However, the group also cautioned that until the
risk assessment portion of IPET's analysis is complete, fully informed
long-term development and safety decisions cannot be made for the city
of New Orleans.
Risk Quantification Essential for Improving Hurricane Protection System
While expressing overall satisfaction with the
technical competency and findings of the draft final version of the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Interagency Performance
Evaluation Task Force’s (IPET) report, Performance Evaluation of the
New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Protection System, the
American Society of Civil Engineers’ (ASCE) External Review Panel
(ERP)—a group organized to provide peer review of the IPET’s work—today
cautioned the USACE that until the risk assessment portion of their
analysis is complete, fully informed long-term development and safety
decisions cannot be made for the city of New Orleans. Despite this
urgent need for the risk assessment findings, the ERP also cautioned
that work must be completed to a high level of defensibility before
being released to the public.
“Over the course of our year-long review of the
Corps’ investigation, the ERP has not identified any IPET finding that
we believe contains a major technical flaw,” said ERP Chair David E.
Daniel, Ph.D., P.E., president of the University of Texas, Dallas.
“However, due to its extreme importance to the public’s ability to
decide if they feel it is safe enough to live in New Orleans, we
continue to be concerned that the risk assessment portion of the
analysis has yet to be completed.”
The ERP expressed their
agreement with the IPET’s key findings in the final draft report.
However, noting that multiple, ill-fated decisions made at nearly every
level were the overall cause of the breaching and resulting flooding,
the ERP advised that additional information on ‘why’ those decisions
were made—while outside of the IPET’s scope of work—would be essential
to understanding the impact those decisions had on various parts of the
system. The ERP also challenged the use of the word “marginal” in the
statement, “The designs for these structures were marginal with respect
to practice…,” which they believe minimizes significant information
documented by the IPET suggesting that serious design mistakes were
made. And, while the ERP believes it would be appropriate for the IPET
to acknowledge where it found as-constructed conditions to be in
agreement with the design documents, the report’s statement that “there
was no evidence of government or contractor malfeasance,” is a judgment
beyond the IPET’s scope of work.
As a result of the IPET’s in-depth investigation and
assessment, the ERP has noted numerous significant recommendations and
processes that have been developed. However, the value of the
substantial work done will only be realized if there is immediate
implementation of the report recommendations. For example, if a
commitment isn’t made to establish ongoing monitoring programs to
assess the impact of subsidence on hurricane protection design and
construction, the IPET findings will only constitute a snapshot in
time. Also, while the ERP was satisfied with the hydraulic and
hydrologic models developed by the IPET in the context of the draft
final report, the maintenance and use of those models in conjunction
with the risk model is critical to the long-term protection of New
Orleans, and as a result the ERP expects this issue to be addressed in
the group’s final report.
Finally, the ERP expressed concern
with the report’s clarity, consistency and the accessibility of the
information to readers who are not as intimately knowledgeable of the
system as the IPET and ERP members. This report will not only serve as
the definitive record of what happened and why as a result of Hurricane
Katrina, but its findings will also significantly impact the decision
making process for development in New Orleans—and perhaps other flood
prone parts of the country. As a result, it is essential that the
information be consistently presented in a format which makes it
accessible and understandable.
Throughout the year-long process,
the ERP has commended the USACE for subjecting its technical work to
detailed external scrutiny by independent reviewers, and has
appreciated the constructive and professional manner in which the ERP
and the IPET have been able to interact. The ERP believes this process
has served the citizens of New Orleans and Southeastern Louisiana, the
USACE and the nation well in understanding the causes of and
consequences from the catastrophe brought on by Hurricane Katrina.
Source : ASCE.org
Comments (0)
Print
Tell friend
Top
.jpg "Green schemes for Thames Gateway"){kind=icon}
