1. Herrera Environmental Consultants Clackamas River Water Providers
GIS Hazardous Materials Spill Risk Analyses Results and Next Steps
Herrera Environmental Consultants Clackamas 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
analysis results
Next steps

3. Project Background Ultimate Goals: First Steps:
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 ( )

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

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 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