1

The Risk Management Series: A Multihazard Approach

Milagros Kennett – FEMA

Workshop on Condition Assessment of Critical Infrastructure ASCE/CCI/USACE July 13, 2006

2

Manchester Bombing

3

Content

Why a Multihazard Approach? Risk Management Series Risk Assessment – FEMA 452 Conclusion

4

Why a Multihazard Approach? • 2,819 people were killed

• Stock exchanges around the world dropped sharply

• Gold and oil prices spiked upwards

In New York City

• Hotel occupancy fell below 40%

• Over 145,000 jobs were lost

• $105 billion in economic loss

Some Effects of 9/11

5

Why a Multihazard Approach? Some Effects of Hurricane Katrina (2005)

• Southeast Louisiana and the coasts of Mississippi and Alabama were the most affected areas

• Affected area stretched from 100 to 120 miles from the eye of the storm and some 150 miles inland

• 1,836 estimated death toll

• Total damage $75 billion dollars; economic losses exceed $150 billion dollars

• Katrina/Rita/Wilma jointly damaged 1.2 million housing units out of which 90% was due to Katrina

6

Why a Multihazard Approach? Other disasters to remember…. 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing 1900 Galveston Hurricane

1993 Midwest Floods

1906 San Francisco Earthquake

1994 Northridge Earthquake

Multihazard

Design

1992 Hurricane Andrew

7

Why a Multihazard Approach? • After 9/11 it was understood that manmade disasters

cannot be predicted but their impacts are well understood and can be managed

• By designing against a particular hazard and disregarding others the levels of protection and performance are compromised

• A multihazard approach is the most effective way to reach building resilience

• Security and natural hazard design needs to be part of an overall approach and included early into the design process

8

RMS Publications Benefits and Conflicts of Using Multihazard Approach

FEMA 424

9

Why a Multihazard Approach?

Large Roof overhangs

EQ = undesirable conditions Wind = undesirable conditions Blast = undesirable conditions Fire = no significance Flood = no significance

Re­entrant corner (L, U)

EQ = undesirable conditions Wind = undesirable conditions Blast = undesirable conditions Fire = no significance Flood = no significance

Use of non­rigid connections for attaching interior non­load bearing walls to structure

EQ = desirable conditions Wind = desirable conditions Blast = desirable conditions Fire = undesirable conditions Flood = no significance

Impact­resistant glazing

EQ = no significance Wind = desirable conditions Blast = desirable conditions Fire = undesirable conditions Flood = no significance

Example of benefits and Conflicts

10

RMS Publications After 9/11 FEMA role was

expanded

Security became part of FEMA building design guidance

Design Goals:

§ Risk assessments § Explosive blast § Chemical, biological

and radiological effects (CBR)

11

RMS Publications FEMA 426, Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings

FEMA 427, Primer for Design of Commercial Buildings to Mitigate Terrorist Attacks

FEMA 428, Primer to Design Safe School Projects in Case of Terrorist Attacks

FEMA 429, Insurance, Finance, and Regulation, Primer for Terrorist Risk Management in Buildings

FEMA 452, Risk Assessment, A How­To Guide to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings

FEMA 453, Safe Havens, A Guide for Designing Multihazard Shelters to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks (95%)

E155, Building Design for Homeland Security (FEMA Course)

12

RMS Publications

FEMA 430, Primer for Incorporating Building Security Components in Architectural Design (85%)

FEMA 455, Rapid Visual Screening for Building Security (50%)

FEMA 459, Incremental Rehabilitation to Improve Building Security (50%)

13

RMS Publications FEMA 389, Communicating with Owners and Manager of New Buildings on Earthquake Risk

FEMA 424, Design Guide for Improving School Safety in Earthquakes, Floods, and Winds

FEMA 454, Designing for Earthquake: A Manual for Architects

FEMA 543, Design Guide for Improving Critical Facilities from Floods and Winds – (Hurricane Katrina)

14

RMS Publications

FEMA 395, Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation of School Buildings (K­12)

FEMA 396, Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation of Hospital Buildings

FEMA 397, Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation of Office Buildings

FEMA 398, Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation of Multifamily Apartment Buildings

FEMA 399, Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation of Retail Buildings

15

Risk Assessment ­ FEMA 452 Risk assessment helps to

identify:

• How buildings and their systems interact

• How reinforcement between hazards may be gained

• How vulnerabilities may be decreased

• How building resilience can be obtained

16

Risk Assessment – FEMA 452 Explosive blast

and CBR only

Currently being updated to include:

• Floods

• High Winds

• Earthquakes

17

Risk Assessment – FEMA 452

Risk = Risk = Threat Rating x Asset Value x Vulnerability Rating

Definition of Risk

18

Risk Assessment – FEMA 452

• The methodology provides tables that determine and rank the threat rating, asset value, and vulnerability rating

• Factors are established from 1­10, 10 being the worst case scenario

Threat Rating Asset Value Vulnerability Rating

Methodology

19

Risk Assessment – FEMA 452 Step 1: Threat Assessment

Any indication, circumstance, or event with the potential to cause loss of or damage to an asset

Weapons, tools, and tactics can Weapons, tools, and tactics can change faster than a building can be change faster than a building can be modified modified

20

Risk Assessment – FEMA 452

Step 2: Asset Value Assessment

The degree of debilitating impact that would be caused by the destruction of an asset

21

Risk Assessment – FEMA 452 Step 3: Vulnerability Rating

Any weakness that can be exploited by an aggressor to make an asset susceptible to damage

YIELD (≈TNT Equiv.) 4,000 lb. Stand­off : 15 feet 166 killed

YIELD (≈TNT Equiv.) 20,000 lb. Stand­off: 80 feet 19 killed

Murrah Federal Building Khobar Towers

22

Evaluated against

• Threat Rating • Asset Value • Vulnerability Rating

Risk Assessment – FEMA 452

23

Risk Assessment – FEMA 452 Building Vulnerability Checklist

24

Risk Assessment – FEMA 452

Threat Matrices

Main Menu Assessors

Automated Software to Prepare Risk Assessment

25

Risk Assessment – FEMA 452 Type of Assessment and Team Composition

Screening Phase Screening Phase ­ ­ 1 day 1 day

(1) (1) Site and Architectural Site and Architectural (1) (1) Security System and Operations Security System and Operations

Full on Site Evaluation 1 Full on Site Evaluation 1­ ­ 3 Days 3 Days

(1) (1) Site and Architectural Site and Architectural (1) (1) Structural and Building Envelope Structural and Building Envelope (1) (1) Mechanical, Electrical, Power Mechanical, Electrical, Power

Systems, and Site Utilities Systems, and Site Utilities (1) (1) IT and Telecom IT and Telecom (1) (1) Security Systems and Security Systems and

Operations Operations

Detailed Evaluation Detailed Evaluation

(1) (1) Site and Architectural Site and Architectural Structural and Building Envelope Structural and Building Envelope

(1) (1) Mechanical, Electrical, Power Mechanical, Electrical, Power Systems, and Site Utilities Systems, and Site Utilities IT and Telecom Modeler IT and Telecom Modeler

(1) (1) Security System and Operations Security System and Operations Explosive Blast Modeler Explosive Blast Modeler

(1) (1) CBR Modeler CBR Modeler (1) (1) Cost Engineer Cost Engineer

26

Risk Assessment – FEMA 452 Risk = Threat Rating x Asset Value x Vulnerability Rating Step 4: Risk Assessment

27

Risk Assessment ­ FEMA 452 STEP 5: Selecting Mitigation Options

28

Conclusion

• Large amount of technical literature endorses the concept of multihazard and multidisciplinary approach

• Risk assessments are a key tool to identify how buildings and systems interact and how reinforcement between hazards may be gained

• A multihazard approach produces cost­savings, efficiencies and increases building resilience and performance

http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/rms/index.shtm