Department of Community Development Seismic Safety Advisory Committee A Policy Plan for Improving Earthquake afety in Washington I FULFILLING 0 UR RESPONSIBILITY December 1, 1991 The Department of Community Development, Emergency Management Division wishes to acknowledge the tunding support for the Seismic Safety Advisory Committee and is grateful for this support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. - Department of Community Development Seismic Safety Advisory Committee A Policy Plan ?for IInproving Earthquake afety in Washington I I FULFILLING - OUR RESPONSIBILITY December 1, 1991 Report prepared with the assistance of? DYE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. in conjunction with: EQE Engineering, Inc. (faves CLARKE Director STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ninth Columbia Buiidtng, 0 Olympia, Washington 98504-4151 0 {206) 75342?) November 27, 1991 The Honorable Leo Thorsness, Chair Senate Energy and Utilities Committee 110 Institutions Building AS-32 Olympia, Washington 98504 The Honorable William Grant, Chair House Energy and Utilities Committee 243 John L. O'Brien Building AS-33 Olympia, Washington 98504 Dear Senator Thorsness and Representative Grant: I am pleased to forward to you the enclosed report prepared by the Seismic Safety Advisory Committee that was appointed in accordance with (22) Sec. 225 Ch 16 L90. Under the leadership of Ray Lasmanis of the Department of Natural Resources, the Committee members labored seriously and thoughtfully over their assignment and produced an excellent report. They were an experienced panel representing state agencies and local governments, the private sector and the scientific community, utility infrastructure and construction code interests, and emergency response and capital planning persPectives. There is no doubt that Washington State will continue to experience life-threatening earthquakes. They have occurred in our past and, although we cannot predict when, all evidence indicates they will occur in the future. We must prepare in advance. In this report, the Seismic Safety Advisory Committee addresses issues relating to utility and lifeline infrastructure, buildings and structures, and emergency response capacity. It is a starting point for implementation of a focused state policy on earthquake preparedness. The Committee?s report presents a cogent sequence of action initiatives that can constructively carry Washington forward to meet this hazard in a realistic manner. ?Implementation of most of those initiatives will obviously require the commitment of significant resources. However, when approached in a calculated manner over an extended period, the objectives of community security and continuity will be greatly enhanced. Senator Leo Thorsness Representative William Grant November 27, 1991 Page two I would like to see everything accomplished that the Committee has recommended. Unfortunately, in this period of reduced resources, these activities will have to compete with other state priorities. I am h0pefu1, however, that as you review the Seismic Safety Advisory Committee's work there will be an effort made to sustain the momentum that has begun. - Sincerely, Chuc Clar Director CC:ch Enclosure cc: Members, Senate Energy and Utilities Committee Members, House Energy and Utilities Committee .T-wf {Lu ?m-mww . :f-s?wm - 33f .1 sic-m. .1 -, . . WW: an; Damage In ions A Policy Plan for Improving Earthquake Safety in washington ULFILLING OUR RESPONSIBILITY Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I. THE SEISMIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE . . . . 7 II. THE EARTHQUAKE THREAT IN WASHINGTON . . . . 13 OUR READINESS FOR AN EARTHQUAKE . . . . . . . . 21 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCREASING SEISMIC SAFETY IN WASHINGTON . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 The Seismic Safety Advisory Committee We all remember the 1989 earthquake near San Francisco the immediate chaos, the collapsed freeway, the tragedies of death, destruction and homelessness. Washington has experienced earthquakes of similar magnitude and will experience them again. Mindful of our risk, the Legislature mandated the Department of Community Development to establish a Seismic Safety Advisory Committee (SSAC). The SSAC was charged with developing a comprehensive plan and making speci?c recommendations for improving seismic safety in Washington. Policy Oriented Mission and Goals reports already exist explaining why Washington needs a seismic safety policy and providing generic information on improving earthquake preparedness. Rather than duplicate other work, the goals have emphasized deve10ping and prioritizing practical and realistic strategies and initiatives which the state can begin to implement immediately. Broad Participation The work program involved the broad participation of state agencies, emergency response personnel, building of?cials and professional organizations from the beginning. The work program used formal committees and individual contacts to maximize statewide involvement. Focus groups and public meetings were held in eastern and western Washington, and a survey was mailed to 2,500 government and private organizations to increase involvement in the policy development process. Project Approach The Work program focused on: 0 Reviewing the current status of earthquake readiness. 0 Developing strategies to improve readiness. 0 Identifying initiatives to implement strategies. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan I Page 1 Executive Summary The Earthquake Threat In WdShiugtou Washington has experienced earthquakes as large as the recent event that shook San Francisco. In 1949 Olympia was rocked by a magnitude 7.1 earthquake. Again, in 1965, the Seattle~Tacorna area was rattled by a magnitude 6.5 earthquake. Page 2 Serious Earthquake in Your Lifetime? A De?nite Possibility Major earthquakes with magnitudes between 6 and 7.5 can be expected every 30 to 50 years. We do not know when, but we do know that they will occur. Anyone spending half their life in western Washington should expect to live through a major earthquake. Geologists See the Potential for a Catastrophic Earthquake This summer Washington?s earthquake threat was frcint page news. The news media reported recent research ?ndings which show that coastal regions of Washington experienced a massive earthquake about 300 years ago, and that geologists see the potential for another great earthquake in the Paci?c. Northwest. Such an earthquake could be many times more damaging that San Francisco?s recent earthquake. . We Should Prepare for a Major Earthquake The conclusion that the SSAC draws from the earthquake risk are that we must prepare for an earthquake of at least magnitude and probably larger, in which People will be injured and die. People will be left homeless. Lives and communities will be disrupted. Business will suffer direct loss from property damage. I Recovery will take months or years to complete. Being prepared can reduce all of these adverse impacts. Eartthake Safety Policy Plan Executive Summary 0 Our Readiness For An Earthquake The SSAC reviewed the status of our readiness for an earthquake in Washington. What they found is cause for concern. While some organizations and individuals are prepared, most are not. Our Emergency Response Capacity will be Overwhelmed The SSAC is concerned that our response capability will be hampered by inadequate communication systems, a lack of public preparedness, and the low priority placed on local emergency planning. Schools Are Cause for Concern There are a great many older, unreinforced masonry school buildings that are at risk. Tentative estimates indicate there are some 350 to 400 unreinforced masonry school buildings, containing up to 155,000 children. Fire and Medical Facilities Are Vulnerable Many of our older ?rehouses and hospitals are vulnerable. When an earthquake strikes we need these facilities to be fully operational. Our Transportation Lifelines Are Not Secure The Washington State Department of Transportation is seismically strengthening key bridges. This is only a start. We need to know the risks to local bridges, marine facilities, port facilities, highways, transit systems, airports and rail facilities so that we can selectively strengthen critical routes, staging areas, and airport facilities. Utilities Have Not Addressed Seismic Risk Only a few of the many water and wastewater utilities in the state have assessed seismic vulnerability. Electric utilities have done some vulnerability assessments. The natural gas companies in Washington have done limited work to address seismic safety. Earthquake Safety PolicyPlan - Page 3 Executive Summary ONow Is The Time To Act There is no doubt that some time in the future Washington will experience a large and damaging earthquake. It could happen as you read this report, or it could happen next week or next year. When it does occur, there will be deaths, injuries and disruption that could and should have been prevented. At an early stage, the SSAC concluded that the State should devote its energies to identifying measures which will increase earthquake safety. With every earthquake, we learn more about the behavior of buildings, lifelines and people during these events. There is a huge body of knowledge which we can apply right now to reduce seismic risks in Washington. The primary emphasis of the SSAC has been on identifying how the State can act to improve seismic safety. . OPractical Recommendations For Increasing Seismic Safety The SSAC emphasized developing policy and aptipn recommendations which are realistic and build on other work that is currently underway. These recommendations are practical, achievable, and a wise investment. Program Oversight Is Essential A body providing leadership and oversight is required to ensure that the recommendations are acted upon. The top priority for immediate legislative action is the authorization in statute of an oversight committee with staff support to oversee implementation of the recommendations. This committee will lead a multivagency program and budget development process. A Matti-Year E?'ort Is Required Improving seismic safety is a long-term proposition. Seismic safety cannot be improved overnight, nor can it be improved by legislation alone. The SSAC has, carefully crafted a multi-year work program which, when implemented, will signi?cantly enhance seismic safety in Washington. This work program prioritizes initiatives which: 0 Reduce the risks to life, public safety and property. Page 4 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Executive Summary 0 Are realistic and feasible. 0 Create momentum for the overall program. The work program involves a multi-agency and mum?jurisdictional effort and builds on current public and private sector work currently underway. Priorities For Action The following are top priority recommendations for action. I. ESTABLISHING SEISMIC SAFETY OVERSIGHT I.a Create by legislation an interagency seismic safety policy committee. II. IMPROVING EMERGENCY PLANNING Conduct a state-level review of emergency communication systems and implement the review recommendations. Clarify the liability law for volunteer emergency workers and implement a central registry of trained emergency worker and volunteer personnel. Prepare and implement a multi?media awareness and education program. Provide standardized materials to help local jurisdictions more effectively train personnel. Standardize planning guidelines for local jurisdictions as part of ongoing emergency planning. Increase awareness of structural and nonstructural earthquake hazards as part of ongoing education. STRENGTHENING BUILDINGS Assess the seismic vulnerability of school facilities and improve seismic safety as part of long-range capital planning. Develop and submit amendments 'to the State Building Code Council that require seismic strengthening during planned remodel projects. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 5 Executive Summary Support the review of current Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 3 boundaries. Develop ?nancial incentive programs to assist with seismic strengthening projects. Support and coordinate the geological mapping of sensitive areas. Support the implementation of a strong 'motion instrumentation program in Washington. - Iv. STRENGTHENING OUR LIFELINES Page 6 Establish statewide policy goals for mitigation of seismic risk to lifelines. Continue the funding for the current Washington State Department of Transportation bridge retro?t program. - Identify critical lifeline routes that include state and local roads, bridges, transit routes, and port facilities. Develop a work program for seismic vulnerability assessments of local bridges. Require seismic vulnerability assessments and adoption of seismic mitigation standards for water and wastewater utilities. Require post-earthquake response and recovery plans for water and wastewater utilities. Provide a rigorous program of training in seismic safety for lifeline organizations. Develop standardized seismic safety guidelines for lifeline emergency plans. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan I. The Seismic Safety Advisory Committee I. THE SEISMIC SAFETY ADVISORY The Seismic Safety Advisory Committee was charged by statute to develop a comprehensive plan and make recommendations to the Legislature for improving the State?s earthquake preparedness. The SSAC was directed by Substitute Senate Bill 6407 to submit its plan and recommendations to the Senate and House of Representatives Committees on Energy and Utilities by December 1, 1991. Collectively the SSAC is comprised of representatives from state agencies, local jurisdictions, professional organizations, and the private sector who have an interest in improving seismic safety in Washington. This report presents the recommendations for action to the legislature. The SSAC Has A Policy Oriented Mission And Goals The SSAC is neither the ?rst nor will it be the last body to report to the Legislature on the subject of seismic safety in Washington. reports already exist explaining why Washington needs seismic safety policy. Rather than duplicate other work the SSAC focused on developing realistic and practical policy recommendations. The mission and goals are policy oriented (they are highlighted in Exhibit I-l, on the following page). The goals are directed at developing and prioritizing strategies and initiatives which the State can start to implement immediately. These goals were met succesSfully through the course of the work program. and are documented in the Seismic Safety Advisory Committee Work Book and subcommittee reports. This Earthquake Safety Policy Plan summarizes the Committee?s principal ?ndings and policy recommendations. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 7 I. The Seismic Safety Advisory Committee WW Exhibit 1-1: Mission and Goals The Mission To assess the status of seismology', seismic vulnerability, risk mitigation, preparedness and response capability in the State of Washington and to develop and prioritize speci?c and practical state strategies. and initiatives to improve the State?s earthquake preparedness. The Goals Assess the Seismic Risk in the State Determine the Status of Risk Mitigation, Preparedness, and Response Capabilities Clarify and Determine Federal, State, and Private Roles with Respect to Each Strategy and Initiative Identify Needs for Additional Information, Mitigation, Preparedness and Response Capabilities Develop and Prioritize State Strategies and Initiatives Propose and Prioritize Policy?Level Actions The SSAC Had Broad Based Participation The SSAC- has had broad participation by state agencies, local jurisdictions, emergency response, building and professional organizations. The policy recommendations affect all jurisdictional levels responsible for buildings and structures, lifeline infrastructure, and emergency planning. The work program used a series of formal committees and individual contacts, as shown in Exhibit 1-2, on the following page, to maximize involvement from each jurisdictional level. In addition, a series of focus groups and public meetings were held in eastern and western Washington to further involve local jurisdictions, professional organizations, and the public in the policy development process. Page 8 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan I. The Seismic Safety Advisory Committee Exhibit 1-2: Seismic Safety Advisory Committee Participants Depaxtment of Community Development Emergency Management Division Subcommittee 554% .Focus Groups Brochure and - Survey Tacoma Earthquake Safety Policy Plan 0 Schools and Hospitals . 0 Lifelines 0 Local Government 0 2,500 Statewide Page 9 I. The Seismic Safety Advisory Committee The major participants and their role in the work program are as follows: The Department Of Community Development (DCD) which was charged by the Legislature with convening the Seismic Safety Advisory Committee. Emergency Management Division is providing staff assistance and support in programming the activities of the SSAC. The SSAC is a multi-agency, multi?jurisdictional and mold?interest committee. The SSAC has met on a basis to develop earthquake policy recommendations and direct staff work. A Technical Subcommittee was convened to review and evaluate recent developments in our knowledge about the earthquake threat in Washington. This subcommittee is comprised of leading experts on Washington?s seismology. An Emergency Response Subcommittee included representatives of the emergency planning and response community thmughout Washington. Members of this subcommittee are in the forefront of earthquake preparedness and response planning. Their role was to identify how state and local governments can improve earthquake planning and preparedness. A Buildings And Structures Subcommittee was charged with identifying how the State can act to improve the seismic safety of existing buildings and structures and ensure that new construction is not seismically vulnerable. Members of this subcommittee included state and local building of?cials, representatives of structural engineers, and others associated with building issues. A Lifelines (Utilities And" Transportation Subcommittee examined the sc'ope for state-level actions to assess the vulnerability of and strengthen the state?s lifelines. Members of the subcommittee represented state agencies, local jurisdictions, and public and private organizations actively involved in planning and maintaining lifelines in Washington. The Project Team was comprised of Emergency Management Division (EMD) staff and the consultants, Dye Management Group, Inc. and EQE Engineering, Inc., retained to assist with the policy development process. In addition to formal representation on the SSAC and the subcommittees, substantive input was solicited from local jurisdictions, lifeline organizations, utility Page 10 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan L. The Seismic Safety Advisory CommitteeM 14 companies, building owners, and the public at large through several avenues. First, interested individuals attended committee and subcommittee meetings. There was a constant effort on the part of staff to draw as wide a group as possible into? the - subcommittee process. Second, the Project Team directly contacted many individuals at the state and local government levels for comment. Third, the Project Team mailed a brochure to every jurisdiction and lifeline purveyor, among others throughout the state. The brochure included a "report card? to elicit written comments. Fourth, two sets of focus groups and public meetings were held. The focus groups involved local jurisdictions, school and hospital administrators, and lifeline managers and engineers. A list of SSAC members and subcommittee participants is provided in Appendix A. The focus group results and public feedback are discussed in Appendix C. The Project Approach Was Action?Oriented The SSAC was convened in April, 1991. The approach taken has been to build on the considerable knowledge which has been amassed in Washington and throughout the nation about the earthquake potential in our state and the consequences for our people, buildings, and infrastructure. The overall approach is based on the principle that improving seismic safety in Washington is a long?term propoSition. It requires the crafting and nurturing of a continuous multi-year program that will gain momentum over time. - The work program focussed on the following key elements: 0 Fact-?nding To Identify The Current Status Of Seismic Mitigation. This involved the Project Team interviewing state and local agencies and selected private organizations. The subcommittee members also undertook fact-?nding in their respective professional communities. 0 Developing Policy Recommendations. The subcommittees developed a detailed series of recommendations which they reported to the full SSAC. 0 Identi?ng Implementation Strategies. The Project Team supported the subcommittees? policy development work by formulating potential initiatives for implementing seismic safety policies. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 11 I. The Seismic Safety Advisory Committee 0 Structure Of The Report Page 12 The remainder of this report is organized into three main sections: The Earthquake Threat In Washington, which presents an overview of the earthquake hazard that explains why and how frequently earthquakes occur in Washington. . Our Readiness For An Earthquake, which reports on the status of seismic safety efforts in Washington in light of the potential impacts of earthquakes upon our buildings, lifeline infrastructure and emergency response capabilities. Recommendations For Action, which outlines the recommendations. These are presented as priorities for action. The report is followed by a series of supporting appendices which include: List Of Participants. A listing of SSAC members and subcommittee participants. A Summary List Of The Action Initiatives Recommended By Each Subcommittees The full reports are available under separate cover. A Public Involvement Summary. This provides an outline of focus group and public meeting proceedings, and an analysis of the survey feedback. An Overview of Earthquake Exercise Response 913. This describes a joint federal?state earthquake exercise which tested the ability of government to respond to a catastrophic earthquake in the Puget Sound region. The Authorizing Legislation. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan II. The Earthquake Threat in Washington II. THE EARTHQUAKE THREAT IN WASHINGTON 0 Television brought the October 17, 1989 earthquake in the Santa Cruz mountains near San Francisco into homes across Washington. We witnessed the initial chaos, the collapsed freeways, and the tragedies of death, injury and homelessness. That earthquake had a magnitude of 7.1 and was centered in a sparsely populated area over 60 miles from. San Francisco. Washington has experienced earthquakes as large as the one in San Francisco and will do so again. In 1949 Olympia was rocked by a magnitude 7.1 earthquake. Again, in 1965 the Seattle-Tacoma area was rattled by a 6.5 earthquake. For Washingtonians the earthquake in California was more than a distant disaster. It was a reminder that we too are vulnerable, and need to be prepared. 0 Serious Earthquake In Your Lifetime? A De?nite Possibility The past few decades have been quiet times for earthquakes in Washington. We do not expect this to continue. Major earthquakes with magnitudes between 6 and 7.5 can be expected every 30 to 50 years. However, earthquake prediction is not an exact science and the historical record in Washington spans a very short period of time. We may have to wait a little longer or it might strike sooner. What we do know is that anyone spending half their life in western Washington should expect to live through a major earthquake. In just the six months since the Seismic Safety Advisory Committee has been meeting, six earthquakes with magnitudes greater than three have occurred in Washington. Exhibit 11?1, on the following page, shows the epicenters and the location of damage caused by six of the larger, better understood largest earthquakes in Washington. The map is a minimal assessment of the areas of Washington at greatest risk. No data are available from sparsely populated areas where few structures were present which could be damaged. In the areas of highest damage, the damage was negligible in buildings of good design and construction, slight to moderate in well built structures, and considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 13 II. The Earthquake Threat in Washington W: Exhibit Large Earthquakes and Related Damage in Washington Both Western And Eastern Washington Are Threatened The damage map clearly shows that over the last 100 years a large area of the state has experienced earthquake damage. Overall the risk is greatest in western Washington, where historically the most earthquake damage has occurred and where much of the state?s population lives. However, there have been signi?cant earthquakes east of the Cascades, as well. The map is based on historical records from the following larger earthquakes: Page 14 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan II. The Earthquake Threat in Washington Main? ?rthguakg In Washinan ?ince 1872 Magnitude 1872: North Cascades 7.0 to 7.5 I 1936: Walla Walla 5.5 to 6.0 I 1945: North Bend 5.5 to 6.0 I 1946: Vancouver Island - 7.3 I 1949: Olympia? . i 7.1 I 1965: Seattle-Tacoma - 6.5 - Although the past three decades have been deceptively quiet in Washington; since 1965 thousands of smaller earthquakes have continued to occur. Most notably: Recent Large Earthquakes In Washington Magnitude I 1981: Mount St. Helens Area 5.5 I 1981: Goat Rocks 5.0 (40 miles west of Yakima) 1989: Near Morton 5.1 (40 miles east of Centralia) I 1990: Deming Area 5.2 (12 miles east of Bellingham) 0 Washington Has Three Types Of Earthquakes The earth?s outer crust consists of a number of gigantic slabs of rock, called plates, which move slowly past one another. Where plates meet, terri?c forces build up. Washington is earthquake country for one simple reason: we are located on the boundary of two plates, the Juan de Fuca plate and the North America plate. This is depicted in Exhibit 11-2, on the following page. The Juan de Fuca plate is moving northeast and sinking under the North America plate. As the Juan de Fuca plate pushes down it melts under Washington, which is part of the North America plate. This molten material rises to the surface further inland, creating active Cascade Volcanoes such as Mount St. Helens. This plate movement gives rise to three types of earthquakes shown in Exhibit 11-2: Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 15 II. The Earthquake Threat in Washington ll Exhibit 11-2: Geological Forces at Work in Washington d? leubducnon Zone Earth- quake Source 0 Subductiaa Zone Earthquakes: Normally the colliding plates are locked or "glued" together. As the relative motion of one plate pushing against another continues, huge stress builds up until the "glue" breaks and a subduction zone earthquake occurs. Subduction zone earthquakes are the most devastating. Typically they give rise to What Seismologists term great earthquakes, having magnitudes greater than 8. Ground shaking is particularly severe and widespread; it can last from 1 to 3 minutes, an extraordinarily long time for an earthquake. The last great earthquake to strike in the United States had a magnitude of 9.2. It hit near Anchorage in 1964. Vast expanses of land -.fell suddenly and entire neighborhoods moved hundreds of yards due to ground failure from the intense shaking. - At least 13 great subduction zone earthquakes have probably occurred in the Paci?c Northwest in the last 7,000 years. The time period between these events has ranged between 150 and 1150 years. A great earthquake has not occurred in the Northwest for roughly 300 years but the forces that cause such earthquakes continue to push the Juan de Fuca plate relentlessly against North America at a rate of 2 inches a year. Geologists with the United States Page 16 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan IL The Earthquake Threat in Washington Geological Survey recognize the potential for another great earthquake in Paci?c Northwest. Such an earthquake would be greater than magnitude 8. This would be many times more damaging than the one that struck near San Francisco in 1989. A great subduction earthquake could be centered anywhere along the Paci?c Northwest coast. Such an earthquake centered off the coast of Washington would result in severe ground shaking throughout all of western Washington as well as northern Oregon and British Columbia. Critically, the shaking duration may be relatively long. Exhibit 11-3, below, shows the large area of Washington at risk from a subduction zone earthquake. Exhibit 11-3: Projected Damage Area from a Subduction Zone Earthquake off the Washington Coast Spokane Earthquake Source (Am at Fault Rupture) 7? with Walt: Area of Mod-(- 5 are around ammo Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 17 A IL The Earthquake Threat in Washington A subduction earthquake would cause more damage over a far greater area than has been historically observed for the deep or shallow crustal earthquakes discussed below. 0 Deep Earthquakes: These occur within the Juan de Fuca plate as a result of the stresses that build as it sinks under the North America plate. The 1949 Olympia and the 1965 Seattle-Tacoma earthquakes both occurred within this sinking plate. We can expect future deep earthquakes to be anything up to a magnitude 7.5. The resulting ground shaking will be widespread and could last for 20 seconds. Deep earthquakes will occur in western Washington; furthermore, deep earthquakes occurring in British Columbia or northern Oregon will cause damage in Washington. 0 Shallow Crustal Earthquakes: These are also the results of the accumulated pressure in the? North America plate. Shallow earthquakes occur in the crust at the top of the North America plate. They occur throughout Washington, but the size of these earthquakes in different parts of the state is subject to scienti?c debate. There could be major shallow earthquakes in Washington with magnitudes between 6.0 and 7.5. This is large enough to cause local to widespread strong ground shaking lasting up to 20 seconds. OFlood Plains, Steep Slopes And Mountainous Terrain Increase Risk The risk of an earthquake is high throughout western Washington but it is not the same everywhere. Site conditions, most importantly, the type of soil or rock, can increase the amount of shaking and the potential for damage. Solid rock (bedrock) does . not increase the amount of shaking. However, soft earth materials such as arti?cial ?ll or layers of sand or clay at a site will worsen the consequences of an earthquake. Soft soils or ?ll material can increase or amplify the ground motion of an earthquake. Soft soils or man-made ?lls can subside like quicksand in an earthquake because of the strong shaking. This results in damage to building foundations, pipelines, or other structures built on these materials. Landslides and rock falls will be triggered on steep slopes by the ground shaking. All of these occurred in past Washington earthquakes. Page 18 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan II. The Earthquake Threat in Washington 0 We Should Prepare For A Major Earthquake Seismology and our recent history clearly tell us that we should prepare for a major earthquake. The conclusion that the SSAC draws from the earthquake risk is that we must prepare for an earthquake of at least magnitude 7.5 and probably much larger. 0 Our Citizens Are At Risk An earthquake is a major natural disaster. Unlike the other disasters that we deal with such as ?oods, avalanches, or oil spills, an earthquake will have many simultaneous impacts over a wide area. Earthquakes can directly damage any of the buildings or structures in our communities. An earthquake will very likely disrupt some of our water service, power supply and telephone systems. Transportation links will be damaged. This direct damage can set off a chain of secondary impacts. Hazardous materials can be released and ?res may erupt. Without power, vital equipment will not work. Without water, response to ?res will be hampered. Our fire, police and medical services will be overwhelmed. i People will be injured and die. I People will be left homeless. I There may not be enough hospital beds. I Lives and communities will be disrupted. I Washington?s economy will suffer billions of dollars in direct loss due to property damage and in losses due to business disruption. I Recovery will take months or years to complete. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 19 Page 20 Our Readiness for an Earthquake OUR READINESS FOR AN EARTHQUAKE 0 We Are Not Prepared For An Earthquake The SSAC reviewed the status of our earthquake readiness in Washington. What the SSAC found is cause for concern. _While some organizations and individuals are prepared, most are not. This section reviews the status of our emergency planning, buildings and structures, and lifelines. OEffective Emergency Preparedness Is Critical Another major earthquake in the Paci?c Northwest is inevitable. Such an earthquake will place demands on emergency responders that will outstrip available capabilities and resources. Emergency planning helps minimize the number of lives that will be lost and builds our response capacity. Emergency planning for earthquakes is addressed in state and local jurisdictions? emergency management plans. These plans are designed to prepare government to respond to the potential results of a variety of natural and man-made emergencies. Seismic safety is one element of these plans. Earthquakes are a special and particularly grave threat; nonetheless, the expert wisdom is that preparedness should be addressed through improving emergency planning. Effective emergency planning involves government, business, and the public taking preparedness measures together in advance of a dangerous event. Successful emergency planning requires developing the methods and procedures that allow access to resources and personnel in order to deploy them where and when they are needed in response to a disaster. 0 We Have Concerns About Our Emergency Response Capacity The Department of Community Development?s Emergency Management Division has the mandatory role of overseeing statewide earthquake preparedness and promoting emergency planning. The state?s preparedness planning involves multi?agency and multi- jurisdictional planning." The Emergency Management Division works with state agencies and local jurisdictions throughout the state. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 21 Our Readiness for an EarthQuake Following an earthquake there will be immediate demands on our emergency services. The experience from countless earthquakes and our emergency response community all indicates that our emergency capabilities will be overwhelmed. There has been no statewide assessment of Washington?s earthquake response capabilities. However, ?re department personnel, emergency managers and communications of?cers in local jurisdictions contacted by the SSAC have the following speci?c concerns about our response capacity: Page 22 Communications Systems Will Be Interrupted In A Major Earthquake. Transmitter sites will be non?functional and lines will be down. Even when fully functional, there are concerns about the ability of our communication infrastructure to meet all earthquake emergency communication needs. Earthquake Training Does Not Reach Enough People. The Emergency Management Division, in collaboration with FEMA and the emergency planning community, provides a variety of training courses. These are well attended and over subscribed. They cover emergency planning and nonstructural hazard reduction. There is'a clear need for additional training, in particular for state and local government person as ?rst priority. There is also the need for very speci?c earthquake training such as urban search and rescue. - Many Jurisdictions Do Not Do Much Emergency Planning. Lack of resources, limited local expertise, and the low priority placed on earthquake planning are the major constraints to planning for seismic safety in local jurisdictions. There is an important role for the state in providing technical assistance to increase the priority of seismic safety and boost local jurisdictions? capacity to undertake emergency planning. Generally, larger jurisdictions have more developed emergency planning functions than smaller jurisdictions which have insuf?cient staff and resources. Developing a technical assistance program" which dovetails seismic safety with other emergency planning efforts could enhance local emergency preparedness. This type of assistance would depend upon the level of resources available. The State Could Do More To Improve The Quality Of Emergency Planning. The State, through the Emergency Management Division, has an important role to play in reviewing the quality of local jurisdictions' emergency plans. A review process is essential to provide local jurisdictions withexamples of the best practices. State assistance in improving emergency planning will Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Our Readiness for an Earthquake require providing technical assistance, and allocating adequate resources to local jurisdictions. 0 Emergency Medical Services Will Be Overwhelmed In An Earthquake. In central Puget Sound, there is a "hospital control" system for allocating patients. However, all counties. have expressed reservations about whether the system would hold up under a mass casualty situation. Hospitals will have limited communications, and staff and medical personnel may ?nd it dif?cult to commute to the hospitals if access is disrupted. 9 We Need To Increase Public Preparedness In order to prepare for an earthquake, government, business and citizens must be aware of the danger, and motivated to act. It is not uncommon to meet people who claim to have moved to Washington from California to escape from earthquakes; The Emergency Management Division disseminates earthquake awareness information. However, this activity has a limited scope. In the past it has involved distributing pamphlets and publicizing earthquake awareness week. Focus group participants from utilities, local jurisdictions, schools, hospitals and other organizations all emphasized a need for speci?c targeted awareness initiatives. At present, a variety of public, nonpro?t and private sector organizations provide seismic safety information. The Emergency Management Division should take a leadership role in coordinating earthquake education and improving access to the information. This will raise the pro?le of seismic safety and build a constituency of support for preparedness planning. California?s recent earthquake experience highlights the importance of promoting private sector preparedness.? The'economic costs of an earthquake are enormous. The costs arise from both the physical damage and the interruption to production or commerce. State government has an important role to play in promoting seismic safety planning by business and developing policies that will assist business recovery in the aftermath of an earthquake. 9 Our Buildings Are At Risk We spend the bulk of our lives indoors, sleeping, working, in recreational pursuits, and at school. Earthquakes can cause buildings to shake and the foundations of buildings to become unstable. It is this shaking that poses the greatest risk. It can cause chimneys to fall, parapets to dislodge, and buildings to collapse. Within buildings false ceilings may drop, windows shatter, and bookshelves and equipment topple. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 23 Our Readiness for an Earthquake Wit The damage to any particular building is related to the duration and the severity of the ground motion and the behavior of soil under the building. Larger earthquakes tend to shake longer and harder and, therefore, cause more damage to structures. The amount of damage that results from a major earthquake will depend on how well a building has been designed and constructed and the stability of the ground under the building. Each building has its own ability to withstand an earthquake that depends on building height and structural type as well as the geology of its site, distance from the earthquake source, and the type of earthquake. We know that certain types of building construction are more susceptible to earthquake damage than others. Topping the list of vulnerable buildings are: unreinforced masonry buildings, precast concrete frame structures, older concrete frame buildings (with unreinforced masonry infill walls), and tilt-up buildings. 0 Unreinforced Masonry Buildings Present the Greatest Risk. We know that unreinforced brick buildings perform worst in earthquakes. Many of our older public buildings such as schools and city halls are unreinforced masonry. Built to older, less stringent codes these buildings will be dangerous to their occupants in a large earthquake. Debris from damaged anninforccd masonry buildings in downtown Olympia after the 1949 earthquake (Photo courtesy of the Washington State Historical Society, Tacoma) Page 24 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Our Readiness for an Earthquake Large portions of our building stock, especially downtown in the older urban centers, can be expected to perform poorly during an earthquake. There was much damage to masonry buildings in Seattle during the 1965 earthquake and in Olympia during the 1949 earthquake. 0 Older Buildings Are More Vulnerable. Building construction in Washington is governed by the Uniform Building Code. This code is subject to regular revision and is updated as more is learned about the behavior of buildings during earthquakes. Over the years, the seismic safety provisions in Washington?s building code have increased. Consequently, new construction tends to be less vulnerable than buildings built to earlier codes with less stringent- seismic design criteria. The State Capitol Building being repaired after the 1949 earthquake (Photo courtesy of Washington State Historical Society, Tacoma) 0 The Function A Building Performs Is Important. Governnient policy should concentrate on reducing health and safety risks at schools and high-occupancy Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 25 Our Readiness for an Earthquake public buildings, as well as at emergency and healthcare facilities (?re and police stations, communications centers, hospitals), and structures containing hazardous materials. 0 Schools Are A Significant Cause For Concern Our school children are precious to us and are a particularly vulnerable segment of the population. School age children spend at least six hours each school day in school buildings as required by state law. While on school property, the school district is responsible for their safety and well-being. Without undertaking detailed surveys we know that there are a great many school buildings that pose serious risks. The loss, injury, and damage to school buildings from the 1949 and 1965 earthquakes has been well documented. Bollard High soon after agms?mw. (Photo by Seattle Following are some of the conclusions about schools. 0 We Have Many Vulnerable School Buildings. Since the large 1989 earthquake in California, the Of?ce of Superintendent of Public Instruction (SP1) has undertaken some preliminary assessments of vulnerability statewide. Page 26 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Our Readiness for an Earthquake This involved school district's completing a survey describing their facilities. Analysis of information from half the School buildings in the state, identi?es some 350 to 400 unreinforced masonry buildings housing 155,000 children. SPI acknowledges that these are tentative results. It is clear that there are a substantial number of vulnerable school buildings in the state. Prior to 1964 there were no special seismic design requirements in the building code relating to school construction. 0 While Some School Districts Are Strengthening Buildings, Many Are Not. - Some school districts including Seattle, Bellevue and Lake Washington, are strengthening schdols as part of their capital improvement programs. However, other school districts need to. The State Board of Education and SP1 are currently reviewing capital funding priorities. This offers the opportunity to allocate resources fer seismic strengthening. 0 Schools Have Signi?cant Non-Structural Hazards. School facilities are prone to non?structural hazards. During moderate ground shaking, injuries and loss of life could arise from falling light ?xtures, book cases, ?ling cabinets, space heaters, wall partitions, and a variety of other sources. Flying glass and tall bookshelves can have lethal consequences for small children and adults alike. Attention to non?structural hazards rose greatly after the recent earthquake in San Francisco. SPI produced a non-structural hazard mitigation handbook which has been widely distributed. However, more speci?c mitigation activities need to be undertaken to eliminate nonstructural hazards in schools. 0 Our Fire Department Facilities Are At Risk A major earthquake will completely tax our ?re departments? ?refighting, hazardous materials, and emergency medical capabilities. We cannot afford to have our response capacity reduced by damaged ?re stations. Fire stations play a critical response role. In order to remain functional, the structural vulnerability of the facilities must be assessed and major de?ciencies addressed to ensure continuous provision of emergency and medical services. However, the SSAC found the following: Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 27 Page 28 WW Our Readiness for on Earthquake A. Emergency response in Seattle q?er the 1965 earthquake (Photo courtesy of the Museum of History and Industry, Seattle) 0 Under Current Conditions, Only 80 Percent OfH?re Services In Puget Sound Will Be Operational. A recent study conducted for the United States Geological Survey (0868) found that the emergency response ?re service for most of the Puget Sound region is expected to remain 80 percent operational after a major earthquake. However, the 20 percent reduction in capacity will occur at a time of maximum demand for emergency services. Our Puget Sound area ?re stations are typically of older construction. Almost one-third were built prior to 1940, and over three?quarters were built prior to 1971. These older ?re stations can be quite vulnerable to earthquake damage. Many of the pro?1940 buildings were constructed of unreinforced masonry; as mentioned before, a construction type that has fared poorly in nearly all earthquakes. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Our Readiness for an Earthquake 0 Fire Departments Are The First Responders In A Major Earthquake. During the initial post~earthquake response period, ?re departments have the skills and equipment for combatting the outbreaks of major ?res, mitigating releases of hazardous materials, and performing search and rescue in collapsed or damaged buildings. Fire stations also serve as local communications centers. Consequently, they will play a central role in the aftermath of a major earthquake, receiving reports of damage and requests for assistance, and dispatching the required emergency response personnel and equipment. 0 Few Hospitals Are Addressing Structural Hazards Clearly, hospitals have an important function to play in the aftermath of an earthquake. In the immediate response period, hospitals will be responsible for patients already hospitalized and for responding to emergency demands for medical care. They must remain functional. To remain functional involves identifying and reducing seismic vulnerability. The SSAC heard evidence that few hospitals have undertaken comprehensive seismic safety evaluations. There are notable exceptions, such as the Virginia Mason Hospital, which has a comprehensive program for addressing earthquakezhazards. 0 Hospitals Are Especially Vulnerable To Non-Structural Damage. Medical equipment and many nonstructural items require special attention if hospitals are to remain functional. Hospitals need to test and maintain their emergency power systems. Equipment used to treat patients should be stored and restrained to be secure in an earthquake. Medicine in cabinets should be stored to prevent it-from falling to the ?oor. Lifelines Are Critical For HOSpitals. Hospitals cannot function effectively without water and power. large quantities of water are used for sanitary purposes, to clean equipment and patients. Sephisticated life-sustaining medical equipment needs power. . OEarthquakes Lead To Major Lifelines Disruption Lifeline is an earthquake engineering term referring to those systems necessary for human life and urban function. Lifelines convey food, water, fuel, and other materials necessary for human existence. These systems include transportation routes such as highways and bridges; energy systems such as electric generators and transmission lines and gas pipelines; emergency service facilities such as hospitals and police stations; telecommunication systems; andwater supply systems such as treatment plants, pipelines, and aqueducts. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 29 IIL Our Readiness for an Earthquake Earthquakes are the natural disaster most, likely to lead to major lifeline disruption. The problems of lifeline disruption are compounded by the interactive effects of lifelines. For example, water supply can be dependent upon electricity. In many cases, bridges carry telecommunication landlines and power cables. Thus, a bridge failure can result in a power failure. State efforts to improve the seismic safety of lifelines must include: transportation facilities, water and wastewater, power and telecommunications. 0 Our Transportation Lifelines Are Not Secure There has been some work to strengthen Washington?s transportation lifelines; however, we are still at substantial risk. Following are some of the ?ndings._ Page 30 The State Has Accelerated Its Program To Strengthen Its Bridges. The Washington State Department of Transportation has undertaken a comprehensive risk assessment for all state-owned bridges in the Uniform Building Code?s Seismic Zone 3. This assessment identi?ed 252 bridges that were at highest risk and highest priority for retro?t. The Washington State Department of Transportation has obtained some funding for a seismic retro?t program. However, this funding is only a small down payment on what will be needed to make the highest priority bridges safe. Little Seismic Safety Work Has Been Done With Local With the exception of King County and the City of Seattle, it appears that most local jurisdictions have not explicitly addressed the seismic safety of bridges. Within Seismic Zone 3 alone, the area of highest risk in the State, there are at least 2,000 city and cOunty bridges. The believes many of these are in need of retro?t for seismic safety. Our Part Facilities Are Highly Vulnerable. Marine terminals tend to be located on ?ll and loose sediment, which are both highly prone to liquefaction. Further, there may be the potential for secondary effects such as hazardous material spills or the rupture of oil storage tanks during an earthquake. Most port facilities that are of critical importance to Washington?s economy are located in Seismic Zone 3, the area of greatest risk. The Ports of Tacoma, Seattle, Bellingham and Olympia are undertaking some emergency planning; however, none of those contacted have conducted - any seismic vulnerability assessments. Feny Terminals Are At Risk. Marine transportation facilities, such as ferry terminals, are likely to be highly vulnerable to the effects of an earthquake. . Typically, these facilities are located on ?ll and lands particularly prone to liquefactiOn. The Washington State Department of Transportation has not Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Our Readiness for an Earthquake conducted an assessment of seismic safety of marine facilities. Speci?c problem facilities have not been identi?ed and mitigation measures have not been taken. 0 Our Airports are Vulnerable. Airports are vulnerable to loss of control towers and runway damage as well as risk from pipeline ruptures and hazardous material spills. The extent of damage is typically a function of the stability of soils underlying these structures. The Port of Seattle has not performed a systematic analysis of its soil stability at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. At present, information is not available on other airports. 0 Highway Vulnerability Is Unknown. Highway damage can result from failure of the roadbed or failure of an embankment adjacent to the road. While the Washington State Department of Transportation has not conducted an assessment of the seismic safety of highway facilities, earthquake safety has been addressed as part of the design process for new facilities. Problems are identi?ed and mitigation actions taken on a case-by-case basis. Rail Facilities Are Being Strengthened. The most?frequent source of damage to railroads is settlement or slumping of embankments. Landslides can block or displace tracks. 'Burlington Northern has identi?ed vulnerable links in its network. These are being strengthened to reduce the seismic vulnerability of the system. Of particular concern is the movement of hazardous materials through populated areas. 9 Water And Wastewater Utilities Have Not Addressed Seismic Safety . . The key seismic safety considerations for water and wastewater utilities focus on reducing the vulnerability of systems and performing emergency planning to minimize the life, safety,-economic and environmental consequences of an earthquake. Water supply systems have a number of key components vulnerable to seismic damage. These include pumping stations, reservoirs, treatment plants, and water pipes. Crucial safety issues arise from the interruption of water supply needed for suppressing ?res after an earthquake. Key life safety issues for wastewater facilities arise from chlorine release, methane storage, and the release of methane gas. General failure of treatment pumps or Earthquake Safety Policy Plan . Page 31 Our Readiness for an Earthquake pipelines can cause the backup of sewage into basements and streets posing public health problems. System failure can also result in environmental damage, adversely impacting water quality. The following are SSAC conclusions in these areas: 0 Few Of The Water Purveyors In Washington Have Taken Steps To Assess The Seismic Vulnerability Of Their Systems. Out of approximately 80 water utilities and public utility districts, only the following organizations were identi?ed to have assessed seismic risk and taken mitigation measures: Seattle Water Department, City of Everett, Olympic View Water District in Edmonds, and Federal Way Water and Sewer Utility. Few Wastewater Utilities Have Addressed Seismic Safety. In general wastewater utilities do not appear to be aware of, or to have taken seismic mitigation measures. Our fact-finding indicated that only Seattle Metro and the City of Everett have conducted vulnerability assessments or taken mitigation actions. OElectric Utilities Have Done Limited Vulnerability Assessments The electric power supply system has a number of key components that are vulnerable in the event of an earthquake including electric transmission lines, generation facilities, distribution lines, and substation facilities. Emergency response and recovery planning for the rapid restoration of service after an earthquake is .important for utilities. 0 SSAC Fact?Finding Revealed A Wide Disparity In Electric Utility Seismic Safety Efforts. In western Washington, Seattle City Light and Tacoma Public Utilities Department have conducted some vulnerability assessments; however, Puget Power has not undertaken a systematic vulnerability analysis. The western Washington PUDs contacted also have not conducted vulnerability assessments. In eastern Washington, Pend Oreille and Okanogan County PUDS have undertaken limited earthquake reviews and planning. In general, the larger electric utilities are more aware of seismic safety issues, and they have engineering staff knowledgeable about the issues. However, smaller utilities have not addressed seismic safety questions to any great extent. Page 32 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Our Readiness for an Earthquake ONatural Gas Utilities Have Not Assessed Vulnerability Key seismic safety issues for natural gas utilities are the vulnerability of aboVe ground facilities such as storage tanks and pipelines in areas subject to soil liquefaction and slope instability. Typically, pipelines are most vulnerable when they are old, brittle, corroded cast iron, or are in areas with poor soil conditions. 0 SSAC Fact?Finding Indicated The: Natural Gas Utilities Have Not Focussed Much Attention 0n Assessing Seismic Vulnerability. Washington Natural . Gas (WNG) has not performed a system-wide vulnerability assessment, but WNG pipelines were included as part of an assessment in Everett and little vulnerability was found. Cascade Natural Gas has not performed an vulnerability assessment. They have a generic emergency plan. - A recent survey of natural gas companies by the Utilities and Transportation Commission revealed that the six gas companies in Washington have not undertaken systematic seismic vulnerability assessments. 0 There Are Vulnerable Dams In The Cascades Most dams are designed and constructed to withstand ?oods and earthquakes. Darn failures are most often due to extreme ?oods while few are caused by ground shaking in earthquakes. Hydraulic ?lled earthen dams are the most vulnerable to earthquake shaking. In Washington, a routine seismic analysis is done for all new dam construction projects. Existing dams are surveyed to identify potential hazards. De?ciencies in existing dams are ranked with other factors including hazard-setting in order to identify retro?t projects. Presently, seven dams in Washington have been identi?ed as having life-safety hazards. Of these, four are related to seismic de?ciencies. All are on the eastern slopes of the Cascades. The State Department of Ecology is establishing uniform design criteria for the repair and retro?t of these dams. The majority of dams in Washington are privately owned or are owned by public utilities. The Safety of dams is a joint responsibility of the State of Washington Department of Ecology and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 33 WW OurReadiness for an Earthquake - Page 34 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan IV. Recommendations for Increasing Seismic Safety IV. RECOMNIENDATIONS FOR INCREASING SEISMIC SAFETY IN WASHINGTON ,9 ONow Is The Time To Act There is no doubt that at some time in the future Washington will experience a large and damaging earthquake. It could happen as you read this report, or it could happen next week or next year. We do not know when, but we do know that it will occur. When it does occur there will be deaths, injuries, and disruption that could and should have been prevented. At an early stage, the SSAC concluded that the State should devote its energies to identifying measures which will increase earthquake safety. With every earthquake, we learn more about the behavior of buildings, lifelines, and people during these events. There is a huge body of knowledge which we can apply right now to reduce seismic risks in Washington. The primary emphasis of the SSAC has been on identifying how the State can act to improve seismic safety. - The Approach Is Practical And Achievable The SSAC has placed a major emphasis on developing policy recommendations which are realistic and build upon other work currently underway. The objective is to ensure that seismic safety considerations are incorporated into existing government and private work programs. The recommendations describe the priority measures that the state can readily implement. These recommendations are practical, achievable, and a wise investment. - QPermanem? Program Oversight Is Essential With the submission of this Earthquake Safety Policy Plan to the Legislature, the SSAC will have ful?lled .its initial mandate. While the bulk of its policy recommendations can be implemented using existing statutory authority, the SSAC believes its recommendations will not be acted upon without a body that provides leadership and a continuous focus for seismic safety policy development. Therefore, it is essential that a committee or an oversight body similar to the SSAC be continued for a number of years. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan . Page 35 IV. Recommendations for Increasing Seismic Safety The top priority for initial legislative action is the authorization in statute of a committee which will serve as a focal point for seismic safety policy and programs and oversee the progress of seismic safety efforts. The newly authorized committee would provide an interagency, public/private forum to deve10p and further re?ne recommendations and to oversee implementation. This committee would be invaluable in providing continuity and impetus for state agencies to address seismic safety as part of their ongoing program development. The authorization for the committee should include full-time staf?ng. Their role would be to help implement the priority initiatives and help ensure that state agencies incorporate seismic safety into their ongoing program development. 9A Multi-Year Effort Is Required Washington?s buildings and infrastructure are the legacy of over one hundred years of development. Improving seismic safety is likewise a long-term proposition. The SSAC recommends a series of strategies to address seismic safety over the coming decades. Each strategy includes action initiatives which can be implemented immediately and others which require establishing a process for further re?nement and implementation over a multi-year period. These action initiatives are described in detail in the subcommittee reports (available under separate cover). The subcommittee reports outline the scope and work steps necessary to implement each initiative. 9 The SSAC Has Developed Strategies For Reducing The Risk Seismic safety cannot be improved by legislation alone. It requires carefully crafting a work program. Exhibit on the following page, lists the major strategies, together with their objectives and principal targets, which the SSAC has identi?ed. The strategies are based on an assessment of the most effective roles for the state and the levers the state has. A range of initiatives were developed for implementing these strategies. The initiatives will build on work in progress and are designed to incorporate seismic safety considerations into state agencies? ongoing program development. - Page 36 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan IV. Recommendations for Increasing Seismic Safety Exhibit Strategies for Reducing Risk Create by Legislation an Interagency Seismic Safety Policy Committee OBJECTIVES I TARGET Legislature STRATEGY MW Maintain and sustain interest in seismic safety. Improve Emergency Planning Statewide Emergency Communications Review and improve the emergency communication system. State Emergency Planning Coordinate and expand earthquake training, technical assistance, and plan review. Citizens, Engineers, Managers and Coordinate and expand earthquake education. Of?cials Technical Assistance Assist local jurisdictions to for Local Jurisdictions improve earthquake planning. Business Enterprises Promote private sector earthquake planning and business recovery planning. Strengthen Buildings School Buildings Strengthen as part of long-range capital planning. Buildings Under Remodel Improve seismic standards for upgrade of existing buildings through code development. New Buildings and Facilities Improve seismic standards through code development- Emergency Facilities Reduce structural earthquake hazards in key public facilities. Unreinforced Masonry Buildings Assist local governments to develop a long-range program to reduce seismic hazards from these buildings. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 3?7 IV. Recommendations for Increasing Seismic Safety OBJECTIVES TARGET STRATEGY Strengthen Buildings Building and Design Provide education and licensing (continued) Professionals programs to improve implementa- tion of seismic design and hazard mitigation.? Strengthen Lifelines Lifeline Organizations Establish seismic safety policy for lifelines. Transportation Assess the vulnerability of Infrastructure transportation lifelines and implement a seismic strengthening program. Water Utilities Require and promote seismic vulnerability assessments and mitigation by water supply and wastewater utilities. Power Utilities Require and promote seismic vulnerability assessments and mitigation by power utilities. Lifeline Managers and Provide training and resources for Engineers lifeline managers and engineers. 0 Focus. Groups Supportive 0f SSAC Strategy Public comment was obtained by involving building, lifeline and emergency response professionals in focus groups, through public meetings, and by a written survey. Public comments are outlined in more detail in Appendix C. - The focus groups were supportive of the conclusions and policy recommendations. Participants agreed that Washington has a long way to go to increase seismic safety. Focus group sessions stressed the following priorities for state?level action: 0 Increasing awareness and understanding of the issues at top management levels in both the public and private sectors. 0 Incorporating ?nancial incentives into initiatives affecting building practices. Page 38 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan IV. Recommendations for Increasing Seismic Safety Focussing on encouraging private and public organizations to accept responsibility for seismic safety using the existing regulatory authority. 0 The SSAC Proposes Priority Initiatives For Reducing Risk - The subcommittees developed a detailed series of action initiatives which, when implemented, will enable the State to improve signi?cantly earthquake safety. These initiatives provide a comprehensive assessment of the actions the State can take to reduce substantially the risk to its citizens from earthquakes. The individual subcommittees prioritized initiatives in each of their functional areas. These priorities are documented in the subcommittee reports. The SSAC identi?ed immediate priorities for action. These priorities are based on the following criteria: 0 Importance in. reducing risk to life, safety and property. 0 Feasibility of implementation. 0 Creating momentum for the overall program. The prioritized initiatives provide a work program that includes initiatives which will build momentum and visibility for seismic safety policies. The work program recognizes that mitigation programs take longer to put in place but are highly effective in reducing risk. Therefore, the priority initiatives are the ?rst step in the process of implementing seismic mitigation programs. The SSAC recommends that state agencies take the initiative to involve local jurisdictions and the private sector to launch the long-term policy and program development work necessary for increasing seismic safety. A work program for implementing the top priority initiatives is outlined in Exhibit on the following pages. This work program presents achievable time lines and allocates responsibilities. The scope of each priority initiative is described below. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 39 Page 40 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Exhibit IV-2: Timetable and Responsibility for Implementing Priority Initiatives (Page 1 of 3) Priority Initiatives I. Establishing Seismic Safety Oversight I. it. Create by Legislation an Interagency Seismic Safety Policy Committee Improving Emergency Planning 11. 3. Conduct a State-level'Review of Emergency Com- munication Systems and Implement Review Recommendations . Clarify Liability Law for Volunteer Emergency Workers and ImplementRegistry of Emergency Workers and Volunteer Peismmel II. c. Prepare and Implement a MultivMedia Aware:an and Education Program . Provide Standardized Training Materials as pa. of Ongoing Training (continued on next page) DCD - Department of Community Development DNR - Department of Natural Resources EMD - Emergency Management Division 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Erin/00mm - Seismic Safety Advisory Commiuce WSDOT - Washington State Department of Transportation IV. Recommendations for Increasing Seismic Safety Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 41 Exhibit IV-Z: Timetable and Responsibility for Implementing Priority Initiatives (Page 2 of 3) Priority Initiatives 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 II. Improving Emergency Planning (continued) II. c. Standardize Planning Guidelines for Local Jurisdic- tions as Part of Ongoing Emergency Planning f. Increase Awareness of Structural and Nonstructural Building Hazards as Part of Ongoing Education . . 5M9 Strengthening Buildings 8. Assess Seismic Vulnerability of School Facilities arm/3395540 i SBCC/DCMtakehoHers b. Develop Building Code Amendments Requiring Seismic Strengthening During Remodel e, Review the Current U.B.C. Seismic Zone 3 Boundaries d. Develop Financial Incentive Programs to Assist with Seismic Upgrade Projects WD/Stal?toldem e. Support and Coordinate the Geological Mapping of Sensitive Areas .1 HI. f. Support the Implementation of a Strong Motion DNR/Uofw/Uscs Instrumentation Ptograrn I IV- Recommendations for Increasing Seismic'Safety D-CD - Departrnent of Community Development 0PM - Of?ce of Financial Managerth UofW - University of Washington DNR a. Department of Natural Resources SBCC - State Building Code Council USGS - United States Geological Survey EMD - Emergency Management Division SBE - State Board of Education WSDOT - Washington State Dept. of Transportation Page 42 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Exhibit IV-2: Timetable and Responsibility for Implementing Priority Initiatives (Page 3 of 3) Priority Initiatives IV. Strengthening Lifelines IV. a. Establish Statewide Policy Goals for Mitigation of IV. I). Lifelines Continue Funding the WSDOT Bridge Retro?t Program Identify Critical lifeline Routes Develop Work Program for Vulnerability Assessment of Local Bridges Require Vulnembility Assessments and Adoption of Mitigation Standards for Water and Wastewater Utilities Require Postearthquake Response and Recover Plans for Water and Wastewatet Utilities Provide 'I?raining for Lifeline Organimtions Develop Standardized Seismic Safety Guidelines for Lifeline Emergency Flam DCD - Department of Develogment DOH - Department of Health EMD - Emergency Management Division 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 ssacy sumo/non . . . END 1 I sumo/Dower: i I SSAC - Seismic Safety Advisory Committee WSDOT - Washington State Department of Trampm'tation WW IV. Recommendations for Increasing Seismic Safety IV. Recommendations for Increasing Seismic Safety I. ESTABLISHING SEISMIC SAFETY OVERSIGHT Immediate Initiative La Create by legislation an interagency seismic safety policy committee. This involves establishing the SSAC as a standing seismic safety policy committee. This policy committee will provide program oversight and advocacy for seismic safety in Washington. The policy committee would serve as a focal point for seismic safety programs and oversee the progress of earthquake risk reduction efforts. The committee would serve as an advocacy group that can provide continuity to programs, encourage state agencies to incorporate seismic safety considerations into ongoing program deveIOpment, and lead an effort to submit regular biennial multi-agency funding packages to the Mgislature. Full-time staf?ng is needed to support and coordinate implementation of the priority initiatives outlined below.- Required Authorization: The Committee should be authorized through legislation in the 1992 session. II. INIPROVING ENIERGENCY PLANNING 1La Conduct a state?level review of emergency communication systems, and implement review recommendations. The SSAC has strong concerns about the capability of the State?s emergency communication systems to survive and be adequate for coordinating the response to a catastrophic earthquake. The study will assess communication needs, inventory equipment, and evaluate existing communication resources. State agencies currently have a variety of communication resources. The review will recommend changes and establish priorities and an implementation schedule. The study should also include an assessment of the staf?ng levels needed to support 24-hour communications capability. Study recommendations should include guidelines for legislative adoption which will ensure that all new communications equipment bought by state Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 43 Page 44 IV. Recommendations for Increasing Seismic Safety agencies is capable of having a disaster management function. These guidelines need to be reviewed by state agency personnel responsible for communications. Implementation of this recommendation requires legislative direction. The emergency communications study should receive oversight from an interagency task force including representatives of state agencies and local jurisdictions. Responsibility: The SSAC recommends legislative funding for this review. Implementing review recommendations requires establishment of a multi-agency force. Clarify the liability law for volunteer emergency workers and implement a central registry of trained emergency worker and volunteer personnel. - This will ensure that the State assumes liability for volunteer emergency workers and organizations offering material assistance. This involves clarifying language in the Revised Code of Washington. The SSAC would also like the law extended to encompass the liability of organizations volunteering equipment, such as heavy moving equipment. The initiative will generate a registry of emergency and volunteer personnel along with appropriate identi?cation procedures and certi?cation requirements. This recommendation can readily be implemented by coordinating with professional organizations already Working to implement the intent of this initiative. Responsibility: The SSAC recommends that the EMD coordinates with the Disaster Assistance Council and professional organizations to draft recommended legislation for the 1993 legislative session. Prepare and implement a multi-media awareness and education program. The awareness program will target key decision makers. A county-level brie?ng will provide clear guidance to local jurisdictions about the earthquake hazards they should plan for. This will provide every county with understandable information on the rislm they face and the range of actions they can take. The brie?ng should include a brochure, a map and a concise statement describing the county?s earthquake risk. It should also Earthquake Safety Policy Plan IV. Recommendations for Increasing Seismic Safety describe the potential for secondary effects such as tsunami or ground failure, the likely impact on pUblic structures, critical facilities, and lifelines. The initiative will involve the media in earthquake preparedness planning. This will be an' ongoing effort aimed at increasing earthquake preparedness planning by the general public. Year one activities should include developing and publicizing activities and events designed to stimulate media and public interest. Implementing the strategy will involve coordination with and support from nonpro?t, professional, and business organizations. As part of the initiative a video would be used to communicate the earthquake threat and outline some of the steps that can be taken to reduce the risks to life, safety and property. The video?s target group would be policy makers and top managers in state and local governments and the private sector. A "core" 10 to 15 minute video presenting the earthquake threat and depicting some of the potential consequences could be added to and tailored for speci?c audiences utilities, transportation agencies). Responsibility: Emergency Management Division/Department of Community Development and the Department of Natural Resources. Provide standardized materials to help local jurisdictions train personnel. The Emergency Management Division should develop a standard set of Seismic safety training materials for local emergency response organizations. Standardized materials will ensure that expertise learned in one jurisdiction can be transferred to another. They will also allow for easy update. Many of these materials already, exist. The Emergency Management Division already provides a range of training courses and can develop or obtain applicable training materials. This recommendation involves the preparation of a standard training work plan for jurisdictions to implement. Responsibility: Emergency Management Division/Department of Community Development. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 45 Page 46 IV. Recommendations for Increasing Seismic Safety Re DJ Standardize planning guidelines for .local jurisdictions as part of ongoing emergency planning. This initiative involves the Emergency Management Division providing technical assistance to jurisdictions to develop and implement local plans. Standardized planning guidance _will be developed which will help integrate emergency response assistance from outside the jurisdiction. Emergency planning guidelines will provide examples and "how to" instructions. The guidelines should describe the elements of a good plan. The SSAC believes that these guidelines should require jurisdictions to periodically review and test their emergency plans and procedures through exercises. The major task involved is assigning responsibility to staff in the Emergency Management Division to deve10p model plan guidelines in collaboration with an advisory body such as the Emergency Response Subcommittee of the SSAC. of Responsibility: Emergency Management Division/Department Community Development. Increase awareness of structural and non-structural earthquake hazards as part of ongoing education. This initiative would provide information on the seismic strengthening of homes and of?ces, and nonestructural hazard mitigation in homes and workplaces. .- This involves reviewing existing public information materials including books, pamphlets, videos and slide sets and targeting the dissemination of published materials. Emergency Management Division! Department of Community Development in coordination with private organizations, such as the Red Cross and professional associations. Responsibility: Earthquake Safety Policy Plan IV. Recommendations for Increasing Seismic Safety NM 111. STRENGTHENING BUILDINGS Illa Assess the seismic vulnerability of school facilities and improve seismic safety as part of long-range capital planning. The SSAC recommends working with the State Board of Education to incorporate the health and safety factors of seismic vulnerability in their administration of a funding priority system. This could include creating incentives for school districts to undertake summary seismic surveys to report unreinfOrced masonry buildings, and tilt-up buildings, using rapid visual screening and available data where possible. This initiative should target the participation of all school districts in Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 3. - Desirable mitigation would include requiring seismic strengthening during remodel work or requiring seismic strengthening within 'a Speci?ed time frame. Implementing a mitigation program will require appropriations for assessments and changes in capital funding prioritization mechanisms. Possibly, the State Board of Education could issue rules priortizing capital expenditures which include mitigation. Legislation may be needed to require inventories, retro?t standards, and a special funding program. Responsibility: The Superintendent of Public Instruction in coordination with school districts and the State Board of Education. Develop and submit amendments to the State Building Code Council that require seismic strengthening during planned remodel projects. The current State Building Code does not require the seismic strengthening of facilities during extensive remodeling work. This initiative will result in the preparation of speci?c recommendations for amending the state building code. Successful implementation necessitates establishing a process, probably a special committee of the SSAC working with the State Building Code Council to involve key stakeholders. Responsibility: The Seismic Safety Advisory Committee and the State Building Code Council, in coordination with key stakeholders such as the American Institute of Architects, Structural Engineers Association of Washington, Building Owners and Managers Association, Master Builders Association and the Washington Association of Building Of?cials. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 47 Page 48 I IV. Recommendations for Increasing Seismic Safety [H.c Support the review of current Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 3 boundaries. This initiative will help assist the review of the current Uniform Building Code seismic zones in Washington. The Technical Advisory Committee thoroughly reviewed Washington?s earthquake history in the light of current knowledge. Their work indicates that there is a need to review the Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 3 boundaries because the zone designation does not account for current knowledge about our earthquake history and is inconsistent with zones established in Oregon. Responsibility: The Seismic Safety Advisory Committee, the State Building. Code Council, Department of Natural Resources and key stakeholders. - Develop ?nancial incentive programs to assist with seismic upgrade proj ects.? This initiative involves undertaking scoping and other preliminary work necessary to develop a ?nancial incentive program. This entails . identifying the incentive mechanisms most likely to encourage seismic retro?t and then seeking agency and legislative funding for a program. The Emergency Management Division in coordination with the Department of Community Development?s Local Government Assistance Division, and the Department of Trade and Economic Development. Responsibility: Support and coordinate the geological mapping of sensitive areas. This initiative involves preparing geological maps of critical areas. This mapping can be used for comprehensive planning and will provide the data and information necessary to regulate new construction in seismically vulnerable areas. The initiative will help ful?ll critical area mapping required as part of comprehensive planning under the Growth Management Act. Responsibility: The Department of Natural Resources in coordination with the Growth Management Division in the Department of Community Development and the United States Geological Survey. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan IVE Recommendations for Increasing Seismic Safety Support the implementation of a strong motion instrumentation program in Washington. . This initiative involves the purchase and installation of strong motion instrumentation. The instrumentation will measure the response of buildings and ground sites to strong shaking during earthquakes. This information is needed to review building codes and increase our understanding of site effects. The data and knowledge gained from the instrumentation will be important for increasing seismic safety over time. Implementation of this initiative should be undertaken in conjunction with the United States Geological Survey, which has an ongoing program monitoring and maintaining this type of equipment, and the engineering community. Responsibility: Department of Natural Resources and the University of Washington in coordination with the United States Geological Survey. IV. STRENGTHENING OUR LIFELINFS Establish statewide policy goals for mitigation of seismic risk to lifelines. Lifeline organizations need policy direction to establish expectations for their responsibilities. This initiative would establish as state policy that public and private sector lifeline organizations should address seismic safety. The major task is the preparation of a policy statement for SSAC approval. Responsibility: Seismic Safety Advisory Committee in coordination with lifeline organizations. Continue funding the current bridge retro?t program. This current program is designed to strengthen and reduce the seismic- vulnerability of state bridges. The Washington State Department of Transportation has already undertaken a comprehensive vulnerability assessment of its bridges in western Washington and has an ongoing program of seismic strengthening. Seismic retro?t is being undertaken according to a prioritization scheme incorporating structural, site and lifeline considerations. This initiative received funding in the 1991 Legislature; however, it requires signi?cant additional funding over time. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 49 Page 50 IV. Recommendations for Increasing Seismic Safety Responsibility:- The Washington State Department of Transportation is already implementing this initiative. The Department of Community Development needs to communicate the endorsement of this program to top management in the Washington State Department of Transportation and to the House and Senate Transportation Committees. Identify critical lifeline routes that include both state and local roads, bridges, transit routes, and port facilities. This initiative will coordinate state and local seismic safety planning. Identifying the lifeline routes can be undertaken as a discrete study by the SSAC in coordination with the Washington State Department of Transportation, the County Road Administration Board, the Association of Washington Cities, the Washington State Association of Counties, the Washington State Transit Association and the Washington State Emergency Management Association. A funding program should be developed for a multi-year effort designed to reduce the seismic vulnerability of transportation lifelines of critical statewide signi?cance. Responsibility: The SSAC in coordination with the Washington State Department of Transportation, and local transportation and emergency response organizations. Develop a work program for seismic vulnerability assessments of local bridges. This initiative involves analyzing the scope and funding requirements for a signi?cant "state initiative to assist county and city engineers to assess the seismic vulnerability of their bridges. This would be used as the basis for a budget request to the Legislature to fund vulnerability assessments of local .bridgesvon critical lifeline routes. The WashingtoriVState Department of Transportatibn in coordination with the County Road Administration . Board, Association of Washington Cities and the Washington State Association of Counties. Responsibility: Earthquake Safety Policy Plan IV. Recommendations for Increasing Seismic Safety Require seismic vulnerability assessments and adoption of seismic mitigation standards for water and wastewater utilities. This initiative will deve10p requirements for improving the seismic safety of water and wastewater systems. Implementation of this recommendation involves adding seismic safety requirements to Department of Health water supply regulations and to the Department of Ecology wastewater regulations. This project would review work done by the National Institute of Standards and Technology as a starting point for. adepting seismic design standards for water and wastewater- utilities. This would involve establishing a subcommittee of the SSAC working with the Departments of Health and Ecology, the Washington Water Utility Council, the American Water Works Association, the Water Pollution Control Federation, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and other representatives to draft requirements. Responsibility: The SSAC in coordination with the Department of Health, the Department of Ecology, and industry and professional organizations. Require post-earthquake response and recovery plans for water and wastewater utilities. This initiative involves developing and implementing a requirement that earthquake emergency response planning be incorporated into existing emergency planning by water and wastewater utilities. Responsibility: The SSAC in coordination with the Departments of Health and Ecology. Provide a rigorous. program of training in seismic safety for lifeline organizations. This training program will increase the capacity of lifeline organization staff to address seismic safety issues and build on the training courses currently available through the Emergency Management Division and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The recommendation is to closely tailor this training to promote and provide the necessary tools for lifeline managers and engineers to Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 51 WW Page 52 IV. Recommendations for Increasing Seismic Safety implement seismic safety programs. In particular it is important to document the costs and bene?ts of addressing seismic safety for managers. Prepare training and brie?ng materials for lifeline managers. To the extent possible, courses should be tailored to particular organizations such as water utilities, electric utilities and gas companies. Responsibility: Emergency Management Division/Department of Community Development in coordination with lifeline organizations. Develop standardized seismic safety guidelines for lifeline emergency plans. This initiative will provide specialized advice for those lifeline organizations preparing a mitigation and response plan. The Department of Health has already published a model emergency plan for water utilities. This initiative will provide additional standardized, easy?to-use and expert guidance for undertaking seismic safety planning. Responsibility: Emergency Management Division/Department of Community Development in coordination with lifeline related organizations such as the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, the Washington Water Utility Council, and the Washington Public Ports Association. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Appendices SEISMIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMNIITTEE Em . Ray Lasmanis - . Robert Lewis . Dick Bullock . James Carpenter . Lama Clark . John Conrad . Janet Grif?th . Maris Grobins . Linda Groce . Kate Heimbach . Robert Jones . Tom Kinsman Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Membership Organization Co?Chairs Washington State Department of Natural Resources Cellular One Committee Members Washington State Association of Counties/Cowlitz County Structural Engineers Association of . Washington Washington State Emergency Management Association Washington State Department of Transportation Washington State Department of Health Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Hospital Association Washington State Department of Community Development Washington State Fire Protection Policy Board Washington Association of Building Of?cials Page 53 Appendices Name Qrganization Mr. Michael Levenson Washington State Department of General Administration Mr. Terrence Michalson Washington State Of?ce of the Superintendent of Public Instruction Mr. Ron Schirrnan Washington Disaster Assistance Council Sheriff William Wiester, Jr. Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs Dr. Stanley Wu Association of Washington Cities/City of Seattle Page 54 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Appendices SUBCOMMITTEE PARTICIPANTS Name Organization EMERGENCY RESPONSE Ms. Laura Clark Sheriff William Wiester, Jr. Mr. Rick Buell Mr. Dick Bullock Ms. Terry Giles Mr. Bob Jones Mr. Mike Levenson Mr. Ron Shirman Dr. Stanley Wu Dr. James Carpenter Mr. Thomas A. Kinsman Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Co-Chairs Washington State Emergency Management Association Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs Participants Washington State Department of Health washington State Association of Counties Red Cross - Washington Fire Protection Policy Board Washington State Department of General Administration Washington Disaster Assistance Council Association of Washington Cities! City of Seattle STRUCTURES Co-Chairs Structural Engineers Association of Washington Washington Association of Building Of?cials Page 55 Appendices Name . Maris Grobins . Linda Groce . Terrence Michalson . Dorothy A. Reed . Donna Voss . John Conrad . Don Ballantyne . Keith W. Benharn . DJ. (Jack) Bernhardsen . Bob George . laurel Harrington Bob LeMs . Ron Rosie Page 56 mm Participants Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Hospital Association Washington State Of?ce of the Superim tendent of Public Instruction University of Washington Washington State Building Code Council LIFELINES Washington State Department of Transportation Participants Kennedy/leaks Consultants Washington Public Ports Association Tacoma Department of Public Utilities Washington State Department of Transportation City of Seattle Water Department Cellular One Seattle METRO Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Appendices 'Mr. Timothy J. Walsh Mr. John Bethel Dr. C. B. Crouse Mr. Ray Lasmanis Mr. Jerald laVassar Ms. Linda Noson Dr. Stephen Palmer Dr. Anthony Qamar Mr. Thomas Yelin Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Organization TECHNICAL ADVISORY Washington State Department of Natural Resources Participants King County Building and Land Development Dames and Moore Washington State Department of Natural Resources Washington State Department of Ecology Ratti, Swanson, Perb?ix and Clark Washington State Department of Natural Resources University of Washington United States Geological Survey Page 57 Page 58 Appendices Appendix ACTION INITIATIVES FOR IMPROVING SEISMIC SAFETY I. ESTABLISHING SEISMIC SAFETY OVERSIGHT Priority One I.a Create by legislation an interagency seismic safety policy committee. II. IMPROVING EMERGENCY PLANNING Priority One Conduct a state-level review of emergency communication systems and implement review recommendations. Clarify the liability law for volunteer emergency workers and implement a central registry of trained emergency worker and volunteer personnel. Prepare and implement a multi?media awareness and education program. Provide standardized materials to help local jurisdictions more effectively train personnel. I -Il.e Standardize planning guidelines for local jurisdictions as part of ongoing emergency planning. Increase awareness of structural and non?structural earthquake hazards as part of ongoing education. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 59 Appendices ll Priority Two lI.g Develop capacity for real time communication of information about the location, magnitude and type of earthquake event that has occurred. Establish a clearinghouse for disseminating educational and training materials. lI.i Develop and implement an automated central inventory of equipment and - resources available for emergency use. Evaluate and review local emergency plans and county preparedness, transferring the best practices to other jurisdictions. Establish a workgroup as a subcommittee of the SSAC comprising public, private and nonpro?t representatives to identify and prioritize initiatives for promoting seismic safety preparedness and recovery planning by business. Priority Three II.1 Review and revise the Division of Emergency Management?s handbook on mutual aid and develop model mutual aid agreements. Identify and transfer examples of good local government emergency communications planning and regional coordination. STRENGTHENING BUILDINGS Priority One Assess the seismic vulnerability of school facilities and improve seismic safety as part of long?range capital planning. Page 60 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Appendices it Develop building code amendments requiring seismic strengthening during planned remodel projects. lII.c Support the review of current Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 3 Boundaries. Develop ?nancial incentive programs to assist with seismic upgrade projects. Support and coordinate the geoldgical mapping of sensitive areas. Support the implementation of a strong motion instrumentation program in Washington. Priority Two Assess the seismic vulnerability of police and ?re stations, and emergency response facilities; and mitigate seismic safety hazards, as part of long- range capital improvement. Enhance licensing programs to improve implementation of seismic design and hazard mitigation. Assess the seismic vulnerability of state~owned buildings and improve seismic safety as part of long-range capital improvement. Incorporate soil and foundation stability requirements into building design. Encourage public and private hospitals to assess seismic vulnerability and Earthquake Safety Policy Plan planning to improve seismic safety, as part of facilities planning. Page 61 Appendices Pn'on?ty Three Assist local governments to de?ne longarange effort to reduce hazards from existing privately?owned buildings. Provide technical assistance to help local jurisdictions reduce the seismic vulnerability of essential public facilities. Coordinate with and support ongoing efforts to improve seismic standards in the Uniform Building Code. Encourage local jurisdictions to adopt model ordinances requiring minimum seismic upgrade of unreinforced masonry buildings. Encourage local jurisdictions to adopt local ordinances requiring minimum nonstructural seismic mitigation. IV. STRENGTHENING LIFELINES Priority One Establish statewide policy goals for mitigation of seismic risk to lifelines. Continue funding "the current Washington State Department of Transportation bridge retro?t program. Identify critical lifeline routes that include state and local roads, bridges, transit routes, and port facilities. Develop a work program for seismic vulnerability assessments of local Page 62 bridges. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Appendices t' Require seismic vulnerability assessments and adaption of seismic mitigation standards for water and wastewater utilities. Require post?earthquake response and recovery plans for water and wastewater utilities. IV. Provide a rigorous program of training in seismic safety for lifeline organizations. Develop standardized seismic safety guidelines for utilities emergency plans. Priority Two Promote vulnerability assessments and mitigation programs for other transportation facilities. IV .j Require seismic vulnerability assessment and adoption of mitigation standards by the power industry. Require electric and natural gas utilities to address earthquake response in their emergency response and recovery plans. Priority Three IVJ Require Seismic vulnerability assessments and adoption of mitigation standards for telecommunication companies. Require telecommunications utilities to develop earthquake response and Earthquake Safety Policy Plan recovery plans. Page 63 Page 64 Appendices A pier-lid PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN POLICY DEVELOPIVIENT In addition to formal representation on the SSAC and the subcommittees, input was solicited from a broad range of organizations and individuals. To maximize involvement focus groups and public meetings were conducted in Tacoma and Richland, and 2,500 brochures and surveys were mailed statewide. This appendix presents the results from this public involvement process. OFocus Group Comments 1 . Western Washington Focus groups involving lifeline, building and emergency response professionals, were staged in western Washington. Emergency Response Focus Group Emergency management and emergency response professionals from local jurisdictions, hospitals, and utilities participated in the emergency response focus group. Participants were supportive of the policy recommendations. The participants believe that the priorities for state-level emergency planning should be: 0 Improving regional and state-level emergency communications infrastructure. 0 Ensuring that preparedness measures are taken. 0 Coordinating resources and access to available educational and training materials. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 65 Page 66 Appendices ll Structures Focus Group There was broad participation by professionals involved with the construction, maintenance, and operation of structures in western Washington. The participants validated the analysis of ourearthquake preparedness and provided general support for policy recommendations. The participants reported that their organizations are taking some measures to address seismic safety; however, they all agreed that there is a long way to go. An important point made by a number of the participants was that the earthquake awareness of top managers and decision makers in their organizations needs to be raised if seismic safety is to become a priority for action. The participants were quick to state their concern that ?nancial incentives or mechanisms should. efforts to increase seismic design requirements in remodel projects. The participants? priorities for policy action are: 0 Education and preparedness measures to increase public and top management support for the strengthening of facilities. Financial incentives or mechanisms to enable seismic strengthening during remodeling to take place. The participants also stated that the State?s role is to ensure that there is follow? through on the recommendations. Agency heads, managers and decision- makers should all be recipients of the policy recommendations. Lifelines Focus Group Lifeline engineers and managers participated in the focus group. The participants are all involved in a variety of mitigation projects. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Appendices The participants stressed that the interdependency of lifelines must be addressed as part of seismic safety policy. The initiative identifying critical lifeline routes provides a good example of how this can be done. The participants were supportive of the approach. In their opinion further regulation is not required. Existing authority should be used. In addition, the participants argued, that the best role for the state is to encourage lifeline organizations to take responsibility for addressing seismic safety. Some of the participants believe that there is considerable scope for private-public initiatives to address seismic safety. Critically, earthquake awareness must be increased at top management levels in lifeline organizations. The participants? priorities for state-level policy to improve seismic safety of lifelines are: 0 Increasing earthquake awareness and risk communication among top managers and key decision makers. 0 Coordination and review of lifeline organizations? emergency planning. 0 Additional lifeline training courses. If courses are oversubscribed, charge more and then stage more. The participants also identi?ed further work for the SSAC. They pointed out that a key to addressing seismic safety for lifelines is. to increase political and top management level appreciation of the economic impacts of lifeline interruption. 2. Eastern Washington Emergency management professionals, building officials, and engineers in private practice participated in a focus group in eastern Washington. The participants were interested in the assessment of the earthquake threat in eastern Washington. The participants were all aware that the earthquake risk is less in eastern than in western Washington. The discussion concentrated Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 67 i Appendices on two themes: ?rst, whether the risk merits increasing seismic safety in eastern Washington; and second, the role that eastern Washington can play in the event of a catastrophic earthquake in western Washington. The participants believe that state-level policy initiatives should focus on: 0 Increasing awareness and communicating the reality of earthquake risks in eastern Washington. 0 Providing training materials such as videos and publications. 0 Staging training courses in eastern Washington. The participants also believe that improving emergency planning in general in eastern Washington will improve earthquake planning. There was considerable discussion about the potential role that eastern Washington can play as a staging point in the event of a catastrophic earthquake in western Washington. Participants argued that state~level emergency planning should encompass exercising scenarios in which eastern Washington is used as a staging point. Further, emergency planning capacity should be built to increase the capacity of eastern Washington to ful?ll that function. 0 Survey Response A brochure summarizing the assessment of earthquake preparedness and policy recommendations was mailed statewide. Schools, lifeline organizations, and local jurisdictions, among others, were sent brochures. The brochure also included a survey to provide further policy development input. The SSAC received 126 responses. The responses indicated that just over half the organizations have looked at their earthquake risks. Page 68 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan - Appendices . 1. ReSpondents? Earthquake Concerns The major earthquake concerns of the reSpondents were: 0 Building safety. 0 Emergency rescue. 0 Transportation. 0 Telephone services. 2. Respondents? Personal Preparedness The survey asked whether respondents have taken earthquake safety measures at home or at school. The responses were as follows: 0 At home 21 percent. 0 At school 15 percent. The percentage of respondents who have taken any measures at home is particularly low. It should be noted that the individuals receiving the survey are more likely to take preparedness measures than the general public because many are emergency response providers or already have some information about the earthquake threat. 3. Respondents? Policy Priorities The respondents were asked to prioritize state-level policy actions. The top ?ve action items prioritized were: 0 Work with organizations to strengthen facilities such as schools, police and ?re stations, medical facilities, and government of?ces which are at risk from earthquake damage. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 69 Appendices ill 0 Identify and strengthen utility systems including water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications that could be damaged in an earthquake. 0 Create a permanent state organization to plan for, promote, and monitor earthquake safety programs. 0 Increase awareness about earthquake safety among citizens and communities in Washington. 0 Adjust budget priorities__,_to provide funding for earthquake remodeling programs in schools, police and ?re stations, medical facilities, and government of?ces. Page ?70 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Appendices Appendix OVERVIEW OF EARTHQUAKE EXERCISE RESPONSE 913 A federally mandated earthquake exercise was held on October 30, 1991, testing the capability of the Department of Community Development?s Emergency Management Division to coordinate response to a magnitude 8.5 catastrophic earthquake in the Puget Sound area. Federal, state, and local government of?cials and agencies participated in the exercise. The State Emergency Operations Center (ECG) was activated and staffed by representatives of the following state agencies: Department of General Administration Superintendent of Public Instruction - Department of Agriculture Department of Social and Health Services Department of Natural Rescurces Military Department Department of Transportation Utilities and Transportation Commission Department of Health Washington State Patrol Department of Ecology Washington State Energy Of?ce Department of Information Services Department of Community Development Local emergency management staff from six jurisdictions were also actively involved in the exercise. Local participants included staff from King, Pierce, Kitsap, Thurston, and Snohomish Counties, and from the City of Seattle. Training was provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding federal emergency support functional groups (ESP), and by Emergency Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 71 Appendices Management Division on the operations of the EOC and the coordination between state agencies within the state Emergency Support Functions. The functional groups established by FEMA were: Transportation, Communication, Public Works and Engineering, Fire?ghting, Information and Planning, Mass Care, Resource Support, Health and Medical Services, Urban Search and Rescue, Hazardous Materials, Food, and Energy. The state used all of the same ESP groups, and also added a group for Law Enforcement. The objectives of the exercise for the state were to: 0 Develop issues for revision of the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, 0 Test the effectiveness of the ESF organizational arrangement, 0 Test the ability of state agencies to access state resources, 0 Test state EOC ability to prioritize resource requests from local governments, and 0 Test the ability of federal agencies to respond to resource requests from the state. The objectives for the federal government were to: 0 Maximize interagency and intergovernmental coordination within the response structure, 9 Examine and enhance coordination among state and federal ESFs, and 0 Identify and resolve inef?ciencies and redundancies in response systems. The scenario that was deve10ped was designed to stress the state?s resources and force requests for assistance into the federal system. FEMA provided a scenario in which the Puget Sound region experienced a magnitude 8.5 earthquake. Although in a real event of this magnitude there is a high probability that I normal lines of communication would be unavailable, for the purposes of the exercise communications systems were not being tested. Therefore, local players were able to relay requests for resources to the State by telephone. This allowed the State staff to receive and respond to more requests for assistance more quickly than might be possible during a real event. Page 72 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Appendices Approximately one message per minute was to be made to the State Emergency Operations Center during the exercise; A written critique of the exercise which evaluates the ?ve state objectives will be produced to guide revision of EMD planning and operations work. A preliminary review of comments received from exercise evaluators and participants indicates the need to evaluate: The effectiveness of the federal Emergency Support Functions structure when imposed upon the state EOC. The need for state agencies to have adequate resource data bases for emergency deployment purposes. I The extent to which state agencies need to be internally prepared for earthquake impacts upon their operations. 0 The adequacy of the state EOC facility for handling major disasters. 0 The need for regular integration, training and exercising of coordinated state agency response and the pro?ciency of the current Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan as a policy plan for state emergency operations. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 73 Page; 74 Earthquake Safety Policy Plan I Appendices A i AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION The Department [of Community Development] shall create a seismic safety advisory board to develop a comprehensive plan and make recommendations to the Legislature for improving the state's earthquake preparedness. The plan shall include an assessment of and recommendations on the adequacy of communications systems, structural integrity of public buildings, including hospitals and public schools, local government emergency reSponse systems, and prioritization of measures to improve the state?s earthquake readiness. The Department shall report to the Senate and House of Representatives Committees on energy and utilities by December 1, 1991. An interim report shall be made to the Committees by December 1, 1990. Earthquake Safety Policy Plan Page 75