[CEUS-earthquake-hazards] FW: Question-

[Richard W. Howe]

Larry, confirming our discussion this morning......

 

Based on my understanding of the criticality of services provided by a
Memphis Red Cross blood processing center and quasi-lack of redundancy/back
up for immediate alternate source blood availability in a post-quake
scenario situation (and potential complications with air and other means of
delivery), we would suggest consideration of state-of-the-art standards for
such a facility.  I.e., IBC 2006 provisions for critical and essential
facilities, with further consideration given to non-structural and
especially Red Cross blood processing and storage functions, with the latter
perhaps not clearly covered by the IBC provisions.  You may, in fact, wish
to go "beyond Code" and consider isolation or other advanced techniques for
protecting the latter functions (especially blood storage and perhaps
processing) depending on assessment of likely demand and downtime time
frames vs shelf life.

 

Depending on site location, you may also wish to consider an IBC-conforming
site specific seismological study to get the best handle on ground motions
relative to structural system behavior.

 

With regards to cost implications, based on my understanding that your
typical facility is a two-story steel framed structure with a budget over
$250/sf, I would expect premiums for seismic-resistant construction to be
relatively minimal (1% maybe 2% or less), with costs associated with
non-structural systems and especially protection of blood supplies and
perhaps processing being more significant considerations.  (The preceding
comment refers to “seismic premium” as cost differential relative to past
pre-IBC Memphis Code provisions as a percentage of overall project
construction cost – i.e, $250+/sf.)

 

To all:

 

I have been watching the ongoing exchange with great interest and am
increasingly uncomfortable at not "chiming in."

 

In fact, I have been tasked by major clients with developing a "white paper"
addressing the Stein-Tomasello Initiative (as I fondly call it in due
respect to Seth and Joe).  Aren't you all envious?  (As a Memphis
practitioner, I have been embroiled in it for, I think, 20 years.)

 

In due time (drafts are in process) I will provide both my comments to the
web list discourse and the STI white paper and share them with you all
(after sharing the drafts with a number of you and with Seth and Joe, as
well).

 

In general, I commend you all who have contributed to this discussion and
feel the discourse serves some purpose.

 

I steadfastly observe, however, that the appropriate forum for decisions and
development of consensus (the latter an absolutely essential aspect of the
whole affair) is NOT in email exchanges, is NOT in the media, and not in
local meetings or City Council or Code adoption hearings.  Those who espouse
departing from the well and wisely developed process by which we as a
society resolve such matters and bring them to the point of adoption and
enforcement by those who are generally poorly informed and educated (*) in
the issues do us all a disservice.

 

*This seismic science, engineering, design, and Code issue is a real bear
for anyone - even the most "informed and educated," is it not?  And
particularly so with respect to explaining it all to those who must
ultimately make the real decisions to commit precious resources (be they
time, effort, or direct and indirect costs).  I do agree (and have long
advocated) that some sort of appropriate benefit-cost analysis – not
necessarily only in $$ terms but also comprehensive treatment of pro’s and
con’s - is order, if for no other reason than to serve as a basis/resource
for decision makers and to assist in getting this on-going endless and
apparently irresolvable debate off the table.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1301 - Release Date: 2/27/2008
8:35 AM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1301 - Release Date: 2/27/2008
8:35 AM
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://geohazards.usgs.gov/pipermail/ceus-earthquake-hazards/attachments/20080228/2513938b/attachment.html