GIS Hazardous Spills Risk Analysis Results & Next Steps

1. GIS Hazardous Materials Spill Risk Analyses Results and Next Steps Herrera Environmental ConsultantsClackamas River Water Providers Jennifer Schmidt, GISP January 2015

2. Presentation Outline • Project Background • Emergency response planning goals • GIS risk analyses objectives • Spill response inventory • GIS Risk Analyses Methods and Results • 2013-2014 analysis results • Next steps

3. Project Background • Ultimate Goals: • Reduce chaos and confusion immediately following a spill • Develop GIS-based mobile emergency response plan for use by first responders • First Steps: • Map areas at highest risk for potential hazardous materials spills (analysis began in 2013 and refined in 2014) • Identify sensitive resources critical for protection (such as drinking water intakes)

4. 2013 GIS Hazardous Spills Risk Analyses • Analysis Objectives: • Use available GIS data to identify hazardous spill risk “hot spots” in the Clackamas River watershed • Grouped into four categories: • Transportation Infrastructure and Safety • Historic and Repeat Spills • Hazardous Substance Storage Facilities and Potential Contaminant Sources • Sensitive Resources

5. Transportation Infrastructure and Safety • Where are high-risk areas in the watershed from a transportation safety perspective? • Methods: • Map transportation infrastructure (freight routes, structural deficiencies, etc.) • Map ODOT Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) results • Map historic crashes and identify high-density crash clusters • Results: Highest density of historic crashes is at the bottom of the watershed

6. Historic Crash Locations Map based on data extracted from the ODOT Crash Analysis and Reporting Database (01/08 – 05/13)

7. Historic and Repeat Spills • Where have spills occurred historically and more than once? • Methods: • Map historic spills and identify high-density spill clusters from: a) Vehicles b) Fixed sources • Map repeat spill locations • Calculate cumulative facility risk score for fixed sources based on spill frequency, quantity, density, and proximity to the Clackamas River.

8. Historic and Repeat Spills • Results • Fixed source spills are more clustered than vehicle spills. • Highest density spill clusters are at the bottom of the watershed west of Happy Valley. • Several facilities have had multiple historic spills • No spill clusters on HWY 26, despite it being a high safety risk • Limitations: Spills analyzed together regardless of substance released, quantity; storm water system not analyzed

9. Historic Spills from Mobile Sources Map based on data extracted from the DEQ ERIS Database (1996 -2012)

10. Historic Spills from Fixed Sources Map based on data extracted from the DEQ ERIS Database (1996 -2012)

11. Hazardous Substance Storage Facilities • Where are hazardous substances being used, produced, stored, or disposed of in the Clackamas River watershed? • Methods: • Map hazardous substance storage facilities from the HSIS database and identify high-density clusters • Map clusters of facilities storing large amount of hazardous substances (analyze liquids and solids separately) • Map permitted and regulated facilities from the Oregon Facility Profiler database

12. Hazardous Substance Storage Facilities • Results: • Highest density of hazardous substance storage facilities is located north of the Clackamas River and east of the Union Pacific Railroad • Majority of facilities storing large amounts of liquids are in the largest hot spot; solids have hot spots along HWY 212 near Sandy • Limitations: • All liquids and solids analyzed together, regardless of substance type, quantity being stored, health hazard, etc.

13. Hazardous Substance Storage Facilities Map based on data extracted from the OSFM HSIS Database (December 2013)

14. Sensitive Resources • Where are critical resources that need to be protected in the event of a spill? • Methods: • Gather and map locations of sensitive resources in the Clackamas River watershed • Map population density and potential evacuation challenges • Results: Not analyzed for risk, but used in conjunction with risk maps to highlight threats • Limitations: Did not include archaeological resources; coarse datasets that are not comprehensive

15. Sensitive Resources

16. Sensitive Resources Historic Spills from Fixed Sources and Sensitive Resources Overlay Hazardous Substance Storage Facilities and Sensitive Resources Overlay

17. Spill Response Survey • CRWP completed a spill response survey in summer 2013 • 10 responses from emergency responders and agencies with jurisdictional boundaries, equipment locations, capabilities, etc. • Next step: Focus on filling in information gaps in the survey, particularly related to locations to make sure that information as robust as possible

18. Spill Jurisdictions and Equipment Caches

19. 2014 GIS Hazardous Spills Risk Analysis • Analysis Objectives: • Refine the 2013 results by grouping and analyzing specific chemicals from the HSIS database of highest concern • Map potential pathways from risk “hot spots” to the Clackamas River • Use the results of the 2013-14 Hazardous Spill analysis to identify spill response focus areas

20. Methodology • What is being stored where, how much, and how could a spill reach the Clackamas River? • Methods: • Group data from the HSIS database into analysis categories and identify “hotspots” • Overlay with stream and utility data to identify potential pathways • Data Used: HSIS database of facilities storing “reportable quantities”

21. Methodology • Split data in the HSIS database into four general hazardous substance categories: • Light/Medium Fractioned Petroleum • Oils (Vegetable, Petroleum) • Solvents • Acids/Bases • Categories chosen based on number of facilities in database, toxicity, guidance from DEQ • Not all chemicals at all facilities were categorized

22. Screening Criteria • Removed solids and gases from database prior to categorizing • Four quantity fields: • Maximum and average amounts stored annually • Average amount transported in and out of the facility annually • Often more than one reported chemical per location – tallied totals in each of these four quantities, using high end of reported ranges

23. HSIS Facilities Storing Light/Medium Fractioned Petroleum

24. HSIS Facilities Storing Oil (Petroleum/Vegetable)

25. HSIS Facilities Storing Solvents

26. HSIS Facilities Storing Acids/Bases

28. Average Annual Gallons of Light/Medium Fractioned Petroleum Transported To Facility

29. Average Annual Gallons of Light/Medium Fractioned Petroleum Transported From Facility

30. Results • Across all categories, the “hot spots” are in the same geographic areas • Larger quantity stored = highest risk • Limitations: • Data reported as “ranges” that are often quite broad • Implications of a spill are site-specific – storage method, soil types, percent impervious cover, etc. • Hot spot is not predicting spills, just where facilities are clustered • Utility data not available for all portions of the watershed for pathway analysis

31. Suggested GRP Focus Areas