From the ICHARM Newsletter:
ICHARM Researcher Conducts Hurricane Sandy Damage Investigation
ICHARM Research Specialist Megumi Sugimoto visited the United States for the Hurricane Sandy Damage Investigation in November 2012. She has contributed a brief report of the investigation as follows: Hurricane Sandy hit the eastern coast of the United States and caused devastation there during October 29-31 2012, killing 113 people. I investigated affected areas during November 20-23. When I arrived there about one month after the disaster, I saw people still distributing relief supplies.
Overview of damage: Hurricane Sandy landed somewhere
near Atlantic City in the state of New Jersey around 20:00 (EST) in October 29
with a maximum wind speed of about 36 m/s (NOAA). The twoday rainfall was reported
to have reached 160mm and the water level rose up to 4m (monthly mean rainfall:
88.1mm). The economic losses were estimated at 50 billion dollars (EQECA).
Hurricane Sandy became the first hurricane of this size that ever hit New York
since 1938. From several days before its landing, the city halted economic
activities and repeatedly issued an evacuation advisory. The effort is thought
to have resulted in saving disaster vulnerable people such as seniors and
children while men in 50s marked the highest fatality in the disaster (Figure
1), which is very different from the case of the Great East Japan Earthquake
and Tsunami (GEJET). In addition, according to the New York City Police
Department, the top cause of their deaths is accidents including electrocution,
being hit by falling trees and traffic accidents, rather than drowning.
Urbanization as vulnerability: Even about
one month after the disaster, some stations on two subway lines were still
closed because they were still inundated by sea water. Also closed were many
condominiums for retired seniors built on sunny, coastal areas. Even
superhigh-rise condominiums at the tip of the Manhattan Island were closed, for
their electric facilities had been flooded because they are in the basement. Consultants
told me that only two buildings in Manhattan (one of them is Goldman Sachs’)
survived a widespread inundation because they had taken flood prevention
measures. The Gurdian reported that infrastructures were seriously damaged by
flooding because prevention measures were largely ignored in New York despite
that its disaster management committee had repeatedly warned of the city’s
flood vulnerability in its reports since 2005.
Nuclear Power Plant: At the Oyster Creek
nuclear power plant, a level-2 warning was issued regarding the storm; the
warning was the second lowest of the four-level warning system currently
employed for nuclear facilities in the United States. What surprised me was
that there were no levees along the river that the plant uses for water intake
and discharge (Photo 2). This reminded me of some nuclear facilities in Japan
built by foreign constructors that have been pointed out for not having
adequate protection against water hazards. Such facilities, though built in a
different environment, may have been regulated in a similar way that they are
regulated in the original environment.
Conclusion: In this investigation, I saw
many cases that typically originated in the ignorance of taking necessary
measures for urban vulnerability to certain hazards. It is very important that
we should take a close look at the investigation results for lessons to improve
urban resilience to various hazards such as a powerful inland earthquake
expected to occur in the Tokyo metropolitan area and in other parts of Japan.
(Written by Megumi Sugimoto, Project led by Toshio Okazumi)
No comments:
Post a Comment