DOCSLIB.ORG

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Local Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Fullerton Final City Council Draft (Adopted) May 21, 2020 City of Fullerton TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 .............................................................................................. 1-1 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1-1 Plan Purpose and Authority ............................................................................................................. 1-1 Plan Organization and Use............................................................................................................... 1-3 Plan Goals......................................................................................................................................... 1-4 Planning Process .............................................................................................................................. 1-4 CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................. 2-1 2. COMMUNITY PROFILE ........................................................................................ 2-1 Setting and Location ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 History .............................................................................................................................................. 2-1 Demographics .................................................................................................................................. 2-2 Economy and Commute Patterns.................................................................................................... 2-4 Land Uses ......................................................................................................................................... 2-5 Development Trends ....................................................................................................................... 2-5 Infrastructure Assessment ............................................................................................................... 2-6 CHAPTER 3 .............................................................................................. 3-1 3. HAZARD ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... 3-1 Hazard Identification ....................................................................................................................... 3-1 Hazard Scoring and Prioritization .................................................................................................... 3-4 Hazard Profiles ................................................................................................................................. 3-7 CHAPTER 4 .............................................................................................. 4-1 4. THREAT ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................... 4-1 Key Facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Vulnerable Populations .................................................................................................................... 4-5 Other Community Assets ................................................................................................................. 4-7 Threat profiles .................................................................................................................................. 4-7 CHAPTER 5 .............................................................................................. 5-1 5. HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGY ...................................................................... 5-1 Strategy Development Process........................................................................................................ 5-1 Hazard Mitigation Actions ............................................................................................................. 5-11 National Flood Insurance Program ................................................................................................ 5-22 CHAPTER 6 .............................................................................................. 6-1 6. PLAN MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................... 6-1 Coordinating Body ........................................................................................................................... 6-1 Plan Implementation ....................................................................................................................... 6-2 Plan Maintenance ............................................................................................................................ 6-3 Plan Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 6-3 Plan Updates .................................................................................................................................... 6-4 Public Involvement .......................................................................................................................... 6-5 i Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | Final City Council Draft City of Fullerton Point of Contact ............................................................................................................................... 6-6 CHAPTER 7 .............................................................................................. 7-1 7. REFERENCES AND IMAGE CREDITS ................................................................ 7-1 References ....................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Image Credits ................................................................................................................................. 7-12 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Meeting Materials APPENDIX B. Community Outreach Materials APPENDIX C Adoption Resolution APPENDIX D Key Facilities Inventory APPENDIX E Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Implementation Workbook FIGURES Figure 2-1: General Plan Land Use Map ....................................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-2: Water Sources in Fullerton ......................................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 3-1: Dam Failure Inundation Zones ................................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-2: Statewide Drought Conditions from 2013 to 2018 .................................................................. 3-17 Figure 3-3: Statewide Drought Conditions as of March 5, 2019 ................................................................ 3-19 Figure 3-4: Fire Hazard Zones ..................................................................................................................... 3-23 Figure 3-5: FEMA Flood Zones .................................................................................................................... 3-29 Figure 3-6: Landslide Hazards Map ............................................................................................................. 3-35 Figure 3-7: Oil and Gas Operations ............................................................................................................. 3-41 Figure 3-8: DTSC Hazardous Materials Sites ............................................................................................... 3-43 Figure 3-9: Local and Regional Fault Lines Map ......................................................................................... 3-55 Figure 3-10: Liquefaction Hazards Map ...................................................................................................... 3-57 Figure 4-1: Map of Critical Facilities and Facilities of Concern in Fullerton ................................................. 4-3 Figure 4-2: Critical Facilities and Facilities of Concern in Dam Inundation Areas ........................................ 4-9 Figure 4-3: Critical Facilities and Facilities of Concern in Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Fullerton ........... 4-17 Figure 4-4: Critical Facilities and Facilities of Concern in Fullerton’s Floodplains ..................................... 4-21 Figure 4-5: Critical Facilities and Facilities of Concern in Landslide Zones in Fullerton ............................. 4-27 Figure 4-6: Critical Facilities and Facilities of Concern Near Hazardous Materials Sites in Fullerton ........ 4-31 Figure 4-7: Critical Facilities and Facilities of Concern in Liquefaction Zones in Fullerton ........................ 4-35 Figure 4-8: Critical Facilities and Facilities of Concern in Seismic Shaking and Fault Rupture Zones in Fullerton ........................................................................................................................... 4-39 ii Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | Final City Council Draft City of Fullerton TABLES TABLE 1-1: KEY RESOURCES FOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 1-9 TABLE 2-1: BASIC DEMOGRAPHICS, FULLERTON AND ORANGE COUNTY (2015) ........................................ 2-2 TABLE 2-2: RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION, FULLERTON AND ORANGE COUNTY (2015) ..................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Arkstorm Scenario: California's Other "Big One"
    The San Bernardino County Museum Guest Lecture Series The ARkStorm Scenario: California’s other “Big One” Lucy Jones • U. S. Geological Survey Wednesday, January 25, 2012 • 7:30pm • Free Admission Landslides and debris flows. Coastal innundation and flooding. Infrastructure damage. Pollution. Dr. Lucy Jones will give an overview of the ARkStorm Scenario—catastrophic flooding resulting from a month-long deluge like was seen in 1862, and four larger such events in the past 100 years. This type of storm, resulting from atmospheric rivers of moisture, is plausible, and a smaller version hit San Bernardino in December of 2010 with a week’s worth of rain that impacted Highland and the surrounding communities. The ARkStorm Scenario explores the resulting impacts to our social structure and can be used to understand how California’s “other” Big One can be more expensive than a large San Andreas earthquake. Dr. Lucy Jones has been a seismologist with the US Geological Survey and a Visiting Research Associate at the Seismological Laboratory of Caltech since 1983. She currently serves as the Science Advisor for the Natural Hazards Mission of the US Geological Survey, leading the long-term science planning for natural hazards research. She also leads the SAFRR Project: Science Application for Risk Reduction to apply USGS science to reduce risk in communities across the nation. Dr. Jones has written more than 90 papers on research seismology with primary interest in the physics of earthquakes, foreshocks, and earthquake hazard assessment, especially in southern California. She serves on the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council and was a Commissioner of the California Seismic Safety Commission from 2002 to 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate Commerce Commission Washington
    INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WASHINGTON REPORT NO. 3374 PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY IN BE ACCIDENT AT LOS ANGELES, CALIF., ON OCTOBER 10, 1950 - 2 - Report No. 3374 SUMMARY Date: October 10, 1950 Railroad: Pacific Electric Lo cation: Los Angeles, Calif. Kind of accident: Rear-end collision Trains involved; Freight Passenger Train numbers: Extra 1611 North 2113 Engine numbers: Electric locomo­ tive 1611 Consists: 2 muitiple-uelt 10 cars, caboose passenger cars Estimated speeds: 10 m. p h, Standing ft Operation: Timetable and operating rules Tracks: Four; tangent; ] percent descending grade northward Weather: Dense fog Time: 6:11 a. m. Casualties: 50 injured Cause: Failure properly to control speed of the following train in accordance with flagman's instructions - 3 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORT NO, 3374 IN THE MATTER OF MAKING ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORTS UNDER THE ACCIDENT REPORTS ACT OF MAY 6, 1910. PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY January 5, 1951 Accident at Los Angeles, Calif., on October 10, 1950, caused by failure properly to control the speed of the following train in accordance with flagman's instructions. 1 REPORT OF THE COMMISSION PATTERSON, Commissioner: On October 10, 1950, there was a rear-end collision between a freight train and a passenger train on the Pacific Electric Railway at Los Angeles, Calif., which resulted in the injury of 48 passengers and 2 employees. This accident was investigated in conjunction with a representative of the Railroad Commission of the State of California. 1 Under authority of section 17 (2) of the Interstate Com­ merce Act the above-entitled proceeding was referred by the Commission to Commissioner Patterson for consideration and disposition.
    [Show full text]
  • Hurricane Flooding
    ATM 10 Severe and Unusual Weather Prof. Richard Grotjahn L 18/19 http://canvas.ucdavis.edu Lecture 18 topics: • Hurricanes – what is a hurricane – what conditions favor their formation? – what is the internal hurricane structure? – where do they occur? – why are they important? – when are those conditions met? – what are they called? – What are their life stages? – What does the ranking mean? – What causes the damage? Time lapse of the – (Reading) Some notorious storms 2005 Hurricane Season – How to stay safe? Note the water temperature • Video clips (colors) change behind hurricanes (black tracks) (Hurricane-2005_summer_clouds-SST.mpg) Reading: Notorious Storms • Atlantic hurricanes are referred to by name. – Why? • Notorious storms have their name ‘retired’ © AFP Notorious storms: progress and setbacks • August-September 1900 Galveston, Texas: 8,000 dead, the deadliest in U.S. history. • September 1906 Hong Kong: 10,000 dead. • September 1928 South Florida: 1,836 dead. • September 1959 Central Japan: 4,466 dead. • August 1969 Hurricane Camille, Southeast U.S.: 256 dead. • November 1970 Bangladesh: 300,000 dead. • April 1991 Bangladesh: 70,000 dead. • August 1992 Hurricane Andrew, Florida and Louisiana: 24 dead, $25 billion in damage. • October/November 1998 Hurricane Mitch, Honduras: ~20,000 dead. • August 2005 Hurricane Katrina, FL, AL, MS, LA: >1800 dead, >$133 billion in damage • May 2008 Tropical Cyclone Nargis, Burma (Myanmar): >146,000 dead. Some Notorious (Atlantic) Storms Tracks • Camille • Gilbert • Mitch • Andrew • Not shown: – 2004 season (Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne) – Katrina (Wilma & Rita) (2005) – Sandy (2012), Harvey (2017), Florence & Michael (2018) Hurricane Camille • 14-19 August 1969 • Category 5 at landfall – for 24 hours – peak winds 165 kts (190mph @ landfall) – winds >155kts for 18 hrs – min SLP 905 mb (26.73”) – 143 perished along gulf coast, – another 113 in Virginia Hurricane Andrew • 23-26 August 1992 • Category 5 at landfall • first Category 5 to hit US since Camille • affected S.
    [Show full text]
  • GOOGLE LLC V. ORACLE AMERICA, INC
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 18–956. Argued October 7, 2020—Decided April 5, 2021 Oracle America, Inc., owns a copyright in Java SE, a computer platform that uses the popular Java computer programming language. In 2005, Google acquired Android and sought to build a new software platform for mobile devices. To allow the millions of programmers familiar with the Java programming language to work with its new Android plat- form, Google copied roughly 11,500 lines of code from the Java SE pro- gram. The copied lines are part of a tool called an Application Pro- gramming Interface (API). An API allows programmers to call upon prewritten computing tasks for use in their own programs. Over the course of protracted litigation, the lower courts have considered (1) whether Java SE’s owner could copyright the copied lines from the API, and (2) if so, whether Google’s copying constituted a permissible “fair use” of that material freeing Google from copyright liability. In the proceedings below, the Federal Circuit held that the copied lines are copyrightable.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of Claremore Public Works Authority Meeting Council Chambers, City Hall, 104 S
    MINUTES OF CLAREMORE PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 104 S. MUSKOGEE, CLAREMORE, OKLAHOMA MARCH 03, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order by Mayor Brant Shallenburger at 6:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Nan Pope called roll. The following were: Present: Brant Shallenburger, Buddy Robertson, Tony Mullenger, Flo Guthrie, Mick Webber, Terry Chase, Tom Lehman, Paula Watson Absent: Don Myers Staff Present: City Manager Troy Powell, Nan Pope, Serena Kauk, Matt Mueller, Randy Elliott, Cassie Sowers, Phil Stowell, Steve Lett, Daryl Golbek, Joe Kays, Gene Edwards, Tim Miller, Tamryn Cluck, Mark Dowler Pledge of Allegiance by all. Invocation by James Graham, Verdigris United Methodist Church. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion by Mullenger, second by Lehman that the agenda for the regular CPWA meeting of March 03, 2008, be approved as written. 8 yes, Mullenger, Lehman, Robertson, Guthrie, Shallenburger, Webber, Chase, Watson. ITEMS UNFORESEEN AT THE TIME AGENDA WAS POSTED None CALL TO THE PUBLIC None CURRENT BUSINESS Motion by Mullenger, second by Lehman to approve the following consent items: (a) Minutes of Claremore Public Works Authority meeting on February 18, 2008, as printed. (b) All claims as printed. (c) Approve budget supplement for upgrading the electric distribution system and adding an additional Substation for the new Oklahoma Plaza Development - $586,985 - Leasehold improvements to new project number assignment. (Serena Kauk) (d) Approve budget supplement for purchase of an additional concrete control house for new Substation #5 for Oklahoma Plaza Development - $93,946 - Leasehold improvements to new project number assignment. (Serena Kauk) (e) Approve budget supplement for electrical engineering contract with Ledbetter, Corner and Associates for engineering design phase for Substation #5 - Oklahoma Plaza Development - $198,488 - Leasehold improvements to new project number assignment.
    [Show full text]
  • Keeping Southern California's Future on Track
    Keeping Southern California’s 25Future on Track CONTENTS Message from the Board Chair .........................1 CEO’s Message .....................................................3 A Quarter Century of Moving People: The Metrolink Story .............................................5 How It All Began ................................................19 Metrolink’s Top Priority: Safety .......................27 WHO WE ARE Environment ........................................................31 Metrolink is Southern California’s regional commuter rail service in its Metrolink Relieves Driving Stress ...................35 25th year of operation. Metrolink is governed by The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), Board Members Past and Present ..................40 a joint powers authority made up of an 11-member board representing Metrolink Pioneering Staff the transportation commissions of Still on Board ......................................................47 Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties. Metrolink Employees Metrolink operates seven routes Put Customers First ...........................................48 through a six-county, 538-route-mile network with 60 stations. Facts at a Glance ...............................................50 For more information, including how to ride, go to www.metrolinktrains.com MISSION STATEMENT Our mission is to provide safe, efficient, dependable and on-time transportation service that offers outstanding customer experience and enhances quality of life. For
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation
    Severe Weather in North America Peter Hoeppe, Head Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Centre, Munich Re ECSS 2013, Helsinki, June 3, 2013 US Insurance Survey April 2013 Participants: 81 CEOs of US Primary Insurers What are the 3 most critical issues facing the primary insurance industry today? Issue Rank Low interest rates and capital market returns 1st (64%) Natural catastrophes/weather events 2nd (51%) Price competition 3rd (43%) Multiple responses allowed. Does not add to 100%. MR NatCatSERVICE The world‘s largest database on natural catastrophes The Database Today . From 1980 until today all loss events; for USA and selected countries in Europe all loss events since 1970. Retrospectively, all great disasters since 1950. In addition, all major historical events starting from 79 AD – eruption of Mt. Vesuvius (3,000 historical data sets). Currently more than 32,000 data sets 3 NatCatSERVICE Weather catastrophes worldwide 1980 – 2012 Percentage distribution – ordered by continent 18,200 Loss events 1,405,000 Fatalities 4% <1% 1% 8% 25% 11% 30% 41% 6% 43% 9% 22% Overall losses* US$ 2,800bn Insured losses* US$ 855bn 3% 3% 9% 31% 46% 18% 1% 16% 70% 3% *in 2012 values *in 2012 values Africa Asia Australia/Oceania Europe North America, South America incl. Central America and Caribbean © 2013 Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft, Geo Risks Research, NatCatSERVICE – As at January 2013 Global Natural Catastrophe Update Natural catastrophes worldwide 2012 Insured losses US$ 65bn - Percentage distribution per continent 5% 91% <3% <1% <1% Continent
    [Show full text]
  • Constructing
    Constructing Mimi Hughes (NOAA), Tapash Das (SIO), Dale Cox (USGS) Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project • Fire / Debris Flow 2007 Post Fire Coordination • Earthquake / Tsunami Earthquake Scenario • Winter Storm Winter Storm Scenario • Information Interface Community Interface, Implementation, Tools and Training The Great Southern California ShakeOut • A week-long series of events to inspire southern Californians to improve their earthquake resiliency; >6 million participants • Based on a scenario of a major southern San Andreas earthquake designed by the USGS for California Office of Homeland Security’s Golden Guardian exercise, Nov 2008, Oct 2009, Oct 2010, … • December 24, 1861 through Jan 21, 1862: nearly unbroken rains • Central Valley flooding over about 300 mi long, 12 – 60 mi wide • Most of LA basin reported as “generally inundated” • San Gabriel & San Diego Rivers cut new paths to sea • 420% of normal-January precipitation in Sacramento in Jan 1862 • 300% of normal-January precipitation fell in K Street Sacramento, looking east San Diego in Jan 1862 • No way of knowing how intense the rains were, but they were exceptionally large in total and prolonged. • Implication: Prolonged storm episodes are a plausible mechanism for winter-storm disaster conditions in California • Implication: A combined NorCal+SoCal extreme event is plausible. 12 days separated the flood crest in Sacramento from the crest in Los Angeles in Jan 1862 Generating the scenario details Weather Research & Forecasting (WRF) model’s nested grids Mimi Hughes, NOAA/ESRL,V at the helm From James Done, NCAR ARkStorm Precipitation Totals Daily Precipitation at three locations 6” 20” 20” Percentage of ARkStorm period spent below freezing Ratio of VIC-simulated ARkStorm Runoff vs Historical Periods (1969, 1986) Runoff Maximum Daily Runoff Total Runoff Recurrence Intervals of Maximum 3-day Runoff (relative to WY1916-2003 Historical Simulation) Summary of ARkStorm Meteorological Events Percentage of ARkStorm period spent below freezing.
    [Show full text]
  • GE® 115 Volt "J" Series Built-In Heat Pump
    GE® 115 Volt "J" Series Built-In Heat Pump Model# AJHS08ASA FEATURES Air Discharge Multi-Directional Airflow (cfm) Roomside (hi/low) 230/190 Chassis Type Slide-Out Filter Type Quick Clean; Slide-Out Louver Style Adjustable Plug Type Parallel Rotary Compressor Yes Thermostat Type Variable Setting Unit Type Heat Pump Vent/Air Exchange Exhaust Air Exchange Exhaust Fan Speed Selections 2 Cooling; 2 Fan Only; 2 Heating Line Cord Recommended Circuit Prot. 15 Amps (time delay) Style Window/Wall Mount • 8,000 BTU (cooling), 4,00 BTU (electric heat), 7,700 (reverse heat), 115 Volts - • 9.2 EER - • Mechanical controls with variable setting thermostat - • 2 cooling / 2 heating fan speeds (2 fan positions) - • Slide-out chassis - • 870 cooling Watts / 7.9 cooling Amps - • Rotary compressor - • Plug type - parallel - • 230 CFM indoor fan (high) - • Hidden controls provide clean, contemporary appearance - • Slide-out filter - • Exhaust for air exchange - • 2.0 dehumidification (pints/hr) - • Fan cycle switch for reduced energy consumption - • Standard window mounting - • Wall cabinet included - Have more questions? Please contact 1-800-626-2005 GE® 115 Volt "J" Series Built-In Heat Pump Model# AJHS08ASA APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS (HxDxW) • 15 5/8 in x 16 7/8 in x 26 in CAPACITY • Cooling BTUH (MAX) 8000.00 Btu • Cooling EER (BTUH / Watt) 9.20 • Heating - Electric - BTUH - AHAM - 1R 4,100 • Dehumidification (pts./hr.) 2 WARRANTY • Parts Warranty - Limited 1-year entire appliance; Limited 5-year sealed refrigerating system • Labor Warranty - Limited 1-year entire appliance; Limited 5-year sealed refrigerating system • Warranty Notes - For models produced on or after January 1, 2006; See written warranty for full details Have more questions? Please contact 1-800-626-2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkstorm Emergency Planning Exercise for the Santa Clara River Basin
    ArKStorm Emergency Planning Exercise for the Santa Clara River Basin What is ArKStorm What ArKStorm is Not ArKStorm is a planning exercise that tests ArKStorm is not the 1% annual chance the effectiveness of current emergency (100-year) storm. It does not model the response practices of the County, 100-year flow and does not simulate the participating cities, and local service 500-year flow. providers, during a significant storm event. ArKStorm is a training exercise for ArKStorm is not intended to be used by response personnel and teams to be better FEMA or the local communities to develop prepared in the event of a major flood. new floodplain mapping, new flood zones, or new base flood elevations. ArKStorm is a storm simulation created by ArKStorm is not intended to be used to USGS based on observed rainfall from the identify new properties that require flood January 1969 and February 1986 storms in insurance nor will it be used to set new California that when combined, result in flood insurance rates. what is being called the ArKStorm. ArKStorm assesses potential flood risk The anticipated flooding impacts from the within the Santa Clara River basin and ArKStorm will not be as devastating in presents that risk through a number of Ventura County as will be experienced event scenarios that are likely to occur elsewhere in California (Los Angeles and during a major storm. Orange counties, Central Valley). Ventura County is generally situated at the fringe of the storms. ArKStorm is a risk assessment tool that can be used to identify community infrastructure (examples: bridges, railroads, gas lines) and critical facilities (examples: sewage treatment plant, hospitals) that are likely to be affected by flood-related impacts and so that local emergency response providers have a better understanding of where to focus their attention and allocate resources prior to, during and after a major storm.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Pacific Electric Circuit Breaker Replacement Alert
    LOSS PREVENTION SAFETY TOPICS Federal Pacific Electric Circuit Breaker Replacement Alert Federal Pacific Electric Company manufactured Stab-Lok circuit breakers from the 1950’s to the 1980’s. The breakers were produced for both commercial and residential applications. Issues As many as one million FPE with the breakers surfaced in 1980 with the FPE two-pole stab-lok Stab-Lok breakers currently circuit breaker that was found to jam while attempting to trip in an in use may fail to provide overcurrent scenario. proper fire protection. The primary issue with these type of breakers includes failing to trip at 135% and 200% of rated current (1). Additionally, the double pole breakers are found to mechanically jam. This means that a commercial or residential structure with these breaker panels has a probability of not functioning as needed when a circuit is “overloaded”. A comparison may be made to replacing a blown Edison type fuse with a slug or penny, effectively overriding the protection necessary for an electric circuit. Testing of FPE stab-lok circuit breakers was conducted by multiple companies in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. They included FPE (and its parent company, Reliance Electric), Southwest Research Incorporated, Underwriters Laboratories, Consumer Product Safety Commission and Wright-Malta Corp. (for the CPSC). Only the CPSC/Wright-Malta test results were made public. Despite the CPSC findings that 85% of the double-pole breakers and 39% of the single-pole breakers failed one or more of the UL How To Identify an FPE Breaker test criteria at 200% of rated current (2), a press release was issued A Federal Pacific Electric panel will usually have its name or in 1983 stating that the CPSC was “unable at this time to link these logo on the front cover.
    [Show full text]
  • Tracking an Atmospheric River in a Warmer Climate: from Water Vapor to Economic Impacts
    Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 249–266, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-249-2018 © Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Tracking an atmospheric river in a warmer climate: from water vapor to economic impacts Francina Dominguez1, Sandy Dall’erba2, Shuyi Huang3, Andre Avelino2, Ali Mehran4, Huancui Hu1, Arthur Schmidt3, Lawrence Schick5, and Dennis Lettenmaier4 1Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA 2Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA 3Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA 4Department of Geography, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA 5US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, USA Correspondence: Francina Dominguez ([email protected]) Received: 16 June 2017 – Discussion started: 26 June 2017 Revised: 24 October 2017 – Accepted: 13 January 2018 – Published: 16 March 2018 Abstract. Atmospheric rivers (ARs) account for more than 75 % of heavy precipitation events and nearly all of the extreme flooding events along the Olympic Mountains and western Cascade Mountains of western Washing- ton state. In a warmer climate, ARs in this region are projected to become more frequent and intense, primarily due to increases in atmospheric water vapor. However, it is unclear how the changes in water vapor transport will affect regional flooding and associated economic impacts. In this work we present an integrated model- ing system to quantify the atmospheric–hydrologic–hydraulic and economic impacts of the December 2007 AR event that impacted the Chehalis River basin in western Washington.
    [Show full text]