[CEUS-earthquake-hazards] The balance

[Joe Tomasello]

To all list members:

In response to Klaus Jacob's and David Rogers e-mail of 1/9/08

The number of lives lost during any earthquake event cannot be predicted by
HAZUS. In fact HAZUS uses the simple analogy to relate the estimated loss of
life, "data for earthquake related casualties are relatively scarce,
particularly for U.S. earthquakes. Therefore, to some extent the casualty
rates are inferred from the available data statistics [often from non-US
casualty data] and combined with expert opinion" (Chapter 13).  In addition,
research after the 1994 Northridge earthquake found that fewer than 50% of
the 56 fatalities occurred inside buildings. [1994 Northridge Earthquake,
Performance of Structures, Lifelines and Fire protection Systems, May 1994,
conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NISTR
5396). ]  Creating bunkers for each and every building type and use would
only have reduced the loss of life to about 28 during the 1994 Northridge
event. Based on my experience with HAZUS, I've found the models to
overestimate both casualties and economic loss. I'd be interested in any
models done on the 1994 Northridge or Katrina using current HAZUS software. 

In the past we have dismissed FEMA's claims for a 1:4 cost/ benefit ratio,
especially with regard to earthquakes. A review of the cost side of the
equation shows that FEMA's base data was particularly soft in regards to
actual data used and that parts of the data are based on ancillary building
elements. On the benefit side, the study includes the benefit of saving
lives in terms of dollars.  Lastly, the 1:4 cost/benefit ratio is an average
for all three natural disasters.  The study's BCR for earthquake is 1.4 with
a deviation of 1.3.  To me this indicates a little less than half the
projected projects would expect to see a BCR less than 1.  This deviation
confirms that the data is soft and that relying on the study may result in
outcomes other than that expected.  Thus we found FEMA's claims to have
little merit.

Using the Northridge scenario to evaluate the benefit in saved lives we are
left with the stark realization that no lives were lost as a result of 8%
loss of acute care hospitals. At that time Los Angeles County had 91 acute
care hospitals. Damage to the hospital infrastructure in the affected area
was less than $3 Billion. Two hospitals suffered major structural damage and
a total of 8 hospitals were evacuated, the majority of the evacuations were
related to mechanical issues.  Some of these hospitals included those
re-built or retrofitted after the 1971 San Fernando event.  None of the
fatalities occurred in hospitals in the 1994 Northridge event, nor were any
fatalities reported as a result of an evacuation. In 1994 the event was
dubbed the most expensive natural disaster, costing approximately $40
Billion; yet Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf cost in 2005 and caused
nearly $100 Billion worth of damage.   (Office of Statewide Health Planning
and Development (OSHPD), California's Hospital Seismic Safety Law: its
History, Implementation and Progress, (2005), 11)
  
Unintended consequences of SB 1953 seem to be a statewide reduction of acute
care beds. Events similar to that in Napa are playing out all over the
state; "The layoffs are a byproduct of the financial strains in the health
care industry caused by reimbursement reductions, a growing uninsured
population, seismic safety mandates, workforce shortages and emergency room
closures."  (Huffman, Jennifer, The Napa Valley Register, Layoffs at St.
Helena Hospital, December 14, 2007) The reduction of acute care beds most
likely will result in longer travel time.  In the long run, an emergency
responder will encounter the case were a hospital closed as a result of SB
1953. If this were to occur just once, the fatality rate would be higher
with the mandate than as resulted in the actual of the 1994 Northridge
earthquake event. 

The $110 Billion cost for the California seismic mandate is not my estimate.
Please refer to http://www.chcf.org/documents/hospitals/SB1953Report.pdf  ,
page 5, 44, 48; "Depending on future inflation trends and construction
planning decisions by individual hospitals, the total construction costs for
SPC-1 could range $45Billion to $110 Billion. Notably, this estimate does
not include costs associated with financing or reconstructing SPC-2
buildings, which could significantly increase the total costs of SB 1953
compliance." 

Also significant is that the seismic regulations posted by the state are
equivalent to the seismic requirements found in the UBC code (1994 NEHRP);
much less stringent than the IBC. I'm trying to verify if these regulations
were automatically up-dated when the State adopted the 2006 IBC code. If so
there is a strong possibility that projects being designed under one code
would need to be re-designed to meet the more stringent code, (not an
inexpensive process). 
I don't find much fault in asserting that stringent and unfunded seismic
mandates are cost prohibitive, especially when fees are fixed. Most of us
live in a world where costs are major contributors to the actions we take.
My clients, from both public and private sectors, come to me with a plan and
a budget.  If the plan costs more than the budget, the plan is changed or
dropped.  Slick lawyers have little to do with either of our experiences. As
a matter of fact, there are no free lunches; somebody will always pay the
bill.

Let me pose these questions: If seismic mitigation is cheap, why is
California experiencing their current difficulty. Why isn't every building
in the nation built with stringent seismic requirements? Why doesn't FEMA
pay for the California seismic mandates; it's only $110 Billion dollars?
The difficulty lies in the fact that today's stringent seismic requirements
incorporate a mandated minimum tolerance for economic loss accompanied with
unrealistic hazard assessments such as those found in the IBC for the New
Madrid Seismic Zone.  

Joseph Tomasello, PE
5880 Ridge Bend Rd.
Memphis, TN 38120
 
Phone:
(901) 761-2016 office
(901) 821-4968 direct
(901) 412-8217 mobile



From: ceus-earthquake-hazards-bounces at geohazards.cr.usgs.gov
[mailto:ceus-earthquake-hazards-bounces at geohazards.cr.usgs.gov] On Behalf Of
Joe Tomasello
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:51 PM
To: ceus-earthquake-hazards at geohazards.cr.usgs.gov
Cc: 'Seth Stein'
Subject: [CEUS-earthquake-hazards] The balance

-----Original Message-----
From: jacob at ldeo.columbia.edu [mailto:jacob at ldeo.columbia.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 4:33 PM
To: Joe Tomasello
Cc: ceus-earthquake-hazards at geohazards.cr.usgs.gov; 'Seth Stein'
Subject: Re: [CEUS-earthquake-hazards] The balance