton. These terms of reference are in Appendix 1.

This report provides perspectives on risk and risk management associated with heavy industry as a context for reviewing and evaluating the MIACC approach and its applicability to the activities and policies of the City of Edmonton. The scope of the study was limited to issues of risk of catastrophic events rather than nuisance and environmental health.

•

Section 2 presents a review of the various definitions and perspectives of "risk".

Perspectives on "risk" guide the values that various stakeholders hold about risk issues and decisions. Section 3 addresses risk assessment and management and the issue of risk characterization, or how risk is measured, which is also highly value-based.

Section 4 presents the MIACC approach and an evaluation framework. An 'Edmonton version' of the MIACC approach is also presented and addresses issues where the MIACC approach does not appear to meet the City's needs. Section 5 presents an evaluation summary of the MIACC land use element while Section 6 presents conclusions and the recommended Edmonton approach to risk management.

• Page 1 of 53

2.0 WHAT IS "RISK"?

There are many approaches to conceptualizing and characterizing "risk". These approaches derive from the various perspectives and values with which to view risk, and can lead to conflict in measuring, communicating and negotiating risk issues. A discussion of the various perspectives on risk is important to put the issue of separation distances for heavy industry and the use of the MIACC approach in a broader context of the various approaches to risk.

2.1

DEFINITIONS OF RISK

There are various definitions of risk: "The possibility of loss or injury; a dangerous element or factor; the chance of loss or the perils to the subject of an insurance contract; the degree of probability of such a loss; an insurance hazard from a specified cause or source." (Webster's, 1981) "Risk is a measure of the probability and severity of an adverse effect due to a hazard.

Event risk equals frequency of occurrence multiplied by the estimated consequences.

Overall risk is obtained by summing up all the event risks." (MIACC, 1995).

As can be seen from just these two statements, the definition of risk varies. These alternative definitions imply that any discussion about risk must be based on common understandings of what "risk" means.

Dean and Thompson in their article "The Varieties of Risk" state that "a formal definition of risk specifies formulae, data, quantitative relationship or other terms that determine procedures for using the term 'risk' is a specific context... Most literature on risk either proposes or presupposes a general conception of risk, then proceeds immediately to offer definition and qualification of the favoured conception without acknowledging the existence of alternatives." (Dean and Thompson, 1995)

2.2 PERSPECTIVES ON "RISK"

Dean and Thompson present a framework for defining "risk" between two differing perspectives: the "probabilist" (or technically driven) and the "contextualist" (or value driven). This framework suggests that there are differing perceptions of "risk" and acceptability of risk levels for the same level of "actual" risk.

"The probabilist view sees risk as essentially characterized by the probability of events or consequences. The important implication of the probabilist view is that estimation and clarification of probabilities will, in all cases, improve the knowledge of risk.

Page 2 of 53

•

On the opposite extreme is the contextualist which places probability on the list along

•

with voluntariness, familiarity and all the rest. The contextualist believes that risk will always be characterized by some subset of attributes on the list, but that no single attribute will be understood to characterize every instance of risk and that risk is characterized by a combination of attributes. The more important implication of the contextualist view is that there will be some cases in which estimation and clarification of probabilities ought to be largely irrelevant to the assessment, acceptability and even mitigation of risk." (Dean and Thompson, 1995) This framework of perspectives, with some implications for people holding that perspective, is summarized below.

Table 1: Perspectives on "Risk"

•

The Weak Probabilist

• likely to regard risk assessment as primarily a process of researching and

•will recognize the values implicit in the selection of events or outcomes

assigning

•recognizes that firmlevel management, tort law, environmental

•argues that the selection of attributes to assess is itself a value

Contextualist >

that are quantified.

probabilities, *likely to regard the combination of alternate sources of data as a quantification problem.

• __ _____________>

The Strong .

Contextualist (more driven)

The Weak

The Strong Probabilist (more technically driven)

• the derivation of probabilities may itself have value dimensions.

•risk evaluation is also a political procedure to be negotiated among experts and the public.

(Dean and Thompson, 1995)

regulation represents contexts where the concept of risk will figure prominently in decision-making.

•different conceptions of risk grow out of the needs of different communities.

laden exercise.

•sees strong probabilists attempting to repress debate about whether social consequences or rights of consent should be included in the assessment process.

Using this framework, the perspective of risk built into the MIACC approach appears to be that of a "weak probabilist". The MIACC approach (see sidebar below) presents risks as probabilities. For example, 1 in 1,000,000, (or an average of one death from an industrial accident in a population of a million per year), is used as a guideline for an unacceptable level of risk for certain land uses (see sidebar on interpreting risk predictions). This is translated into a separation distance contour of 1.5 km around an industrial site (as shown in Figure 2, p.18). MIACC defines "acceptable risk" as "the determination by public authorities through a process involving industry and the public of levels of risk which are considered acceptable if all reasonably practical measures have been taken to reduce risks. Acceptability depends in the trade-offs between risks,

Page 3 of 53

costs, and benefits and may vary from one community to another" (MIACC, 1995). "Acceptability" is further discussed in Section 3.0.

The City of Edmonton, through its various departments, appears to view risk from the variety of perspectives, from operational probabilists to policy contextualists. By using the MIACC approach as a starting point, the City can develop a clearer corporate perspective on risk, especially pertaining to heavy industry.

MIACC, or the Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada, "develops national standards, guidelines, tools and processes for prevention, preparedness and response programs aimed at reducing the frequency and severity of major industrial accidents involving hazardous substances" (MIACC, 1995) MIACC has developed an approach to address risk management for heavy industry.

This approach comprises five initiatives: risk reduction at source; risk reduction by land use controls; emergency preparedness; emergency response; and risk communication and public participation. The approach also recognizes the

need for local adaptation for specific applications The framework presented by and was used as a starting point to discuss three main issues: the need for an approach to existing Dean and Thompson suggests the land uses; the prevention of intensification of need for the clear articulation of incompatible uses encroaching on heavy industry; the various perspectives of risk and the corporate use of risk management. around any public policy issue.

This articulation, in turn, guides parameters for subsequent risk management strategies. The need for a process of open public scrutiny of policy options is shown in the following example of a conflict in perspectives.

"One group may presume risks are intentional actions, to be distinguished from familiar hazards and freak occurrences. If they communicate with another group that does not recognize this difference, then the dialogue between the two groups may easily misfire.

Clearly, this framework applies to risk assessment, communication and management as a way of presenting a continuum of perspectives that can be at play amongst special

interest groups and individuals within those groups. These conceptions would affect their approach to understanding and characterizing risk for internal decision-making and negotiation with others." (Dean and Thompson, 1995).

Interpreting Risk The abstract numbers that represent fatality risk predictions for an individual catastrophe are difficult to interpret. One way to provide meaning is to consider that an annual risk of 100 in a million (10 4) implies a fatality risk to an individual of 5 chances out of 1,000 (1 in 200) if exposed to that risk over a 50 year residency. A 10-6 prediction implies an individual fatality risk of 5 in 20,000 over a 50 -year residency. •

Page 4 of 53

•

A municipality's perspectives are guided by its purposes which are (a) to provide good government; (b) to provide services, facilities and other things that, in the opinion of council, are necessary or desirable for all or a part of the municipality, and (c) to develop and maintain safe and viable communities. (Municipal Government Act, 1994).

This purpose implies that the municipality is responsible for considering perspectives on risk that are consistent with the "public good" and with "safe and viable communities". In Dean and Thompson's framework this perspective would be that of at least a "weak contextualist", one that incorporates public (or perceived public) values about risk.

The MIACC approach views risk more from a probabilist viewpoint (more technically driven) while the City must incorporate community values. This sets up a basic tension between the two perspectives, one that needs articulation and negotiation.

The next section discusses concepts of risk assessment and management within the context of values on risk.

•

• Page 5 of 53

•

3.0 RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT

The values that form the understanding of the idea of "risk" also drive the way in which risk is assessed and managed.

Risk assessment...

• can be defined as "the characterization of the likelihood and importance of risk".

Risk management...

• can be defined as "the optimization of exposure to known and assessed risk".

(MIACC, 1995)

•

The classical view of risk assessment is that of a value-free technical process of determining risk levels, while risk management is seen as political and value-driven. In reality, both processes require judgments based on some set of values. Risk assessment is the basis for risk management and for choosing policy options and allocation of resources. Differences in values about risk assessment between stakeholders in public policy issues need to be clearly articulated, just as perspectives on risk should be. "Risk assessment can be used to predict the likelihood of many unwanted events, including industrial explosions, workplace injuries, failures of machine parts, natural catastrophes, injury or death from an array of voluntary activities, diseases, natural causes, life-style or others". (Paustenbach, 1995).

The process of risk assessment has, by convention, included:

Risk management includes incorporating risk estimates into:

• hazard identification, • receptor vulnerability, • risk characterization and risk estimation.

• exploration of control options, • non-risk analysis, • regulatory decision making and development of acceptability. guidelines, with public participation

These two processes are linked through "risk characterization" and are shown in Figure 1, p.7.

Even though these processes are shown as distinct, there is danger of considering them as such which can "under emphasize the unavoidable value judgments in risk assessment, overemphasize the role of technical experts, thus disenfranchise the public who ought to have a voice in risk assessment as well as management" (Shrader-Frechette, 1995)

•

Haworth also supports the argument that even assessments cannot be value-free. This does not, in his opinion, discount the scientific efforts in risk assessment. He believes

Page 6 of 53

that the technical definitions of risk (probability multiplied by consequence) are too limited and that assessors require retraining to a broader perspective so as to be aware of values in assessment. He also states that there may be a need to restrict the input provided by risk assessors so that it is less quantitative, while also redefining legal requirements for evidence that can be brought forward by assessment experts, so as to better clarify the fuzzy relationship between judgment and facts. In addition, there needs to be a better framework for bringing forward values and assumptions about risk.

(Haworth, 1995)

Risk Assessment (non-value driven)_ Receptor Vulnerability Hazard Identification

Risk Characterization (and estimation) '

Risk Management (value driven)

Figure 1: Overview of Classical Risk Assessment and Risk Management The MIACC model approaches the issues of assessment and management from the classically viewed "technical" left hand side (those functions that industry has direct control over; see Bovar-Concord, 1995). The City of Edmonton's various departmental operations approach these issues from a variety of directions. The operational emergency response and preparedness roles take a largely assessment approach, while current City land use policy and permitting considers the risk issue from a regulatory perspective. Thus, perspectives on risk can reflect both differences in conceptualizing risk, values about risk and viewpoints on approaches to risk assessment and management.

The following table shows the current City operations related to elements of risk assessment and management.

Page 7 of 53

•

Table 2: Departments Involved in Risk Assessment/Management Activities City Departments

Hazard Identification

Exposure Assessment

7

7

Risk Characterization

Non-Risk Analysis

Regulatory Decisions

Emergency Planning Emergency Response Department Law Department Parks and Recreation Planning and Development Public Works Transportation

If

This table indicates the various perspectives and involvements in risk assessment and

management by City departments. In addition to these departments' activities, other departments, such as the Police Service and Community and Family Services, are involved in identification, assessment and regulatory decisions related to community risk from sources other than industry. These perspectives may reflect various

legislative and professional requirements for City personnel which can incorporate •

differing, and perhaps conflicting, standards and values. These variations add complexity to any integrated City approach to risk management as City personnel bring

to their individual or departmental roles their own values and views on risk. Though these values act as proxies for community values, there is no clear mechanism to currently identify what these community values should be. The absence of a clear City vision and set of values around the complex issue of risk, has led to these varying interpretations of risk issues.

3.1

CHARACTERIZATION OF RISK

"Characterizing risk has consistently been the weakest part of risk assessments because it requires assessors to draw on many aspects of science and regulatory policy to describe specific human health hazards" (Paustenbach, 1995).

Even with a clear articulation of perspectives on risk and values .around risk issues, there is a need for developing a common understanding around how to characterize risk. This characterization is needed to build a set of measures that when used consistently provides a metric for describing the nature and extent of the impact of risk.

•

Possible characterizations of risks are:

Page 8 of 53

•

probability of occurrence; uncertainty of probability estimates; benchmarking of risks against background risk levels; probability of technical disasters during natural disasters; non-linear estimates of multi-facility catastrophes;

•

expected outcome in lives lost, injuries; evacuations; costs of reconstruction; social costs; long term economic costs (business and real estate value); insurance rates;

•

individual risk; community/societal risk; vulnerability of community systems; real estate preferences of plant employees;

•

annual risk; lifetime risk; duration of event; and

• type of hazard; levels of acceptability (volumes, location).

These characterizations obviously reflect values and perspectives about risk.

Paustenbach states that "we now recognize that the hallmark of good risk characterization is a discussion of the uncertainties in the risk estimates.. .Although this may sound like a scientific nuance, the public and the courts now insist on understanding the level of confidence in risk predictions". He also talks of the need for ranges in risk estimates, accounting for background risk levels, thorough and understandable risk communication, and the need for including cost/benefit analyses.

(Paustenbach, 1995) When reviewing or developing any framework or model of risk assessment and management, the issues raised in the previous sections need a level of clarity to provide a direction for the City to address, on behalf of the community, the question of risk from heavy industrial, and other, significant activities in Edmonton.

Even for a probabilistic description of risk, such as proposed by MIACC, Goldstein presents a framework for risk characterization.

Table 3: Framework for Risk Characterization Who is:

the susceptible

What are:

the health

When:

is the population

Where:

land use

what are

options/

safe levels

effects;

at risk;

global impacts;

the remediation population;

the ecological effects;

sociodemographic profiles;

the economic effects;

the duration of time for single/ multiple events; remediation options and the impact on remediation workers

impact on • cultural geography (parks, monuments);

Page 9 of 53

How Much:

local versus

population;

the social/ cultural legal status of effects population (Goldstein, 1995)

Why:

impact on environmental equity

planning; •of storage and usage? costbenefit options.

•

This framework could be used as an approach to design a set of risk factors that characterize risk and values around those factors. An example of the concern around values in risk characterization is presented by Hrudey. "How could we objectively choose which risk is higher between one with a high median probability (say 1 in a 1000) and a narrow range reflecting low uncertainty (upper bound of 1 in 500) and one with low median probability (say 1 in 100,000) and a wide range reflecting high uncertainty (upper bound of 1 in 10)? Such choices cannot be strictly objective."

"Which is worse: the immediate painless death of a 20 year old truck driver from an accidental release of hydrogen sulphide, or the painful death of a 55 year old pipefitter from lung cancer following 20 years of smoking combined with exposure of asbestos insulation? Even for the same kind of death, which is worse: 1 death per year for 10 years, or 10 deaths once every 10 years?". (Hrudey, 1995) Once risk has been characterized, it must be estimated or predicted. In order to achieve this there are various technical assumptions that must be made. These assumptions need to be validated and can include: • clarity in determination of hazard, • measurability of factors, • accurate analysis of extreme probabilities, • independence of risk probabilities/events,

•

• linear response of technical and social systems to events, independence of effects and additive properties, • easy extrapolations to actual field conditions, • accurate determination of causality, and • integrity of data from different parts of the system studied.

•

The MIACC characterization of risk for land use planning is based on one factor, that of a probabilistic occurrence of a catastrophic event. This factor is then translated into a risk contour. For the complexity of the issues around risk, it would appear that this limited perspective cannot fully reflect the range of issues and perspectives involved.

Risk acceptability involves a range of risk levels depending on other factors as suggested by MIACC (see page 3/4) though not captured by the MIACC risk contour criteria. Another concern is that risk assessment predictions are most useful on a • comparative basis for judging the utility of alternative risk management strategies or measures. The absolute level of predictions of risk factors are much less useful. In addition, these predictions clearly need to account for overlapping and potentially additive risk levels as found in industrial parks.

Hrudey states that for risk management:

•

"If we wish to satisfy a modest objective of avoiding dumb risk management decisions, we need to recognize both the obvious benefits of better understanding of comparative risks balanced against the enormous challenges. Scientific knowledge about risks is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for sensible decision-making. Risk ranking

Page 10 of 53

cannot be strictly objective, so we should avoid misplaced confidence in apparent rationality to avoid being blind-sided by dumb decisions."

Risk management can become a complex and fuzzy process especially when based on unclear concepts of risk, values about risk and technical uncertainties about risk measures.

3.2 VALUES ABOUT RISK The discussion has presented the case that valUes around risk issues in society need to be well articulated for public policy making and negotiation between various interest groups. What values should the City adopt around risk assessment and management, consistent across its operations and permitting process?

The values could include: , • population/community based • The City must ensure a broad citizen perspective that supports safe and viable communities. Public safety is a priority.

• event risk compared to background risk • Communities and individuals face risks from a whole host of events and occurrences. Risk due to heavy industry is but oneof these.

• due diligence and minimizing public cost • The City must look to reducing the social and community costs of a potential hazard while ensuring due diligence and support for economic growth consistent with a broad development philosophy.

• non-greenfields perspective *In the vicinity of the City, the majority of heavy industry development will predominately be in the form of expansion of existing facilities. This adds to the complexity of risk assessment and management in built areas where the marginal increase in risk needs to be assessed.

• case by case basis • As the marginal increase in risk to the community from a facility may vary from location to location in the City, there is a need to consider each additional risk factor or source on an individual basis.

• "fairness" • It is incumbent on the City to develop risk policy that attempts to balance competing demands for development and public safety concerns of the community. This process of negotiation requires clear communication about risk and the understanding of perspectives.

"In a project completed in 1994 on fairness and siting of hazardous facilities, three fundamental notions of fair process and outcome emerged: technical fairness with a

Page 11 of 53

•

utilitarian emphasis of lowest-cost outcomes; Pareto fairness' with full compensation to the victims; and fairness based on a concern for equality and redressing past inequities. This work suggests that the key to developing policies that command broad social support may lie in the design of procedures that can accommodate, and not discredit, these competing ideas of fairness." (HASA, 1995) • property ownership • The City has to recognize fundamental freedoms and rights in

property ownership. There is a need to balance community safety against individual rights, while addressing who should bear the cost for the benefit of society.

To explore the fit in values of the MIACC approach to the City of Edmonton, the apparent values imbedded in the MIACC approach need to be explored. These values appear to be: • risk • Risk is defined as the combination of the probability of occurrence of an undesired event and the possible extent of that event's consequences (often expressed in terms of fatality, but sometimes in terms of injury, health effects, property damage, etc.). This MIACC definition does not formally include options for other perspectives on risk, though it does recognize the interrelations.

• greenfields approach • The use of a set separation distance for heavy industry

suggests an approach suitable to new development rather than expansion. The MIACC

•

land use planning guidelines describe the need for reduction at source, and monitoring of modifications of land uses.

• individual and societal risk • The MIACC characterization of risk is based on

individual risk, with societal risk addressed through specification of allowable population densities and land uses. Population densities need to be built into the risk characterization.

• annual risk and lifetime risk • MIACC proposes the use of risk characterization on

an annual basis. From a community perspective, lifetime risks may be more applicable for policy considerations.

• guidelines not standards • MIACC recognizes the need for local interpretation and application of the guidelines for land use planning. It recommends that communities establish their own values and standards around risk from heavy industry.

• corporate responsibility •MIACC gives industry a framework.through which it can fulfill its responsibilities as a corporate citizen and partner in developing communities.

• independent and additive risks • Risk, as defined by MIACC, can be aggregated

additively across all assumed independent risk sources (fixed, moving, line, point).

1 Pareto efficiency is just one notion of fairness where at least one party is better off in an arrangement while the other party is no worse off.

Page 12 of 53

However, complex technical, social and regulatory processes may indeed be highly correlated and non-linear.

The list above are examples of the start of a process for the necessary articulation of values about risk.

The issue is not that the City values around risk issues are more appropriate than the values from MIACC. Rather, the concern is to develop a risk management approach for heavy industry and transition zones that can balance the City's and MIACC's value perspectives.

Page 13 of 53

•

4.0 RISK MODELS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR EDMONTON

The study group evaluated two models for risk management: (i) the MIACC Risk Management Model and (ii) an Edmonton version of the MIACC Model. The development of the Edmonton version arose out of concerns with possible difficulties in applying the MIACC model to the City of Edmonton. In addition, as presented in Section 3.0, the exploration and articulation of values about risk generated a need to develop a model version for Edmonton that accommodated broader values and perspectives on risk The recommended approach presented in Section 6 builds on the best features of these two models.

4.1 BACKGROUND This Section reviews the MIACC model as applied to the issue of separation distances and transition zones within the broader land use planning framework in the City of Edmonton. The elements of the MIACC model were then modified to more realistically reflect the current situation in the City of Edmonton. The MIACC and the modified model were evaluated against a set of criteria prepared by the study group and listed in Appendix 2.

4.1.1 MIACC

The Major Industrial Accident Council of Canada is a non-profit organization which brings together industry and industry associations, all levels of government, emergency response organizations, labour and the academic community to work towards reducing the frequency and severity of major industrial accidents involving hazardous substances. MCC has produced national guidelines and standards for the safe management of hazardous substances.

4.1.2 MIACC Model Elements The MIACC model has five elements: risk reduction at source; risk reduction through land use controls; emergency preparedness; emergency response; and risk communication and public participation. In addition to lists of hazardous substances and risk assessment guidelines for municipalities and industry, MIACC has also produced "Risk-based Land Use Planning Guidelines." The guidelines promote the reduction of risk through land use planning to limit the impact of an industrial accident on surrounding communities by achieving an adequate separation of uses.

MIACC proposes the use of risk assessment in land use planning to identify the potential impact of a catastrophic event at the risk source (the industrial plant). While the guidelines are primarily concerned with human safety, MIACC also recognizes that, in land use planning, long term health impacts and environmental impacts are closely related concerns.

Page 14 of 53

The guidelines focus on the risk from major industrial accidents because work on risk acceptability for long term health or environmental effects has not produced specific guidelines.

The Guidelines recognize that they can be applied more readily to a "greenfield" site than to a built-up area. "It must also be mentioned that, as is the case for other planning questions, the introduction of new regulations cannot generally limit the rights of an owner to continue an activity which was permitted by a previous land use plan or regulatory standards. Such vested rights, sometimes referred to as "grandfathering," exist for any existing land uses and for approved projects which have not yet been completed. As a result, it is unrealistic to attempt to use new land use controls in order to close an existing industrial activity or to prohibit existing land uses on adjacent properties."

(MIACC, 1995) 4.2 MIACC RISK MANAGEMENT MODEL This section presents the elements of the MIACC model and develops a list of actions required to implement the model in the City of Edmonton.

4.2.1 Risk Reduction at Source This refers to reduction initiatives by industry at source sites of potential hazards. The following components, which are the responsibility of industry, are required.

Risk Assessment Guidelines:

1. Apply the MIACC mini-guide to small municipalities and industries with low risk potential.

2. Use the list of hazardous substances and threshold quantities to identify the potential impact of hazard sources.

3. Use SERI (Systematic Evaluation of Risk in Industry) software to evaluate risk from

hazardous substances and to provide a risk ranking of locations.

•

Accident Reviews identify and disseminate accident trends and lessons learned from

past occurrences.

1. Liaise with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and provide their annual consolidation of world-wide events, documenting concise descriptions of events, responses, consequences and recommendations.

2. Use the MIACC accident prevention directory, reporting Canadian legislation, major Canadian and foreign accident reporting systems, Canadian and foreign publications and other information sources.

Page 15 of 53

Life-Cycle Management of Hazardous Substances: •

Use the guidelines on recommended practices for the life-cycle management of hazardous substances that will assist in their safe manufacture, transport, use and disposal.

Process Safety Management: Use the MIACC guide on effective process safety management to implement adequate chemical process safety programs, in accordance with work by the US Centre for Chemical Process Safety.

Safety Audits: Undertake environmental, health and safety audits to enhance the quality of prevention, preparedness and response programs.

4.2.2 Risk Reduction through Land Use Control MIACC recognizes the need for the systematic application of land use controls for reducing risk. This element of the MIACC model presents the most challenging

components for risk reduction through land use control for the City of Edmonton. The •

differences in perspectives on risk and values about risk reduction are shown in the following discussion.

Principles:

1. Minimize the risk to the general public from hazardous activities, by adopting policies for the distribution of land uses which separate hazardous and susceptible uses.

2. Implement policies through a land use bylaw which identifies and classifies hazardous activities and provides for the restriction of uses in proximity to hazards.

3. Define an acceptable level of risk. Limit the exposure of the general public to unacceptable levels of risk by requiring a risk assessment as part of the evaluation of a development proposal which involves a hazardous use or is in proximity to a hazardous use.

4. Identify distances from a specific hazard which correspond to risk contours, to identify areas where different categories of uses are acceptable. Uses are to be transitional, with the most susceptible to the impact of heavy industry or other hazardous uses locating furthest away from the source of the hazard.

• Page 16 of 53

5. Specify measures to prevent the intensification of existing incompatible uses within areas of unacceptable levels of risk, in conjunction with efforts to reduce risk at source.

Implications for the Municipal Development Plan (MDP)

1. Incorporate an "acceptable level of risk".

MIACC provides the following definition: "The determination by public authorities through a process involving industry and the public of levels of risk which are considered acceptable if all reasonably practical measures have been taken to reduce risks. Acceptability depends on the trade-offs between risks, costs and benefits and may vary from one community to another." (MIACC, Risk-based Land Use Planning Guidelines, 1995) 2. Incorporate guidelines for appropriate land uses within areas with different levels of risk.

The MIACC guidelines are as follows: •

From risk source to 1 in 10,000 (10 -4)2 risk contour: no other land uses except the source facility, pipeline or corridor.

•

1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000 (10 4 to 10-5) risk contours: uses involving continuous access and the presence of limited numbers of people but easy evacuation, e.g. open space (parks, golf courses, conservation areas, trails, excluding recreation facilities such as arenas), warehouses, manufacturing plants.

1 in 100,000 to 1 in 1,000,000 (10 -6 to 10-6) risk contours: uses involving continuous access but easy evacuation, e.g., commercial uses, low-density residential areas, offices.

• Beyond the 1 in 1,000,000 (10 -6) risk contour: all other land uses without restriction including institutional uses, high-density residential areas, (MIACC Risk-based Land Use Planning Guidelines, 1995).

•

Figure 2 (p. 18) provides an example of the acceptable levels of risk contours and the types of permitted use within each contour. Figure 3 (p. 19) should be considered for incorporation in the MDP. .•

Areas would be identified by overlaying risk contours on land surrounding a source of risk. The policy would require that, if specified hazards were present, a full risk assessment would be required and contours drawn to evaluate the potential impact on the surrounding area. Restrictions on uses would be applied to areas subject to critical levels of risk.

2

annualized, individual chance of fatality due to plant catastrophe

Page 17 of 53

•

Figure 2: Risk Contours Around a Fixed Facility

Ng

MIN

Risk contcxx (1 in 1 000 000)*

Risk contour * (1 in 10 000)

* Annual risk of individual fatality from industrial catastrophe. One person in a million and ten thousand respectively.

•

(MIACC, 1995)

Page 18 of 53

cp

5>C) 0

10 in a million* (10-5 )

100 in a million* (10.4 )

1 in a million* (10-6)

CD

CD

I.

•nta

CD '0

C.

cT CD

tIuIiuw Risk source No other . land use

Manufacturing, warehouses, open space

91113.131171_1311:

Commercial, offices, low-density residential

(parkland, golf courses, etc.)

. Allowable Land Uses " Annual risk of individual fatality from industrial catastrophe.

(MIACC, 1995)

CD Cfl

0

All other uses, including x! insdrutIons, high-density residential, etc.

•

3. Incorporate a policy to prevent the intensification of existing incompatible uses within high risk areas. Areas would need to be identified by risk assessments of existing industrial installations and by drawing risk contours to illustrate the potential impact on existing uses. Due to the widespread effect on use of property, this policy requires a justification in terms of public safety, stringent technical analysis of risk and comparison of the specific risk with risk from other sources. The policy must also have a flexible and responsive system of re-examining area boundaries when a change in procedures or in land uses occurred at the risk source to keep the policy relevant and effective.

4. Incorporate a policy to maintain separation distances between industry and other hazardous uses and incompatible uses such as housing and uses which are difficult to evacuate. The policy would apply equally to incompatible uses wishing to locate in proximity to industrial activities and other hazards.

5. Identify industrial areas suitable for high impact uses to achieve more effective separation of uses and make emergency planning and emergency response easier.

Incorporate buffer zones between high impact uses. Include a map in the MDP to identify the areas where special policies would apply.

6. Risk assessment of existing heavy industries and major hazards must be done and areas where such developments could be approved under the existing land use

•

districts must be assessed for potential risks. Incorporate a map in the MDP -; showing the location of these sources of risk and the surrounding areas where uses

would be restricted. Continuous monitoring of industrial installations would be required, to take account of changes in processes, production and substances used. Levels of risk will change as a result.

7. Include a policy requiring full public involvement, with risk assessments, for major industrial or hazardous proposals.

Implications for the Land Use Bylaw 1. Address hazards a) Identify industrial and hazardous activities

•

Include modified MIACC categories of industry, with reference to quantities of these hazardous substances in the Land Use Bylaw:.

Type 1: industries presenting no major risk;

•

Type 2: industries presenting some risk (e.g. producers or users of benzene, ammonia, vinyl chloride); Type 3: industries presenting moderate risk (e.g. producers or users of hydrogen chloride, liquefied petroleum gas, or gasoline);

Page 20 of 53

Type 4: industries presenting high risk (e.g. Producers or users of chlorine or ethylene oxide), (MIACC Risk-Based Land Use Planning Guidelines, 1995) •

Include definition of heavy industry and hazardous uses in Land Use Bylaw

• The Bylaw would contain criteria for identifying industrial uses, with examples. The decision on the suitability of an industrial use for a particular land use district would be based on the activities involved.

• Amend use classes to reflect MIACC classification of industry and hazardous activities (see above) and environmental impacts and nuisances (as recommended by MIACC, Risk-Based Land Use Planning Guidelines).

Replace the existing General Industrial Use class. b) Identify hazardous substances and their quantities •

Include the MIACC list of hazardous substances (from Dangerous Substances Risk Assessment for Small Municipalities and Industry: a MiniGuide) in the Land Use Bylaw.

•

Use the threshold quantities of hazardous substances as a schedule in the Bylaw to determine the potential impact of a hazardous use.

c) Identify industrial process, plant operation •

Revise Section 73 of the Land Use Bylaw to require submission of approved permit from Alberta Environmental Protection for industrial and hazardous uses (Refer to definition).

2. Provide assessment of risk

a) Acceptable level of risk

• Acceptable level of risk, as to be stated in the MDP, is to be used as one of the criteria in determining a development proposal. b) Ensure risk reduction at source • Amend Section 73 of the Land Use Bylaw (Performance Standards for Industrial Development) to include measures to reduce risk at source and maintain an acceptable level of risk on the advice of the Emergency Response Department.

Page 21 of 53

•

C) Require risk assessments • A risk assessment would be required when a redistricting application is made for a land use district to accommodate a heavy industrial or hazardous use with reference to the MIACC Lists of Hazardous Substances.

• A risk assessment would be required where quantities of a hazardous substance exceed the threshold quantity. (Risk-Based Land Use Planning Guidelines). If the risk assessment shows that an unacceptable level of risk would be created for surrounding areas, the proposal would be recommended for refusal.

• Amend the Bylaw to include links with the environmental impact provisions of the Alberta Environmental Protection Act, which may also include a risk assessment (Sections 38 to 57).

3. Mitigate impacts of hazardous uses by distance a) Incorporate risk contours

•

•

Incorporate the risk contours into the MDP and the Land Use Bylaw, defining protected areas, as a basis for decisions on the suitability of uses and land use districts within impacted areas of a risk source.

•

Include a schedule in the Bylaw of acceptable uses for each level of risk,

based on the MIACC guidelines. b) Revise land use districts •

Create a new land use district for high risk activities

•

Develop a land use district to accommodate hazardous uses, as defined in the MIACC list. No other uses would be included in the district. There would be no permitted uses in this district, because the MIACC approach requires information on the hazard to be assessed so that the level of risk can be identified as part of the development process.

•

Prevent hazardous uses in inappropriate land use districts (IM, IB, commercial and residential).

•

Incorporate annexed area districts in the revision of land use districts.

• Add new land use districts for transitional uses, based on levels of risk and susceptibility to hazards and ease of evacuation.

• Page 22 of 53

•

Revise all existing land use districts so that no hazardous uses are permitted uses; discretionary uses would be identified on the basis of the guidelines and decisions on their approval would be based on the guidelines.

•

Revise land use districts to include a provision for separation from sources of risk.

c) Redistricting Procedures •

Require a risk assessment for a redistricting application for: a heavy industrial or hazardous use; land in proximity to an existing hazardous use; or a land use district which could accommodate a heavy industrial or hazardous use.

(Refer to lists of hazardous uses and map of risk contours). a) b) c)

• The Bylaw should include the opportunity for a re-assessment of existing land use districts where a site has remained undeveloped for a specified length of time. A requirement could be made for a renewal of the land use district approval, allowing new information (such as risk assessment) to be considered.

• Amend the land use districts in high risk areas to prevent the intensification of existing uses and the development of incompatible uses in undeveloped areas with approved land use districts.

•

Use DC5 district to exercise additional control over development within areas of unacceptable risk.

•

Incorporate the MIACC mini-guide into the Land Use Bylaw to gauge the separation distance of a redistricting site from a known hazard source, and to judge whether a full risk assessment should be requested.

d) Revise land use classes •

Ensure greater compatibility between use classes and land use districts (e.g. stricter regulations or fewer discretionary uses).

•

Revise the use classes, in conjunction with emergency plans, to include susceptibility to risk as a criterion for determining uses. Recognize large concentrations of people, densities, age groups and mobility.

Page 23 of 53

•

4. Limit intensification of existing incompatible uses in high risk areas •

Examine the provisions of the residential, commercial and institutional land use districts (and other districts where susceptible uses can exist) to eliminate potential for intensification of uses where an unacceptable level of risk prevails.

•

Consider a "grandfathering" provision to allow the continuation of existing uses.

A justification in terms of the level of risk at the site would be needed.

• The hazardous use or impacted use where a severe conflict exists between a hazard and surrounding uses, make non-conforming, to limit the time over which the conflict would persist and to establish new principles of suitable distribution of uses.

•

Redistrict land where an assessment of existing hazardous uses shows that residential and other incompatible uses are within an area of an unacceptably ' high level of risk.

5. Public involvement in the Land Use Bylaw •

•

Revise public notification requirements to include risk communication and to allow public involvement in the decision-making process.

Development Permit Process Currently the Development Officer must issue a development permit for a permitted use if the proposal conforms to the regulations of the land use district. The MIACC approach is incompatible with "permitted uses" because the level of risk created has to be identified. Under the existing system, there is no opportunity to refuse a permit application for a permitted use. MIACC requires the refusal of a permit if the level of risk is unacceptable. If an acceptable level of risk were to be identified for a permitted use, an assessment would still be needed at the time of application to determine whether the proposal exceeded that level.

1. Application for a permit for a hazardous use

a) Information on the hazard: •

•

Collect details of industrial process, materials used, operations and safety measures and storage provisions at the time of application for a development permit for a hazardous use. Refer to Emergency Response for input into the decision.

Page 24 of 53

•

Use a list of activities (based on MIACC Types 1-4, Risk Use Planning Guidelines) and criteria for identifying hazardous uses, to determine whether the proposed industrial activities pose a risk.

•

For other uses which may involve a hazardous activity or the use or storage of hazardous materials, refer to a checklist of uses. For example: 0 Home occupations; 0 Commercial uses, such as contractor services, gas bars, service stations; 0 Agricultural uses; 0 Basic services, such as power stations, storage yards; and 0 Community services, such as swimming pools.

b) Assessment: •

If the initial screening shows that the proposed discretionary use may be hazardous, refer to the MIACC mini-guide. Identify the hazardous substance on the MIACC list and the threshold level. If the threshold level is exceeded, a full risk assessment will be required.

C) Issue of the permit: •

If the results of the risk assessment show that no unacceptable levels of risk are imposed on existing uses by the proposal, a development permit may be issued.

•

Site design conditions may be imposed on the advice of the Emergency Response Department.

2. Application within a risk contour a) Information and risk assessment

• Check location of proposal against a risk contour map (prepared in advance of applications for the major hazards identified in the MDP).

•

Refer to the MIACC recommended uses for specific risk levels (Risk-Based Land Use Planning Guidelines).

•

Refuse permit if proposal does not conform to MIACC recommendations.

•

If site is not within a major risk source contour, check if proposal is for a susceptible use (Identified from a list of uses and criteria based on density of occupants, ease of evacuation, mobility of population and length of time of occupation during a day).

Page 25 of 53

•

•

Check hazard map (from Emergency Response) to determine distance of site from hazards.

•

Using Information from Emergency Response on hazardous substances at the site on map.

•

Use MIACC mini-guide to decide whether use will be at an acceptable distance from hazard.

•

If evidence is inconclusive, request risk assessment.

b) Issue of the permit •

Issue permit if all the requirements of the Land Use Bylaw are met, if the distance from the hazard is acceptable and an acceptable level of risk exists at the site. The decision to issue a permit will involve a complex balancing of the needs of the community and the need to promote an "open for business" approach.

Corporate Co-ordination

Develop a corporate mechanism to provide common information and objectives to land •

use planning and response issues.

Public Communication The communication to the public of a risk-based land use planning system has to adopt a corporate perspective, be mindful of issues of liability, and strike a balanced message on risk and economic growth.

4.2.3 Emergency Preparedness Preparedness is an ongoing corporate, institutional and private sector activity based on values of prevention of and response to industrial and natural catastrophe.

Principles: 1. Emergency preparedness must be a joint exercise between the municipality and industry, involving the establishment of a joint co-ordinating committee.

•

2. The MIACC process is to reduce the frequency and severity of major industrial accidents involving hazardous substances.

Page 26 of 53

3. The objective of the municipality and industry should be to aim for the highest level of emergency preparedness.

Determine Risk to the Community Establish the nature of existing hazards, the likelihood of accidents and the nature and scope of foreseeable consequences. This can be done through: • • • •

use of credible and accepted methods, consulting current legislation and applicable standards, presenting results in clear language, and providing for regular updating.

Gather and Share Information The Emergency Preparedness co-ordinating committee will collect and distribute information to members as follows: 1. Acts, regulations, bylaws and standards •

Consult and involve provincial emergency measures authorities.

•

Consult industrial associations to ensure codes of practice are met.

2. Roles and responsibilities •

Gather information on industrial and municipal emergency response organizations, including decision-making responsibilities.

•

Identify committee members' specific tasks and areas of expertise.

•

Review and assess the effectiveness of the committee and the joint preparedness program.

•

Increase awareness and involvement through education and training.

3. Mutual aid or assistance

• Identify resources.

• Share information on the resources which can be made available in an emergency.

• Inventory equipment and qualified individuals, agencies and organizations capable of providing emergency services • List names, addresses, phone and fax numbers of con'acts • Update inventories

-

• Share information on existing third party service contracts Page 27 of 53

•

Integrate Municipal and Industry Emergency Response Plans.

• Identify actions to be taken to minimize the effects of an emergency • Identify roles, responsibilities and means of communication • Establish procedures for activating the response • The joint committee will determine shared responsibilities in damage assessment, clean-up, health and safety, stress management and business and public service resumption.

Identify and Obtain Communications Equipment, Systems and Procedures.

• Develop a plan for use of equipment to communicate between authorities, the public involved and the public at large.

• Develop methods and procedures for communicating with the public and the media: 0 industry shall warn of the emergency, inform of preparedness and inform of the consequences;

•

0 industry to inform communities of the nature of their operations and the risks involved; and 0 use a joint co-ordinating committee to identify the population at risk and the means of communication.

• Develop and carry out joint training exercises and emergency simulations: 0 develop mutual aid or assistance agreements; and 0 build stronger ties between the municipality and industry.

Most of these components are already in place in the City of Edmonton.

4.2.4 Emergency Response

Various components of Emergency Response are well accepted in the City of Edmonton. These are: Risk Assessment Guidelines

•

Use the risk assessment guidelines produced by MIACC to enhance the municipality's capability of assessing risks from hazardous substances located or transported through the area of a municipality.

Page 28 of 53

Qualification and Training Standards for Emergency Responders Achieve an effective and consistent level of response to major industrial accidents involving dangerous substances through enhanced capabilities of emergency response personnel.

•

Hazardous Substances Response Information Use the MIACC database of information on prevention, control, emergency medical treatment, mitigation and emergency response, to reduce the impact and severity of major industrial accidents involving dangerous substances.

Life-Cycle Management of Hazai-dous Substances Help businesses involved in the handling of hazardous substances, especially "downstream" small and medium-sized enterprises, to achieve a high level of safety consciousness. MIACC has produced a guideline on recommended practices for the life cycle management of hazardous substances.

4.2.5 Risk Communication and Public Participation

MIACC requires that a full public communication strategy be developed. This would include participation and communication. Such a strategy will need to be designed for the City of Edmonton Of the five elements of the MIACC model, risk reduction through land use controls presents the most difficulties of acceptance and implementation. This is discussed further below and in Section 5.

An 'Edmonton version' of the MIACC model is presented next.

4.3 THE MIACC RISK MANAGEMENT MODEL: EDMONTON VERSION

The previous section outlined the MIACC model elements and discussed their implications. This section presents an Edmonton version of the. MIACC model that is consistent with the City's values and operations and tries to deal more realistically with the fact that Edmonton is not a "greenfield," but a large metropolitan area. In situations where the MIACC model components are appropriate for the City of Edmonton, they are not repeated, though further discussion may be presented.

Page 29 of 53

•

4.3.1 Risk Reduction at Source •

The following is a summary of initiatives that could be introduced in Edmonton. Many of these risk reduction actions are currently being done by the City.

The licensing process: 1. Use the approval process by Alberta Environmental Protection, in accordance with the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, to regulate the development and operation of new industrial plants and expansion of existing operations.

2. Use, to the extent possible, inspections and regular monitoring by Alberta Environmental Protection and industry to ensure continued compliance with license conditions. The regulatory and enforcement roles of Alberta Environmental Protection are being severely reduced, leaving industry with greater responsibility to monitor itself.

Action by industry: 1. Industry updates its operations to improve technical efficiency and to take advantage of new technology. Changes will often bring improved safety and a reduced risk for the surrounding area.

•

2. Industry is required to conform to safety legislation (e.g. the Alberta Safety Codes Act), requiring that operations are conducted according to prescribed safety standards.

3. The role of industry as corporate citizens and their responsibilities to the community prompts managers to make every effort to reduce risk.

4. Implement the Canadian Chemical Producers Association Codes of Practice to create no unacceptable risk to employees, the public, customers and the environment.

5. Industry has a responsibility to develop an emergency plan.

6. Notify municipal officials if there is any change in processing, manufacture or storage of materials even where such changes are in accordance with a current license.

Action by the City:

•

1. The City exercise its responsibility under the Municipal Government Act (MGA), the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, the Safety Codes Act, the Dangerous Goods Act, etc. to ensure that industry does not pose a threat to public safety.

Page 30 of 53

•

2. Emergency Response Department to acknowledge hazards and do risk assessments for facilities posing significant health and safety risks.

This involves: •

Identifying potential hazards (classification of dangerous goods; identification of potentially dangerous activity; occupancies requiring special assistance).

•

Providing detailed information/establishing a comprehensive inventory.

•

Recommending emergency preparedness, deployment and response procedures.

•

Hazard assessment (hazard identification by category; probability analysis; consequence analysis; risk analysis) to develop a comprehensive emergency response plan.

3. The Dangerous Goods Team targets fixed site facilities, using MIACC lists of hazardous substances to identify high, intermediate and low risk hazards.

4. Emergency Response Department to annually inspect a target number of plants identified as potentially hazardous according to criteria of volume, size and ability to handle safety procedures, and make recommendations on storage, transportation methods and improved technology.

5. Implement the existing Dangerous Goods Management Plan: inventory of dangerous goods; information on storage (above and underground) and waste disposal; assessment of the company inspection plan. The company is to provide information within 30 days. If hazardous substances exceed MIACC recommended quantities, Emergency Response would do a risk assessment.

6. Under the MGA, the City approves facilities' safety plans prepared in accordance with the Canadian Standards Association (CAN/CSA-Z731-M91 Emergency Planning for Industry) or other appropriate standards and legislation.

4.3.2 Risk Reduction Through Land Use Planning The following is a discussion of measures which were examined as alternate actions to the MIACC requirements for risk-based land use planning. The recommended approach for Edmonton as presented in Section 6, may not include all components of this element.

Page 31 of 53

Municipal Development Plan 1. Do not define acceptable level of risk or identification of risk contours.

2. Include a policy to maintain separation distances between heavy industry and hazardous uses and specific uses. (Residential use; community, institutional and health facilities which are difficult to evacuate; uses accommodating children, the elderly and other less-mobile groups; facilities for large assemblies, etc.).

3. Incorporate a policy and process to regulate the intensification of uses within a specified distance of a hazard. A map of existing heavy industrial areas and known hazardous concentrations would be prepared, showing the area within which intensification would be limited.

4. Introduce transition zones around hazardous uses where other uses would be

restricted, with the least compatible with heavy industry and hazardous uses being located furthest away from the hazard source.

5. Identify industrial areas suitable for high impact uses to achieve a more effective separation of uses and make emergency planning and response easier. Include a map of these areas in the MDP.

6. Develop a risk assessment template for the purposes of developing guidelines for •

assessing the impacts of community and industry intensification and growth.

Land Use Bylaw 1. Provide hazard identification •

Heavy industry and hazardous uses would be defined in the Land Use Bylaw.

• The bylaw would contain criteria for identifying industrial uses, with examples.

The decision on the suitability of an industrial use for a particular land use district would be based on the performance of the use not the use itself. The MIACC mini-guide could provide the basis for evaluation.

• •

Industrial uses would be grouped in the bylaw, according to type of activity and potential impact. Each group would be described to allow proposed new developments to be allocated to the appropriate group.

• The use classes would be amended to reflect the different groups of industrial and hazardous uses. There is currently only one class of industrial uses which does not allow differences between types of activities to be distinguished.

•

• An impact assessment would be required when a redistricting or development permit application is received for a development of the more hazardous industrial activities, or for development within a specified distance of a hazard Page 32 of 53

source. A process would be set up to identify applications requiring a more detailed assessment through the internal referral process.

2. Mitigate impacts of hazardous uses by distance a) Land use districts

•

Revise industrial land use districts to reflect the differing impacts of industrial activities and hazardous uses, as detailed in the revised use classes, recognizing the need for a balance between level of detail and complexity, and regulatory effectiveness..

•

Prevent hazardous uses in inappropriate land use districts (IM, IB, commercial and residential).

•

Incorporate annexed area districts into the Land Use Bylaw.

•

Provide new transition zone districts.

•

Revise all existing districts so that no hazardous uses are permitted uses.

b) Redistricting

• The Bylaw should include the opportunity for a re-assessment of existing land use districts where a site has remained undeveloped for a specified time. A requirement could be made for a renewal of the land use district approval, allowing new information to be considered.

• Amend the land use districts within a specified distance of a hazard to prevent the intensification of existing uses and the development of incompatible uses in districted areas.

C) Use classes

• Ensure greater compatibility between use classes and land use districts . (e.g. stricter regulations or fewer discretionary uses).

3. No intensification of incompatible uses.

• A "grandfathering" provision would allow the continuation of existing uses and the intensification of that use. Such a provision should not be introduced because it would permit the continuation and intensification of existing uses.

• Apply a new land use district within a specified distance of a hazard, - with . no permitted uses and restricting certain uses or the expansion of existing uses.

Page 33 of 53

• • •

Make existing inCompatible uses non-conforming or make the hazard nonconforming so that the incompatibility would not be renewed.

Redistrict land where incompatible uses are located within a specified distance of a hazard.

Development Permit Process 1. Application for a permit for a hazardous use. a) At the time of submission of an application for a development permit for a hazardous use, details of the activity must be obtained, to identify to which group of industrial activities (in the Land Use Bylaw) the proposal belongs. b) Check the separation of the proposal from incompatible uses. If the proposal is within a specified distance of such uses, the development may not be recommended for approval. For certain types of industry or for particularly hazardous uses, further information may be required.

2. Application for a permit for an incompatible use within a specified distance of a hazard:

a) Check the location against a map showing specified distances from known •

hazards. If the proposal is within an area of potential impact, it may be

recommended for refusal.

4.3.3 Emergency Preparedness

Emergency Planning Committee (EPC) The Committee's mandate is to maintain City policies and procedures to ensure the City's ability to respond in an emergency and deal with the potential safety impacts of industry on the community (EPC Bylaw #9224). Elements include site management, community awareness and education, involving the Alberta Government regulatory agencies. (The extent of their role is likely to be much reduced, with greater responsibility for the monitoring of safety on site and approval of industry's safety plans being taken by the City.) Implementation is through co-ordination with many agencies and sub-committees in the Edmonton region.

Emergency Response Department Hazard Assessment/Risk Management Program

•

1. Identify, monitor and communicate to industry all potential hazards in each district.

Page 34 of 53

2. Provide detailed information on the hazards.

3. Recommend appropriate emergency preparedness, deployment and response procedures.

•

4. The goals of the program are: a) to establish a basis for balancing and comparing risks associated with hazards and a systematic means of improving the estimation and understanding of those risks; and b) to provide responsible and appropriate client services, which include prevention, protection and response services within an annual budget as approved by Council.

Emergency Preparedness by Industry Industry must follow the guidelines of the Canadian Standards Association on emergency planning for industry. The objective is to establish minimum criteria for emergency planning and provide guidance to owners and operators of private and public industrial facilities in the development of emergency preparedness and response plans.

Action in accordance with the Dangerous Goods Management Plan to produce an emergency response plan and strategies for dealing with a disaster. Industry's emergency response plan is to include a training plan and a site plan with a list of "special" land uses (i.e. those with particularly vulnerable populations, such as schools and hospitals) within 2 km.

4.3.4 Emergency Response

City of Edmonton Emergency Response Plan 1. Authority The Disaster Services Act directs the City of Edmonton to respond to, plan and prepare for emergencies and provides delegated authority for it to do so. City Bylaw 9224 requires the City to have an up-to-date emergency response plan and the ability to implement the plan to deal with a major emergency. Policy C457C identifies duties and responsibilities.

2. Procedure

Page 35 of 53

•

•

a) Disaster alert: early public warning; alert procedure; emergency operations callout list; implement emergency site management process. b) Maintain the Emergency Planning Committee and the Disaster Health Care Committee. c) Emergency Operations Centre activation: set up the emergency operations centre and the emergency public information centre. d) Hazard procedure checklist: basic emergency checklist; natural hazards; other hazards (including a major toxic spill, fire/explosion, dangerous emissions). e) Work with other agencies and Emergency Response Departments.

3. Emergency Response Department responsibilities

•

•

Response-resource deployment

•

Life safety-search and rescue

•

Emergency medical-triage and transport

• Hazard assessment •

Evacuation assistance

•

Fire suppression-strategy and tactics

•

Dangerous goods mitigation: control and containment

•

Participate in environmental protection with City departments

•

Communications

•

Participate in critical incident stress debriefing with Family and Community Services

•

Participate in corporate damage assessment

•

Restoration/recovery

•

Incident analysis

4. Risk Communication and Public Participation

•

A full corporate communication strategy is needed, to enable the efficient transfer of information within the administration and the effective communication of risk to the public. Awareness and education are the elements to be promoted, enhancing the

Page 36 of 53

existing capabilities of the Emergency Planning Committee, the Disaster/Health Care Committee and the Family and Community Services Committee.

4.3.5 Risk Communication and Public Participation The City, through its various departments, agencies, committees, and boards, is involved in a wide variety of methods of public involvement and communications (for example, point 4, above). Developing and implementing a broader plan for community dialogue around risk and heavy industry will depend on the experience with and use of the risk management approach adopted by the City.

This plan will need to carefully consider issues about the nature and impact of risk communication and public input while building on existing avenues and guidelines for community dialogue.

Page 37 of 53

•

5.0 EVALUATION SUMMARY OF MIACC LAND USE ELEMENT

As the scope of this study was a focus on issues of separation distances and heavy industry, this Section provides a detailed summary of the evaluation of land use components found in the risk management models described in Section 4.

5.1 LAND USE IN THE MIACC MODEL This section presents a detailed discussion of the evaluation of this element for risk reduction and land use control.

5.1.1 Municipal Development Plan 5.1.1.1

Establish an acceptable level of risk with proposals for appropriate land uses for areas with different risk levels.

An acceptable level of risk would be established through a policy as a basis for

planning guidelines and decision-making. The most feasible way of determining the risk level would be to adopt a technically-derived acceptable risk level. A risk level derived through public consultation would require public and political understanding and acceptance, which is difficult to achieve.

Implications: A policy stating an acceptable level of risk requires the administration to comply with this risk level. Failure to comply may result in liability. The acceptable risk level may be used more broadly and applied to truck routes, parks etc. The implications for the City should it adopt such a standard and the potential for civic liability must be examined.

Implementation Actions: A corporate acceptable level of risk should not be determined because of the potential impact on the perception of public safety, with no likelihood that all risk within the city could be reduced to an acceptable level. A technically-deriveeacceptable level of risk" may be used as a guideline in assessing specific risks, as necessary.

5.1.1.2

•

Policy to prevent intensification of incompatible uses in high risk areas.

The implementation of this policy would require fundamental changes to the Land Use Bylaw and is feasible only in limited circumstances. The policy would require the Page 38 of 53

imposition of restrictions on development which are contrary to existing land use district provisions. Widespread limitations on the expansion of existing uses or large-scale creation of non-conforming uses, are considered unacceptable to Council and the general public. Greater Emergency Response and Emergency Planning involvement and awareness would be needed in high risk areas to help offset the risk.

Implications: If a policy to prevent intensification of uses is to be effective, uses must be redefined to categorize industry and to reflect the capacity of heavy industry. A permit could then be issued for a limited range of activity, requiring a new permit for intensification.

Intensification could be defined in terms of an increase in risk. There would have to be major changes to the Land Use Bylaw to incorporate the concept of risk in place of nuisance as a basis for regulation of industrial activities. The policy would have implications for hazardous uses which are not heavy industries.

Implementation Actions: As part of the preparatory work for the MDP, a policy to prevent intensification of incompatible new or existing uses in areas of risk could be developed, with corresponding provisions in the Land Use Bylaw. The development of more effective linkages with Alberta Environmental Protection would ensure that intensification of industrial activities does not take place without consideration of the impact on existing uses and the separation of those uses from the industry.

The development of a land use regulatory system for heavy industry should be developed to include a definition of heavy industry and performance standards applied to the use, for inclusion in the Land Use Bylaw.

5.1.1.3

Policy to maintain separation distances between heavy industry and uses incompatible with heavy industry.

Maintaining separation distances is feasible where the Planning and Development Department is in a position to make a recommendation on land use (i.e. when a redistricting application is made). Separation could also be maintained in instances where a license must be issued (but no planning approval is required) if there were more effective linkages with Alberta Environmental Protection. Implementation of this policy would not be feasible in built-up areas or districted areas where uses which are incompatible with heavy industry are permitted and where a proposed permitted use complies with regulations. A development permit must be issued in this instance.

Implementation of the policy could be increased through major changes to the Land Use Bylaw. Where separation cannot be achieved, i.e. in developed areas, corporate initiatives to reduce risk at source are especially important. •

Page 39 of 53

•

•

Implications: The policy demands fundamental changes to the Land Use Bylaw. A strong political will is needed to bring about extensive redistricting of properties which would have major consequences for property owners. Land use districts would need to be specified such that a redistricting application would be needed for redevelopment to a more intensive use. There may be potential for decreasing development rights by applying an overlay to identified buffer areas. Some aspects of intensification are outside the jurisdiction of the City of Edmonton.

Implementation Actions: A policy, as part of the new MDP, would be developed to achieve a separation distance between incompatible uses which minimizes risk. More effective linkages would be developed with Alberta Environmental Protection to maintain separation through the licensing process. Measures would be required to prevent inappropriate development in undeveloped but districted areas within "buffer zones."

5.1.2 Land Use Bylaw

•

5.1.2.1

Identify heavy industrial and hazardous activities by MIACC categories, (also hazardous substances and quantities from the MIACC lists), define and amend use classes.

Incorporating the MIACC lists and categories in the new Land Use Bylaw would provide a rational basis for defining industrial uses. This approach may be feasible but it will require a significantly different approach to processing. The appropriateness ofthis could be further evaluated as part of the Land Use Bylaw review.

Implications: Greater staff expertise would be needed to administer the new approach. There would be greater potential for error and greater responsibility placed on the Development Officer. The information generated would be a significant part of a corporate information system, but education would be needed for acceptance of a new approach.

Care would be needed to ensure that regulation through the Land Use Bylaw is for a "proper planning purpose." In using MIACC's categories, public safety and risk are recognized as factors in land use planning.

Implementation Actions:

•

MIACC categories provide a useful basis for identifying iNdustrial activities. Use classes need to be amended and industry and hazardous uses defined as part of the Land Use Bylaw review. A public communication program would have to be developed.

Page 40 of 53

5.1.2.2

Use "acceptable level of risk" as a criterion in evaluating a development proposal, based on risk contours and risk assessment.

Use of "acceptable level of risk," based on risk contours and risk assessment is feasible, given appropriate expertise, acceptance by development proponents and enforcement of standards. It will be difficult to incorporate in the existing process and to achieve acceptance of the new standard. Additional resources will be required for education of the public, the development industry and Planning and Development Department staff.

Implications: This measure can only be used to change land use as part of the decision on discretionary uses or in redistricting for a specific use. For permitted uses, a permit must be issued if regulations are met. Although the permitted uses on a land parcel can only be changed by redistricting, there is potential for using an unacceptable level of risk ("in accordance with MIACC as revised from time to time") in the regulations applying to a particular area or land use district. Provision of risk assessment information is a complex process requiring specialist expertise, but the information is likely to be readily available for larger industrial operations. Using risk as a criterion for decision-making would be a major undertaking.

Implementation Actions: "Acceptable level of risk" should be used in evaluating development proposals only where appropriate. The potential for using risk levels as a basis for determining high impact proposals where appropriate should also be examined. The system of permitted and discretionary uses in the Land Use Bylaw should be examined to develop the most effective combination to deal with risk. An appropriate level of discretion should be determined for the development officer.

5.1.2.3

Revise land use districts to be compatible with use classes, to isolate high risk activities, and determine the balance of permitted and discretionary uses and include separation from risk sources.

Revision of land use districts and use classes is feasible as part of the Land Use Bylaw review but there are major implications for property owners. Existing development patterns must be recognized.

Implications: Revision of land use districts is the mechanism for achieving the policies proposed for the MDP. Widespread land use district changes will have major impacts on Page 41 of 53

•

development rights and land values. Implementation of this proposal requires strong political will.

Implementation Actions: The operation of the Land Use Bylaw could be made more effective by revising land use districts to be compatible with use classes. The potential for isolating high risk activities and determining the appropriate balance of permitted and discretionary uses would also need examination. Annexed area districts must be incorporated into the Land Use Bylaw. A detailed examination of affected uses and the impacts of changes on existing uses should be included in the Land Use Bylaw review.

5.2 LAND USE IN THE 'EDMONTON VERSION'

5.2.1 Municipal Development Plan

5.2.1.1

Policy to maintain set separation distances between heavy industry and incompatible uses.

Explicit separation distances, based on risk levels, could be included in a policy as •

targets for development in new areas. The need to establish a set separation distance can serve as a basis for re-evaluating some of the provisions of the Land Use Bylaw, recognizing existing development. A policy maintaining a set separation distance provides greater certainty for new development but can have little effect on existing developed properties. Where this policy will be impossible to achieve, other risk management elements from Emergency Response and Emergency Planning become a •. greater priority.

Implications: Setting a target distance necessitates the determination of a distance which can be used with confidence. The distance could be based on MIACC recommendations With advice from industry, but the justification would be difficult to apply to specific sites.

Use of an explicit distance may bring liability to the City if the set standard cannot be met, but an acceptable defence may be that the City is taking all reasonable steps to maintain protection of property and life safety. A policy to maintain a set separation distance will lead to evaluation on an individual application basis. A strong commitment from politicians will be needed.

Implementation Actions: A policy to maintain separation distances between heavy industry and incompatible uses would need to be developed as part of the MDP review. Target distances may be Page 42 of 53

considered for new development areas by using them as an indicator that an application needs further examination.

5.2.1.2

Prevent intensification of uses in transition zones, within a specified distance of heavy industry, with areas for high impact uses isolated.

There are opportunities for changing land use districts but the resources required for extensive changes are too great. Limiting the establishment of specific uses, such as those with vulnerable populations (i.e. daycares, schools, hospitals), may be an effective approach in the review of the Land Use Bylaw. A regulation which renders large numbers of properties non-conforming is not considered acceptable to the public and Council. Additionally, mitigating steps and provisions for preventing intensification of non-conforming properties is desirable.

Implications: "Intensification of uses" may relate to intensification of risk, expansion of existing properties, an increase in units in residential properties, redevelopment of a site in a built-up area and the development of a districted site within a developed area.

Measures to prevent intensification in all instances will have differing implications. The situations where worthwhile results can be achieved must be identified.

Implementation Actions: A policy for the MDP which defines and allows for the creation of transition zones would need to be developed. A land use regulatory system for heavy industry may include a definition of "intensification" and "transition zones" for inclusion in the Land Use Bylaw.

Guidelines for transition zone uses, identifying their external impacts would be developed to identify their external impacts. Specific uses involving vulnerable populations need to be reviewed to assess the need for separation from heavy industry.

5.2.1.3

Include a definition of heavy industry and hazardous uses with

•

identification criteria and a grouping of activities. Amend use classes.

Provisions for identifying heavy industry and hazardous uses can be incorporated in the Land Use Bylaw review. Amendments are needed to rationalize the approach to heavy industry and to provide more information for the development process.

Implications: While the Land U ..;e Bylaw review provides an opportunity for extensive changes to the use classes and a more rigorous and detailed development process, there will be

Page 43 of 53

•

pressure for less regulation in the new bylaw, rather than more. If more information is required, more resources and expertise will be needed to evaluate it.

Implementation Actions: There may be a need to include a reference to public safety in the land use regulatory system for "heavy industry". Consider the use of "risk" as a further variable. Specific information to identify proposed industrial activities would be required for an evaluation by experts in other agencies. A corporate data system would allow corporate access to information obtained through the development process.

5.2.2 Land Use Bylaw

5.2.2.1

Revise land use districts to be compatible with use classes, to reflect differing impacts of industrial activities, to isolate high risk activities, accommodate transitional uses, reduce permitted uses and include separation provisions from risk sources. Incorporate annexed area districts.

These measures are feasible but require considerable resources to implement. They •

are appropriate to achieve a more effective Land Use Bylaw. The revisions would set up a mechanism for regulating uses to achieve a higher level of public safety, while recognizing the need for balance between complexity and detail, and regulatory effectiveness.

Implications: Some resistance may be expected if there is an attempt to redefine IH and IM land use districts.

Implementation Actions: New approaches to land use districts are needed to allow more flexibility among industrial uses. Especially hazardous heavy industries would require a special land use district.

5.2.2.2

•

Prevent intensification within a specified distance of a potential risk.

Define intensification. Include a "grandfathering" provision. Apply a new land use district restricting certain uses.

Some action is feasible where discretionary uses are concerned, but the public always has the right to submit a redistricting application which may be approved by -Council.

Page 44 of 53

The appropriateness and feasibility of "grandfathering" is still open to question.

Alternate methods for preventing intensification need to be considered/developed.

Implications: "Grandfathering" is a means of recognizing an existing use and allowing it to continue with no impediment. "Grandfathering" is contrary to the non-conformity provisions.

Implementation Actions: "Grandfathering" is not a satisfactory means for preventing intensification. Other specific measures need to be examined. In situations where intensification is not preventable, information on the proposed uses should be obtained through the development and other processes. This may impact emergency preparedness plans for the area intensified.

5.3 SUMMARY The MIACC model offers a rational basis for identifying uses and regulating development to reduce the risk from heavy industry. It provides a measurable standard and a consistent approach. The MIACC lists enable a more precise identification of industrial and other hazardous uses. These attributes can make a significant contribution to improved public safety. However, the MIACC approach involves a technically complex assessment of risk and an explanation which is difficult to communicate. The decision on an acceptable level of risk involves an intensive political process to incorporate community values. There would be a significant impact on individual properties, which must be balanced against the public good. Widespread non-conformity is considered unacceptable and there is a continuing problem with the development rights conferred by land use districts with permitted uses.

While the "pure" MIACC model may have too many negative impacts on property and development in the city and be too difficult to implement fully, there are elements of the

MIACC approach which offer a new perspective on the regulation of land uses and • which can help to achieve separation distances between heavy industry and incompatible uses. The proposed review of the Land Use Bylaw and the new Municipal Development Plan provide opportunities for the use of a modified MIACC approach as recommended from the 'Edmonton version' in Section 6.0. •

Page 45 of 53

•

•

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This section summarizes the key findings and recommendations for an approach to risk management for Edmonton.

6.1

KEY FINDINGS

The MIACC model and approach is valuable for various operations of the City of Edmonton. For risk reduction at source, emergency preparedness and emergency response the MIACC elements are feasible and appropriate. The City of Edmonton already follows several adaptations from the MIACC model in these areas.

The key difficulty with the MIACC model was its approach to land use controls and current City operations in risk reduction. The MIACC land use element was considered not feasible nor appropriate in its entirety in Edmonton because: 1.

This element presents a "greenfields" perspective for land use planning with less focus on existing uses. This approach could result in a large number of nonconforming uses.

2.

An acceptable risk level and separation distance are not applicable city-wide, as risk levels vary throughout the city and though time.

3.

"Grandfathering" of existing uses is not an effective tool to prevent intensification.

4.

The MIACC model presents a "plant-out" perspective of a probabilistic occurrence of a catastrophic event. This is but one perspective that the City must consider as it assesses the community's values about risk of existing and future development and balances these values through its land use planning process.

The study team found the Edmonton adaptation of MIACC was more feasible and appropriate as it addressed the development realities in Edmonton (Edmonton version') while also building on other valuable elements of the MIACC model. The study team observed that the City's risk of civil liability to persons who might claim compensation for an injury suffered as a result of an industrial mishap, may increase as incorporating the consideration of public risk and public safety moves from the realm of policy statements to operational activities.

•

For land use, the team concluded that risk perspectives that are community-based, longer term, elative (to existing risks and land uses), and fair (as balanced between conflicting demands) should be the basis for land use policy decisions. Public .

Page 46 of 53

participation and risk Communication strategies will need to be developed. Further work needs to be done in this area depending on the outcome of this study.

6.2 COST AND BENEFIT PERSPECTIVE A benefit and cost assessment of the recommended approach is in itself a complex process. Just as "risk" is difficult to characterize and quantify, so too is the cost/benefit of a risk management approach to City operation and regulation. A qualitative list includes: Benefits: Provides a consistent policy framework to address issues arising from heavy industry and separation distances/transition zones which can be built into the Municipal Development Plan and potentially applied to other industry classes (besides heavy industry).

Revisions of the Land Use Bylaw can benefit from a risk management approach.

There is a structure and process for an ongoing dialogue among the City and various interest/community groups.

Costs: There is City staff time and resources to understand, develop and use the necessary tools to implement and operationalize a risk management approach. Time and effort is also required of various groups interested in these land use issues.

There may be potential increase in liability.

At this time, direct costs for implementation are unknown. Potentially significant costs could arise from specific situations and proposals for the City and private sector.

Further work will be required to better identify costs and benefits.

6.3 CONCLUSIONS

The following approach to risk management for Edmonton is a feasible and appropriate adaptation of the MIACC model that meets the City's via the Municipal Government Act mandate of supporting "safe and viable communities." Table 4 presents a complete list of recommendations for consideration by the Administration in implementing the following approach to risk management.

The recommended approach requires the following four key elements: 1.

Ongoing corporate support for the activities and initiatives directed towards: Page 47 of 53

•

a. b. c.

2.

risk reduction at source; emergency preparedness; and emergency response to heavy industrial accidents.

The Municipal Development Plan (MOP) incorporate risk management concepts through policies on various topics such as intensification, separation distances, and transition zones.

The Land Use Bylaw (LUB) incorporate risk management concepts through various activities such as the revision of the land use districts, land use classes, and permitted and discretionary uses and examine new regulatory approaches to achieve greater flexibility among industrial land uses.

•

3.

Development of a strategic public participation and risk communication plan based on experience with the use and implementation of the recommended approach to risk management and in keeping with current guidelines and practices for community dialogue.

4.

A corporate plan for co-ordination, information exchange and training to support policy and decision-making that incorporates concepts of risk management.

6.4 ACTION PLAN The list of recommended elements (except 3, above) will be co-ordinated by the Office of Studies and Budget with a corporate-wide working committee to be set up following approval of the recommended approach. The following are initial steps for the Action Plan: i)

ii)

iii)

Incorporate elements of the recommended approach to risk management concepts in the MDP and, if appropriate, the Land Use Bylaw, including an approach to non-conforming uses; Set up a corporate task team to co-ordinate the implementation of risk management, including the development and testing of a risk assessment template; Meet with various industry and community groups to discuss study results.

These actions will start immediately. Policy is targeted to be in place by the statutory deadline of the Municipal Development Plan (September 1998): Specific cases involving the City will also be addressed as they emerge.

The MOP (Plan Edmonton) process requires a policy development phase through 1997. This will allow input by various communities of interest on risk management and land use which will be a basis for possible changes to the Land Use Bylaw. •

Page 48 of 53

Table 4: Recommendations for the Edmonton Approach to Risk Management The MIACC Model element is the same as the Edmonton approach for this component The MIACC Model element is not the same as the Edmonton approach for this component

X

Model Elements .

Recommended Edmonton Approach

MIACC Model

Comments

RISK REDUCTION AT SOURCE Apply MIACC mini-guide to industries with low risk potential.

../

Currently used by Emergency Response Department (ERD).

Use hazardous substances and threshold quantities list to identify potential impact of hazard sources.

i

Currently used by ERD.

Use tools that are used by Industry,

X Use SERI3 software to evaluate risk from hazardous substances and to provide a risk ranking of locations.

The City may want to review the use of these tools from a corporate perspective.

Use OECD.' annual consolidation of world-wide events.

al

Currently available to ERD.

Use MIACC accident prevention directory.

I

Currently available to ERD.

Life-cycle management of hazardous substances

No action required.

X Use guideline on recommended practices for life-cycle management of hazardous substances.

This is an industry responsibility.

Process safety management

Use the MIACC guide on effective process safety management.

.1

Currently used by ERD.

Safety audits

Undertake environmental health and safety audits to

.1

The City should explore this area to strengthen its

Risk assessment guidelines

Accident reviews

capacity for such audits.

enhance quality of prevention, preparedness and response programs.

The licensing process

Build stronger links with the provincial government for use of the Alberta Environmental Protection approval process to regulate the development, operation, and intensification of

(Not relevant to the MIACC model.) .

industrial plants.

3

Systematic Evaluation of Risk in Industry for Economic Co-operation and Development

4 Organization

Note:

Specific actions in the Recommended Edmonton Approach may be modified as ongoing evaluation and monitoring occurs.

Page 49 of 53

Model Elements The licensing process (cont.)

.

41110

Use Alberta Environmental Protection and industry inspections and regular monitoring to ensure continued compliance with license conditions,

Comments

MIACC Model

The regulatory and enforcement roles of Alberta Environmental Protection are being reduced, leaving industry with greater responsibility to monitor itself.

(Not relevant to the MIACC model.)

RISK REDUCTION THROUGH LAND USE CONTROL

Municipal Development Plan (MDP)

•

Recommended Edmonton Approach

,

Include reference to 'public safety" in the MDP. Consider the use of "risk" as a decision variable.

X Incorporate an "acceptable level of risk."

Need a corporate vision on values of public safety.

Use a risk assessment template in assessing specific risks on a case by case basis.

x Establish risk contours as a basis for land use planning,

Incorporate corporate and public values on safety as part of risk assessment.

X Incorporate guidelines for appropriate land uses within areas recognizing risk contours.

As a result of not recommending the use of risk contours

Do not determine a corporate

X Incorporate an

The potential negative

"acceptable level of risk".

"acceptable level of risk."

impact on the perception of public safety, with no likelihood that all risk within the city could be reduced to an acceptable level.

Note:

Develop policy on intensification as part of new MOP, with corresponding provisions in the Land Use Bylaw.

./ Incorporate policy to prevent intensification of existing incompatible uses within high risk areas.

MOP and Land Use Bylaw review are being planned.

Develop a policy for the MDP which defines and allows for the creation of transition zones.

i

As part of the planned MDP review.

Incorporate policy to maintain separation distances between industry and other hazardous uses and incompatible uses.

i

Identify industrial areas suitable for high impact uses to achieve more effective separation of uses and make emergency planning and emergency response easier.

i

..

..

As part of the planned MDP review.

Specific actions in the Recommended Edmonton Approach may be modified as ongoing evaluation and monitoring occurs.

Page 50 of 53

Model Elements Municipal Development Plan (cont.)

Land Use Bylaw 1. Hazard

2. Assessment of Risk

3. Mitigation of impacts of hazardous uses by distance

Note:

Recommended Edmonton Approach

MIACC Model

Comments

MIACC component not recommended.

X Conduct risk assessment of existing heavy industries and major hazards.

MIACC component not recommended.

X Conduct risk assessment in areas where industrial developments could be approved under existing land use districts.

MIACC component not recommended.

x Include policy requiring full public involvement, with risk assessments, for major industrial or hazardous proposals.

Existing opportunities for development process public involvement in the Municipal Government Act (MGA).

Use MIACC categories as a basis for identifying hazardous industrial activities.

V Identify heavy industrial and hazardous activities.

No categorization at present.

Define "heavy industry" in the Land Use Bylaw to include a reference to public safety.

(Not relevant for MIACC.)

No definition at present.

Use MIACC categories as a tool for the development officer to identify potential hazards.

V Identify hazardous substances and their quantities.

No categorization at present.

Use MIACC categories as a basis for identifying industrial processes and operations.

I Identify industrial process, plant operation.

No categorization at present.

Use a risk assessment template in evaluating development proposals, on a case by case basis.

X Use definition of "acceptable level of risk" in MDP.

Use various risk indicators and measures on a case by case basis.

Use development regulations in the Land Use Bylaw to help reduce risk at source.

J Ensure risk reduction at source.

These regulations would complement other codes of safety (e.g. fire code).

Require risk assessments in

X Examine the potential

The implications of this

addition to other qualitative

for using risk assessments

assessments.

for evaluating high impact proposals.

issue needs an in-depth review.

Do not use risk contours in the MDP and the Land Use Bylaw.

X Incorporate risk contours in the MDP and Land Use Bylaw and revise land use districts based on risk contours.

Identify especially hazardous heavy industries and consider a special land use district, based on appropriate criteria.

.

Examine new approaches to land use districts which may allow more flexibility among industrial and a mix of uses.

Specific actions in the Recommended Edmonton Approach may be modified as ongoing evaluation and monitoring occurs.

Page 51 of 53

•

Model Elements

Recommended Edmonton

Revise redistricting information requirements/procedures to be consistent with new land use districts, not risk contours,

x Revise redistricting procedures to support risk contoured land use districts.

New procedures would be needed to process this additional information on hazards.

3. Mitigation of impacts of hazardous uses by distance (cont.)

Revise land use districts to be compatible with new industrial land use classes,

i Revise land use classes to support land use districts.

Revise industrial categories in the Land Use Bylaw.

4. No intensification of existing incompatible uses in high risk areas

Examine specific measures to prevent intensification from industry and community perspectives through the Land Use Bylaw. .

i Re-examine the provisions of the residential, commercial and institutional land use districts.

Land Use Bylaw review is being planned.

"Grandfathering" provisions are not recommended.

X Incorporate risk-based "grandfathering" provisions for existing uses.

-Grandfathering" delays the transition to uses compatible with revised districts.

Other specific measures must be examined to address

Revisions need to consider the impact on existing (non conforming) uses

Non conforming provision in the MGA may be a

potential non-conforming uses.

•

•

Comments

MIACC Model

Approach

valuable tool for preventing intensification.

Examine the potential for isolating high risk activities and determining the appropriate balance between permitted and discretionary uses.

I Make uses nonconforming where a severe conflict exists between a hazard and surrounding uses.

Redistrict land where necessary to reflect revised industrial land use districts,

X Redistrict land where incompatible uses are within unacceptably high risk levels.

5. Public involvement

Assess the use of information on risk in public notification and participation,

X Revise public notification requirements to include risk.

Development Permit Process

Evaluate the use of risk as one factor in the determination of land use classes and permitted/discretionary uses by development officers.

X Refuse a permit if the level of risk is unacceptable.

This is a complex issue requiring a well designed process.

Corporate Coordination

Provide for information and coordination across City departments,

(Not relevant to the MIACC model)

A corporate structure of information exchange/flow requires development be reviewed by corporate task . team.

Note:

.

'

-•

Specific actions in the Recommended Edmonton Approach may be modified as ongoing evaluation and monitoring occurs.

Page 52 of 53

Model Elements Public Communication

Recommended Edmonton Approach

MIACC Model

Comments

(Not relevant to the MIACC model)

This process must allow time for public education and response.

Determine risk to the community.

J

Part of current City Preparedness Plan.

Gather and share information.

I

Part of current City Preparedness Plan.

Integrate municipal & industry emergency response plans.

i

Part of current City Preparedness Plan.

Identify and obtain communications equipment, systems and procedures.

J

Part of current City Preparedness Plan.

Develop methods and procedures for communicating with the public and the media.

l

Part of current City Preparedness Plan.

Develop and carry out joint training exercises and emergency simulations.

V

Part of current City Preparedness Plan.

Develop mutual aid or assistance agreements.

../

Part of current City Preparedness Plan.

Develop strategy for communicating changes in the MDP/Land Use Bylaw that result from implementation of these recommendations (above).

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE Use MIACC risk assessment guidelines.

Part of current ERD Risk Assessment Plan.

Ensure consistent qualification and training standards for emergency responders.

I

Part of current ERD Training Plan.

Use MIACC database of

I

Part of current ERD Risk

hazardous substances

Assessment Plan... Other

response information,

databases are also used.

Do not use life-cycle management of hazardous substances.

X Use life-cycle

management of hazardous substances,

RISK COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Develop a communication/participation strategy.

Note:

1

Not done by ERD. Done by federal and provincial governments and industry. .

This requires further work and analysis based on recommendations presented above.

Specific actions in the Recommended Edmonton Approach may be modified as ongoing evaluation and monitoring occurs.

Page 53 of 53

BIBLIOGRAPHY Berry, B.J. et al. Land Use. Urban Form and Environmental Quality, University of Chicago, 1974.

Bovar-Concord Environmental. "Risk Assessment and Management for Municipalities and Industry." Lecture Notes, 1995.

Dean, W.R. and P.B. Thompson. "The Varieties of Risk." Working Paper ERC95-3, Eco-Research Chair, University of Alberta, 1995.

Edmonton General Municipal Plan, Bylaw 9076, November, 1990.

Goldstein, B. "The Characterization of Risk: Who, What, When, Where and How Much." EcoResearch Chair Seminar Series, University of Alberta, 1995.

Haworth, L. "Value Assumptions in Risk Assessment." EcoResearch Chair Seminar Series, University of Alberta, 1995.

Hrudey, S.E. "Risk Ranking: Beware the Danger of Misplaced Confidence."

Environmental Risk Management Newsletter, Vol 2, No 1, March 1995.

Hrudey, S.E. "A Critical Review of Current Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management." Environmental Risk Management Working Paper, ERC 96-8.

University of Alberta.

Industrial Zoning, City of Toronto Planning Board, February, 1978.

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) "Risk, Policy and Complexity." IIASA 1995 Research Plan.

IPS Consulting Inc. Kinokamau Plains Separation Distance Determination Study.

December, 1993.

IPS Consulting Inc. Land Uses in the Transition Zone between Heavy Industry and Residential Development in Strathcona County: Safety and Nuisance Land Use Criteria. December, 1992.

Lee, J.A. The Environment, Public Health and Human Ecology, John Hopkins University Press, 1985.

Lepp, J. & Hodgins D. "A Risk Management Approach to Separation Distances and Transition Zones between Heavy Industry and Other Land Uses." Paper presented to Prevention, Preparedness & Response to Major Industrial Accidents Involving Hazardous Substances. November 5-6, 1996, Edmonton, Alberta.

Metropolitan Plan Review, Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, 1988.

Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada (MIACC). "Risk-Based Land Use Planning guidelines." June 1995.

Moffet, John. "Environmental priority setting based on comparative risk and public input," Canadian Public Administration, Vol 39, No. 3, Fall 1996, pp362-385.

Molalc, Vlasta (ed). "Fundamentals of Risk Analysis and risk Management," Lewis, 1997.

-1 -

Paustenbach, D. "Retrospective on U.S. Health Risk: How Others can Benefit", Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, Vol. 6, P. 283. 1995.

Province of Alberta. "Municipal Government Act", 1994.

Province of Alberta., Order in Council, Land Use Policies. C. 522/96 Schwab, J. Industrial Performance Standards for a New Century. American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report Number 444.

Shrader-Frechette, K. "Evaluating the Expertise of Experts." Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, Vol. 6, p. 115. 1995.

The Edmonton Land Use Bylaw No. 5996.

Veitch, I.B. Land Use Buffers: Policies and Applications for Municipal Planning in Ontario. Land Use Co-ordination Section, Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Thomas Allen & Son Ltd, Toronto. 1981.

Whittaker, J. "Bargains and Choices: A Rationale for Regulating Land Use Adjacent to Pipelines." Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, Sept. 1996.

Edmonton, Alberta.

Whittaker, J. "Land Use Control Adjacent to Pipelines." Paper presented to Prevention, Preparedness & Response to Major Industrial Accidents Involving Hazardous Substances. November 5-6, 1996, Edmonton, Alberta.

Zoning News, American Planning Association, February, 1990.

2

Appendix 1

•

Terms of Reference

•

I

The Development of Separation Distances and Transition Zones Between Heavy Industry and Other I and Uses in Rimonton RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.

That the terms of reference for the study of the feasibility and appropriateness of a risk management approach for heavy industry separation distances and transition zones (Enclosure I) be approved.

HISTORY At the meeting on January 11, 1994, City Council approved the terms of reference for the development of policy guidelines on separation distances and transition zones between heavy industry and other uses.

•

DISCUSSION The project was initiated for three reasons. First, the Strathcona Industrial Association (SIA) requested the City of Edmonton to develop appropriate buffer distances and transition zones between residential development and heavy industry to prevent encroachment. Second, over the past three years there have been thirteen development proposals where separation distance was an issue. In several cases, the proponent undertook additional study to address separation and compatibility issues. Finally, the County of Strathcona is defining transition zones adjacent to Edmonton and the Planning and Development Department felt it was

appropriate to attempt to address the issues in a reciprocal manner.

The Planning and Development Department organized a working committee of interested agencies and representatives from adjoining jurisdictions. The Department held a series of meetings from January to June 1994 to discuss issues and research findings. Edmonton has a complex distribution of heavy industry, with differing impacts arising from their operations, site conditions and surrounding uses. There is a need for separation distances from heavy industry to augment on-site controls, to provide additional safety buffers and to reduce nuisances such as noise and glare.

The Department concluded that a fixed, specified minimum separation distance for all heavy industry in Edmonton is not a practical solution, given the existing pattern of land uses and separation distances. Based on this conclusion, in June 1994 the Department proposed a site-specific approach which would operate through the development process considering the environmental impacts of the proposal. The process would be reciprocal, applying to both heavy industry and adjacent uses within a specified distance.

•

The Department's proposed approach was not acceptable to the SIA and the working committee suggested other options be defined. The SIA felt the Department's approach would lack certainty by not preventing the intensification of incompatible uses close to industry and it required their ongoing participation in the review of development. The SIA favoured an option involving excluding land uses attracting difficult-to-evacuate people within 1.5 km of heavy industry and restricting other high intensity uses within 1.5 to 3 km of heavy industry. The Department did not support this option because it could create a large number of nonconforming uses in terms of the land use bylaw and there was insufficient documentation of impacts to support such extensive restrictions on development.

Since July 1994, further discussions have led to the identification and analysis of eleven other options to try and find a mutually acceptable solution. The Department's review of the options led to the conclusion that no single option provides an immediate solution which resolves the concerns of Planning and Development and the SIA. The SIA concurred in this assessment.

However, one option identified through the committee work that warranted further investigation was the risk management approach to land use planning and heavy industry proposed by the Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada (MIACC). As proposed by MIACC, risk management requires the integration of five initiatives: risk reduction at source; risk reduction by land use controls; emergency preparedness; emergency response and risk communication and public participation. Risk reduction by land use control involves identifying appropriate land uses within risk contours from heavy industry and determining acceptable levels of risk.

Integrating several departmental functions within the risk management framework is required to address issues such as due diligence, liability,, use of risk contours and restrictions on land use. Edmonton does not have the integrated approach to risk management of heavy industry separation distances proposed by MIACC, although there are ongoing activities in all five components. Addressing the issues requires a joint study coordinated by the Office of Studies and Budget and involving the Planning and Development Department, the Emergency Planning Officer, the Emergency Response Department and the Office of the City Solicitor.

Other civic departments will be involved, as required. The proposed study will evaluate the corporate feasibility and appropriateness of the risk management approach to separation distances between incompatible uses and the management of risks inherent in the existing distribution of heavy industrial uses. The SIA accepts the need for the City to consider the appropriateness of risk management for heavy industry.

The terms of reference are attached as Enclosure I. Prior to the completion of the corporate project, Planning and Development will continue to.apply current policies and procedures to assess adequate separation distances.

JUSTIFICATION The risk management approach may offer a framework for addressing issues associated with determining heavy industrial separation distances and transition zones and warrants further investigation. However, the City has not previously evaluated or applied risk management to this topic. The activity is significantly different than the project as undertaken initially in

January 1994. New terms of reference and a corporate approach are now required to • consider the feasibility and appropriateness of the risk management approach in land use planning for heavy industrial separation distances.

ENCLOSURE Terms of reference on the feasibility and appropriateness of 8 risk management approach to heavy industrial separation distances and transition zones in the City of Edmonton.

Written by: Harvey Crone Approved by: Bruce Duncan Planning and Development Department Approved by: Ron Liteplo Office of the City Solicitor November 21, 1994

Approved by: Tom Podlubny Emergency Planning Officer

•

•

TERMS OF REFERENCE THE FEASIBILITY AND APPROPRIATENESS OF A RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL SEPARATION DISTANCES AND TRANSITION ZONES IN THE CITY OF EDMONTON

1.

INTRODUCTION As part of the project to determine appropriate separation distances and transition zones between heavy industry and other uses, the Planning and Development Department analyzed a series of policy and regulatory options.

The conclusion from this process was that no single option offered a satisfactory means of establishing an adequate separation distance between heavy industry and incompatible uses.

One option which potdntially provides a comprehensive framework to address the range of issues associated with development adjacent to heavy industry is the risk management approach developed by the Major Industrial Accident Council of Canada, (MIACC). The City of Edmonton currently incorporates elements of risk management to heavy industry, but the approach is not applic.ble in an integrated manner.

•

•

2. PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to examine the components of risk management as put forward by MIACC and evaluate its feasibility and appropriateness for resolving issues associated with heavy industrial separation distances in the City of Edmonton.

3.

SCOPE The study will have a corporate approach, involving staff from departments with responsibilities which relate to risk management and heavy industry. Five specific features of risk management will be covered: risk reduction at source; risk reduction by land use controls; emergency preparedness; emergency response and risk communication and public participation. These features will be evaluated specifically in relation to heavy industrial uses, their impacts and departmental activities.

4.

AREAS OF EXAMINATION The focus of the study will be on issues surrounding the use of land use controls to reduce the risks associated with heavy industry. The starting point for the study will be the approach outlined in the MIACC reports on risk management in land use planning. The three main issues to be addressed are the need for an approach to existing uses; the prevention of intensification of

incompatible uses encroaching on heavy industry and the corporate use of risk management.

Associated with the third issue are a number of topics since the City has not used risk management in land use planning. Among the topics needing analysis are the following: • what are the legal liability issues with developing and using risk management?

• how or should risk contours get reflected or incorporated in the land use bylaw?

• the application of the concept of acceptable levels of risk • is due diligence applicable to risk assessment for heavy industry? what constitutes due diligence with risk assessment and land use bylaws?

• what should be the process for creating public acceptability for the results from a risk management approach?

• what is the length of time to make the concept of risk management operational in Edmonton?

• who pays for the studies to determine risk contours? who updates and when?

• what areas of the City and types of industries should be included in the risk management process?

The extent of current risk management practices in areas such as emergency response will be examined to ensure that a risk management approach to land use planning would be compatible with existing operations.

Further issues are raised by the recent publication of the "Alberta Planning Act Review, '94 Proposals." Land use planning decisions may require more accountability at the local level and the provincial government may give more policy direction on protecting existing heavy industry from encroachment from incompatible land uses.

5.

RESULTS The result of the study will be conclusions and recommendations on the benefits, costs, and appropriateness of using a risk management approach to address the issues surrounding the impacts and distribution of heavy industry.

Analysis of results will provide the basis for making a corporate recommendation on the use of risk management to deal with the separation of heavy industry and other uses.

6.

CORPORATE PARTICIPANTS The Office of Studies and Budget will co-ordinate the project, with work undertaken by the Planning and Development Department, Office of. the City Solicitor, the Emergency Planning Officer and Emergency Response Department. Other departments will also be involved as the issues are defined.

•

0

7.

PROPOSED SCHEDULE The work will extend over nine month period, with a report to Executive Committee by the fall of 1995.

Planning and Development Office of the City Solicitor Emergency Planning Office November 1994

•

•

Appendix 2

•

Evaluation Criteria

•

•

•

Objectives

Program - Oriented 1.

To reduce risk at source to the public and site personnel from hazardous processes and substances.

Criteria

1.1 Effectiveness in reducing risk and maintaining acceptable level.

1.2 Meets municipal responsibility and due diligence requirements.

2.

To maintain adequate separation between heavy industry/hazards and other uses through land use controls.

2.1 Effectiveness in maintaining separation.

2.2 Compatibility with existing planning system.

2.3 Extent of legislative change required.

2a.

To deal with existing uses in a reasonable fashion.

To regulate intensification of existing uses and new uses.

2.4 Impact on existing uses.

3.

Emergency Preparedness: to be prepared for all types of emergencies.

3.1 Emergency Plan.

3.2 Corporate approach/commitment.

4.

Emergency Response: - to respond quickly

4.1 Response time.

2b.

and effectively to

all emergencies.

4.2 Knowledge of hazards.

4.3 Appropriate response to different hazards.

5.

Risk Communication and Public Participation: To undertake effective communication of risk with the public.

Corporate - Oriented To work jointly and share responsibility 6. with industry and other levels of government.

7.

To keep liability to an acceptable

5.1 Ease of communication.

6.1 Meets S.I.A./industry requirements.

7.1

Extent and acceptability of increased liability.

minimum.

•

8.

To maintain Edmonton's economic development potential and "open for business" attitude.

8.1 Impact on the development process.

8.2 Consistent with 'open for business' approach.

9.

To develop a corporate process for information flow.

9.1 Consistent with other corporate initiatives.

9.2 Allows referral to other departments.

10.

To minimize budget increase.

10.1 Additional staff/training required.

10.2 Costs of implementation. .