APPENDIX A

BACKGROUND ON INDUSTRIAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Land-use planning based upon using a risk based approach began with the Bhopal India incident in 1984 where 2,500 people were immediately killed as a direct result of an industrial release of a highly toxic material (methyl isocyanate).  The number of fatalities has grown to well over 20,000 since.  The community of Bhopal allowed for unrestricted development to take place right up to the fence-line of the Union Carbide plant site.  Originally Union Carbide had constructed the facility several kilometres away from the community in order to control any risks they might impose.  However, as there were no legal requirements around development residences were soon able to locate next to this “heavy industrial” facility. 

 

Globally one of the lessons taken from this incident was a need to understand the risk industry can impose on a community beyond their fence-lines and to incorporate these learning’s into land-use planning regulations.  Countries began to discuss this topic very quickly after Bhopal using governments, industry and the best knowledge from around the globe. 

 

One question was to define what the “Acceptable Level of Risk” might be for industrial risks being imposed on the public (an involuntary risk).  Such a value was necessary to allow for calculating risk levels and setting in place criteria to measure the risk with.  The outcome that was verified in courts in the United Kingdom as well as discussion around the world was: “if an individual was to stay in one location for an entire year and if they were to be exposed to an industrial incident the probability of a fatality to that person is one in a million.”  An extremely small number when compared to the many other risks we live with daily.

 

Further it was characterized that everything we do has some element of risk involved with it.  In order to have all the benefits of society we enjoy today we must be willing to accept some risk and one in a million (1 X 10-6) is where society has come to agreement on.

 

Canada’s approach was to bring together our own experts from across the country and from industry and government to develop our approach to “risk based land-use planning”.  The result is the MIACC Criteria which is recognized through-out Canada as the best practice and guidance.  Several regulatory authorities such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB), and Canadian Standards Association (CSA) for example refer to it.  As shown in Figure – 1, the criteria clearly defines what can be included within risk zones beginning with the risk within the company fence-line cannot be higher than 1/10,000 (1 X 10-4) of a fatality. 

 

(MIACC - Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada)

Figure 1

By defining the boundary for “Heavy Industrial Policy Area” as (1 X 10-4) of a fatality, and the boundary for “Heartland Agricultural Policy Area” as (1 X 10-5) of a fatality the implementation of the MIACC criteria will be met. 

 

This will: