WASHINGTON STATE SEISMIC SAFETY COUNCIL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Report of the Washington State Seismic Safety Council September 1986 Washington State Seismic Safety Council Membership Patricia Bolton, Research Scientist Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers Richard Buck (ex offieio) Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region Padraic Burke, Principal Building Systems Technology Seattle Hugh Fowler, Director (ex official Division of Emergency Management Department of Community Development State of' Washington Frankel, Planner Fairehild Corporation (until June, 1936} Honorable Marcus Gaspard Washington State Senator alt: Larry Davis, Analyst Senate Education Committee Neil Hawkins Department of Civil Engineering University of Washingtoa Ray Lasmanis, State Geologist State Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources all: Jerry Thorsen Carole Martens, Educator Seattle Earthquake Education Program Geophysics, University of Washington Peter May (Co-Chair) Political Science Public Affairs University of Washington Linda Noson (Co?Chair) State Seismologist, GeOphysies University of Washington Bruce Olsen Structural Engineer, Seattle William Stockham King County Office of Emergency Services all: Harry Naehr Honorable Georgette Valle Washington State Representative Washington Seismic Safety Council SUMMARY, pg. i SUMMARY This report summarizes the findings and recommendations of the Washington State Seismic Safety Council concerning state policy for dealing with earthquake risks. As discussed in the report, there is a potential for extensive damage and loss of life from a major earthquake in Washington state. Despite the potential, actions to date of the legislature and state agencies in addressing the earthquake risk have been limited. This report reviews our knowledge of earthquake hazards in the state and outlines the elements of an earthquake risk reduction program. The longer-range agenda and recommendations for legislative and executive action are aimed at fostering appropriate actions by state agencies, local jurisdictions, industry, and individuals in preparing for the inevitability of a major earthquake in Washington state. The Setting: Risks, Limited Actions Scientific studies and historical reports clearly show that seismic hazards in Washington state are capable of moderate to major property damage and loss of life. The precise nature of the forces that comprise seismic hazards in this region and the maximum credible seismic event are at present subject to scientific debate. However. it is important to recognise that there is scientific consensus about the existence of major seismic hazards in the state. Our review of the nature and consequences of Washington state seismic hazards has led to four major findings: Finding Noteworthy seismic hazards are known to exist in much of Washington state. Recent research suggests the possibility of seismic events of much greater magnitude than previously documented. Finding The exposure of people and property to seismic hazards in Washington state Creates a potential for major loss of life and for major property damage. The magnitude of likely iosses has increased over the past decade. Finding State-levei actions to date in addressing seismic hazards have been sporadic. pointing out the need for stronger state leadership to promote efforts by state agencies. local jurisdictions. industry. and citizens to avert earthquake losses. Finding Noteworthy barriers exist which constrain the development of state-level initiatives and policy with respect to seismic safety. Reassessing the State Role The state has a clear stake in addressing seismic hazards, making it necessary for the state to take a much stronger role than in the past. In addition to the state's general responsibility in maintaining the health and safety of its citizens, the state obligation for addressing seismic safety stems from several ice},r facts: the hazard is statewide; (2) state facilities are at risk; (3) earthquake losses will require state aid; and (4) the state may be held liable for failing to adequater address earthquake risks. Washington Seismic Safety Council SUMMARY, pg. ii Defining State Responsibilities. The state does go; have the sole responsibility for earthquake risk reduction. Clearly, local governments, private businesses and industry, and individual citizens have obligations as well. While many of the specific steps in addressing seismic risks rest upon local and individual actions, the state has an obligation to ensure that prudent efforts are made to address seismic risk. The key policy issue is definition of the state role in both fulfilling its responsibilities and inducing others to fulfill theirs. The Cauncil concludes that the state role in meeting these two sets of obligations should be: (1) Calling attention to seismic risks; (2) Supporting research and disseminating information that is necessary for state and local risk reduction programs; (3) Ensuring the integrity of public facilities, hospitals, schools, and other essential facilities in the event of a major earthquake; (4) Ensuring the integrity of state transportation, communication, and other "lifelines" in the event of a major earthquake; and (5) Establishing the necessary statutes Or other authorities for facilitating local governmental, private industry, and individual citizen action in averting earthquake losses. The Long Term Agenda. The long term agenda fer the state should be an ongoing seismic risk reduction program that carries out each of the state responsibilities for seismic safety as outlined above. Such a program would be an ongoing effort to encourage state and local government, private industry, and citizen efforts to avert earthquake losses. Some of the elements of this agenda are already in place while others are yet to be defined. With appropriate administrative and legislative action and funding, the full agenda could be fully implemented within the next decade. Priorities for State Action Seismic hazards are serious threats to people and property in Washington for which even limited state and legislative action can be critical to reducing future damages. The following recommendations set forth what the Council considers to be essential first steps in legislative and state agency actions: Legislative Recommendations Seismic Risk Reduction Resolution -- Passage of a joint resolution acknowledging the potential for loss of life and property in the aftermath of a major earthquake and the legislature?s commitment to work with federal, state, and local officials to werk toward reducing the state's earthquake risk over the next decade in keeping with the goals of the federal National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. Funding for Joint State and Federal Programs -- State commitment of matching funds for federal-state funding of earthquake hazard reduction programs. Some $100,000 in state funding is essential to match federal funds for continuing existing earthquake preparedness efforts. Revision of tire l955 Earthquake Resistance Standards -- A review and updating of the earthquake dehign standards specified in the 1955 legislation for public facilities. School Seismic Safety Act -- Enactment of legislation similar to Substitute Senate Bill 3443 of the 49th state legislature aimed at reducing the vulnerability of the school population to life-threatening effects of earthquakes and providing school?based earthquake education. Washington Seismic Safety Council SUMMARY, pg. State Agency Recommendations Much of the necessary initial work for establishing an earthquake risk reduction program can be undertaken by state agencies under existing antherities or by executive order. This report specifies appropriate agency actions for the State Building Code Council, the Department of General Administration, the Department of Labor and Industries, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Transportation, Insurance Commissioner, various licensing and siting authorities, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction/State Board of Education. Overcoming Barriers to State Action In addition to the previous set of legislative and agencyr actions, state leadership in implementing a seismic risk reduction program would be strengthened by: Enhancing the state poiicy function -- Whether or not this state establishes a Seismic Safety Commission, it will be necessary to significantly enhance the capability of existing agencies to carry out state responsibilities for seismic safety. An effective risk reduction strategy cannot be carried out by part-time state personnel and advisery committees. Hoiding tegisiatire hearings -- This report provides a basis for organizing legislative hearings concerning appropriate state responsibilities and actions for earthquake risk reduction. Washington Seismic Safety Council Table of Cantents Introduction The Setting: Noteworthy risks, limited actions ..2 Finding Noteworthy seismic hazards ..2 Finding Exposure of people and property ..6 Finding State-level actions ..8 Finding Noteworthy barriers ..il Reassessing the State Role ..l3 Defining State Responsibilities ..14 The Long Term Agenda ..15 Educational Efforts ..l6 Research and Information ..16 Public and Essential Facilities Safety ..l7 Integrity of Lifelines Facilitating Indirect Action ..IB Priorities for State Action ..19 Legislative Recommendations ..19 State Agency Recommendations ..20 Overcoming Barriers to State Action Appendix A: Seismic Safety Council Fermation Appendix E: Washington State Seismic Hazards Appendix C: Puget Sound Earthquake Losses Appendix D: Vulnerability of School Buildings Appendix E: State Agency Responses Appendix F: Seismic Preparedness of Industry Appendix G: Liability Considerations Washington Seismic Safety Cauncil pg. 1 Introduction The Washington State Seismic Safety Council was formed in October 1985 by the Director of the Department of Emergency Management at the request of the Governor. This report summarizes the findings and recommendations of the Council concerning state policy for dealing with seismic hazards. As discussed in the repert, there is a potential for extensive damage and loss of life from a major earthquake in Washington state. Despite the potential, actions to date of the legislature and state agencies in addressing the earthquake risk have been limited. This report outlines the elements of an earthquake risk reduction program that can be undertaken by the state in order to foster appropriate actions by state agencies, local jurisdictions, industry, and individuals in preparing for the inevitability of a major earthquake in Washington state. A few words about the formation and purposes of the Washington State Seismic Safety Council will help establish the context for this report. Legislation calling for the fermation of an independent state-level seismic safety commission, modeled after the California Seismic Safety Commission, was enacted by the 49th Washington state legislature (1985 regular session). However, the Governor vetoed that legislation on the grounds that the Department of Emergency Management already had the authOrity to carry out the commission?s functions.1 In response to the GOvernor's veto message, the Washington State Seismic Safety Council was formed as an advisory group to the Department of Emergency Management. Its members were asked to: (1) Review and recommend methods, practices and procedures to educate the public, including public officials. about the nature and consequences of earthquakes, about procedures for identifying those locations and structures especially susceptible to earthquake damage, and about methods to reduce and mitigate the adverse effects of an earthquake; (2) Recommend goals and priorities to the state; and (3) Gather, analyze and disseminate infermation. The membership of the Council was selected by the director of the Department of Emergency Management to reflect a mix of professions and agencies cencerned with earthquake risks as well as including legislative representation. Because the Department?s earthquake policy development and planning activities are funded by federal funds which are due to expire at the end of the federal 1936 fiscal year, a September 30, 1986 date was established as the deadline for the Council's report and recommendations. The findings and recommendations in this report are the result of a series of meetings of the Council (beginning in November l985) in conjunction with background work by subcommittees, Department of Emergency Management staff, and 1 The Department of Emergency Management has subsequently been reorganized as a division within the Department of Community Development. The 195 legislation creating the Seismic Safety Council and the Governor's veto message are contained in appendix A: Washington State Seismic Safety Council Formation. Washington Seismic Safety C0uncii ns- 2 consultants. The Council wishes to acknowledge the financial support provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the Department of Emergency Management for this activity, and the assistance provided by the staff of the Department of Emergency Management. The findings and recommendations in the report are solely those of the Conncii membership and are not necessariiy endorsed by either sponsorng or contributing agencies. The Setting: Noteworthy Risks, Limited Actions The development and implementation of state policies for addressing seismic risks in Washington state should be guided by knowledge about the extent of the hazard.2 Scientific studies and historical reperts clearly show seismic hazards in Washington state are capable of moderate to majOr property damage and loss of life. The precise nature of the forces that comprise seismic hazards in this region and the maximum credible seismic event are at present subject to scientific debate. However. it is important to recognize that there is scientific consensus about the existence of major seismic hazards in the state. Our review of the nature and consequences of Washington state seismic hazards has led to four major findings: (1) Major seismic hazards exist in Washington state; (2) Sizable proportions of the population are exposed to seismic hazards capable of major loss of life and property damage; (3) Past state-level actions to address seismic risks have been sporadic and inadequate; and (4) Noteworthy barriers exist that constrain development of state-level policy initiatives. These findings are elaborated upon in this section in order to provide the necessary background for considering recommendations for future state policy. Finding Noteworthy seismic hazards are known to exist in much of Washington state. Recent research suggests the possibility of seismic events of much greater magnitude than previously documented. Noteworthy Seismic Hazards Exist Since 1840, there have been more than 1000 earthquakes within the state with ground motions strong enough to be reported. Nineteen of these events were felt throughout the state and caused moderate to considerable damage as measured on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale (Figure 1). Of these nineteen, ten were located within the Puget Sound Basin between Canada and Olympia, two were cast of the Puget Scund bordering the Cascade mountains, two were near Portland, two were in the southeast, two were in the North Cascades, and one was in the southwest near Mount St. Helens. The most recent damaging earthquakes in the Puget Sound area were?the April 13, 1949, Olympia earthquake, registering a magnitude 7.1, and the April 29, 1965 earthquake between Seattle and Tacoma, registering a magnitude 6.5. 2 In undertaking any discussion of seismic safety it. is essential that. those terms which become the basis for policy statements and decisions be clearly understood. Dictionary de?nitions treat hazard and risk as synonymous, while in seismic safety terminology, they have different meanings. Seismic hazards are geological or physical conditions. Seismic risks are the result of those human actions which subject people and property to seismic hazards. 3 Parts of the following information are drawn from detailed material contained in Appendix B: Washington State Seismic Hazards. Also see papers on the earthquake hazard contained in Workshop on Earthquake Husards in the Puget Sound, Washington Area," Proceedings of Conference Open-File Report 85-253, Reston, VA: USGS, 1936. Washington Seismic Safety Council pg. 3 WASHINGTON STATE EARTHQUAKES 1840 - 1985 Intensity VII or greater or felt area greater than 50,000 km2 NICO '25-00 I2300 I2LOO II9.49.00 (i 4- 49.00 372 I 4.5 I9l5 Everetl l932 "hefun 48.00 %Seume 1 80 I965 'i945 47:00 I 4?.00 Olympia i: - Yakima 40.00 rm? 46.00 1 I936 893 '62 Intensity Portland 0 Vi: I377 '00 .vm- ix 0 Location uncerluin 4500 I?m #Voicano 45 00 '25-00 ?23.00 i2 [.00 H6500 ?7-00 Figure 1 Washington Seismic Safety Council pg. 4 The maps of the seismic risk in Washington state that are in use today are based upon scientific conclusions from the mid-19705: (I) the maximum credible earthquake is a deep, magnitude 7.5 event some 30 to 40 miles beneath Puget Sound; and (2) smaller earthquakes capable of moderate damage could new at various locations throughout the state. These set of assumptions are reflected in the different seismic zones for the state depicted in Figure 2. Secondary natural hazards which can be induced by earthquakes include landslides on steep hillsides with unstable soil conditions, particularly in the Puget Sound Basin; long sea-waves (Tsunamis) and seiches in coastal areas and inlets;?I and soil failure like liquefaction and differential compaction. Potential for Evan Larger Events In recent years, the scientific consensus about the maximum credible Puget Sound earthquake and the nature of seismic hazards in other parts of the state has been modified. New evidence suggests: (1) a potential for a shallow. more damaging earthquake than previously expected for the Puget Sound area; and (2) the potential for larger magnitude events than previously expected in other parts of the state. Both of these possibilities are subjects of on-going scientific research. The evidence suggesting the potential for a more damaging earthquake for the Puget Sound area than previously expected comes from studies of the "subduction" (downward motion) of the Juan de Fuca "plate" underneath the North American plate. Recent research suggesting that the subduction has not stopped raises the potential of a shallow magnitude 8.0 or greater event along the coastal margin of Washington. Oregon, or Northern Califomia. The affected area and potential damages from a shallow magnitude 3.0 or greater earthquake could be much greater than the damage from the previously anticipated deep magnitude 7.5 earthquake. Increased earthquake activity in Southwest Washington, since the eruption of Mount St. Helens, is apparently caused by a newly identified fault zone in that part of the state. This zone is capable of producing shallow, moderate to major sized events (magnitude 5.5 to 7.0). The recently identified potential for shallow damaging earthquakes in Southwest Washington generates concern that similar shallow damaging earthquakes are possible elsewhere in the state. 4 See, for example: Jane Prensa, ?Tsunami and Flood Hazard Preparedness and Mitigation Program for Aberdeen." in Proceedings of Conference Reston, VA: USGS, 1986. (i WASHINGTON Washington Seismic Safety Council pg. 5 ZONES STATE SEISMIC RISK EMU-F I - .. r. N319 null Im -. - 5? .-. 1.. nau- only? _j un- I nan-u? .mg{himWill a 1, - Bull-I- hm); I?ll-ml! r? rum" "m I I.-. w? 1 an: Huh.? I I. Inf??7 G) 'w'mll' ""me '4 HI 1'23 "a av: fac?il Inn?Pan InMill - a ILLIZHIIHI i ?ir-Irv'la luv-?mm ?"hon-i II"le WU a Inn Ium lurk-?Elma I. I ?rm I.-I- swim" Shaun a. .. lLla .. . . I n. (9 mJ?n a IMI 0m? UNIFORM BUILDING CODE. RISK ZONES inn-Emu . [by "w Irr- E-znun 2' - I j, ZONE 0: Ho Dunn? ZONE 3-: Mill" ZONE 1: Minor Darn-u! ZONE 1: Zone :l mu dune la Iber- ZONE 2: Modern.? DIM uln unjus- flu]: Intern: I In by an Ad Ho: Emili?? inlli?ll'd by rm? Lulgml Foam Commune cf 1h: Emir-em: Madonna of Washinnlun. Figljre 2 Washington Seismic Safety Council as 6 Finding The exposure of people and property to seismic hazards in Washington state creates a potential for major loss of life and for major property damage. The magnitude of likely losses has increased over the past decade. The relatively minor property damage and loss of life to date from earthquakes in Washington state pale in comparison to reasonable projections of damages and deaths from a major seismic event occurring today. The 1949 Olympia earthquake resulted in some $150 million damage and eight deaths, while the 1965 Seattle-Tacoma earthquake resulted in some $50 million damage and seven deaths.5 Reports from these events show disruption typical of major earthquakes: damage to communication -- KJR radio tower bent in half in 1949; broken -- three 43" water mains in Everett ruptured in 1965; transportation routes blocked or damaged -- landslides blocked railroad lines in both 1949 and 1965; structural damage to buildings ten Seattle schools were closed, three Seattle schools had to be torn down; non-structural building damage -- windows shattered in stores, shifting of building contents (heavy equipment in the Seattle Fisher Flour Mills caused injury in 1965). Potential for Major Loss of Life The discussion of our findings concerning seismic hazards showed that seismic hazards occur throughout the state with the Puget Sound area having the highest risk. The potential for major loss of life and major damage comes from the simple fact that the Puget Sound area is also the area of greatest population density and industrial development. Within the Puget Sound area of King, Kitsap, Mason, Pierce, Snohomish, and Thurston counties there are some 2.6 million people, comprising some 60% of the state?s population. The total assessed value of property for these six counties was estimated in 1984 to be $93.3 billion. The potential effects of a major earthquake in the Puget Sound Basin were underscored in 1975 with the publication of a United States Geological Survey (USGS) study which presented two scenarios of damages. Each scenario was associated with a magnitude 7.5 earthquake but the the epicenters were in different locations}; The expected dollar value of damages were not estimated, but the potential extent of damage and resultant loss of life and injuries were estimated. These estimates depend heavily upon assumptions of the timerof-day of the event. As a worst case, the USGS estimated 2,200 deaths, 3,700 people requiring hospitalization or immediate medical treatment, and as many as 23,500 people left homeless. The projected effects varied considerably among the six counties studied, reflecting differences in the 1975 population congestion and building types. Very little information about potential earthquake losses has been collected for other areas of the state. The Military Department has been concerned about the condition of their facilities in Everett, Olympia, Tacoma, and Yakima. Similarly, the findings of a recent study of seismic risk of unreinforced masonry buildings in small towns In 1949 damages were valued at $25 million and in 1965 damages were valued at $12.5 million. Each of these figures were adjusted to 1984 dollars using: the U.S. Department of Commerce, Composite Construction Cost Index. 6 A Study of Earthquake Losses in the Puget. Sound. Washington Area. Open-?le Report ?5-375, US Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 1975; excerpts are contained in Appendix C: Puget Sound Earthquake Losses. Washington Seismic Safety Council pg. 7 (Bellingham, Ellensburg, Vancouver, and Port Townsend) demonstrates that the risk is not limited to urban areas in the Puget Sound Basin. Increased Vulnerability Since 1975 USGS Report Three factors have changed since the 197?s USGS study which suggest a potential for even greater damage and loss of life than indicated by the 1975 study. First, as discussed earlier in this report, scientists now give greater credence to the potential for a magnitude 3.0 or greater subduction-style earthquake which would result in ground- shaking over a broader area than was assumed in the I975 report. Second, the state?s population growth and urban development have resulted in increased exposure of people and property to seismic hazards. Since 1975, the population of the six county Puget Sound area that was part of the USGS report has increased by 25 percent. Over that same period, the total assessed value of property grew by 240 percent.8 A third factor suggesting greater potential for damage than was apparent a decade ago is greater recognition of the interplay between earthquakes and secondary damages resulting from fires, chemical spills, and so forth. Policymakers? concerns about the production and transportation of hazardous materials, industry practices in working with toxic materials, and other "normal" accidents with hazardous materials are relatively minor in comparison to the potential secondary effects of a major earthquake. Many manufacturing and industrial concerns in the state dealing with toxic or hazardous materials are ill?equipped to address the secondary effects of a major earthquake? School Vulnerability The limited information about vulnerability of schools that has been collected since the 1975 USGS report underscores the more general points mentioned above. (A more Buildings.) The 1975 USGS report noted a potential for daytime deaths of 63 to 69 children within the six-county Puget Sound area schools, depending on the earthquake scenario. These projections are likely to be low in comparison to a major earthquake occurring in the next few years, since school enrollments in the Seattle suburban ring and South King County area are projected to grow beyond 1975 levels until the mid 1990s In 1984 Representative Marlin Appelwick sent questionnaires to school districts located in areas of high seismic risk, including districts in central Washington. Some 17 percent of the schools in the surveyed districts were constructed with materials that are particularly vulnerable to earthquake damage (unreinforced masonry and lime mortar). Only 25 percent of all of the schools had been reviewed by a licensed structural engineer within the previous three years. Of those reviewed by engineers, more than one third (37 percent} were found to have structural defects. 7 Neil Hawkins and Padraie Burke. Seismic Hazards in Unreinforced Masonry Buildings in Small Towns in the Paci?c Report to the National Science Foundation. (Seattle: ?Univeraity of Washington and the Northwest Institute for Historic Preservation, April 1935). 3 Calculations based upon ?gures reported in the 1976 and 1985, Pocket Data Book. published by the State Of?ce of Financial Management; dollar amounts not adjusted for in?ation. 9 See appendix H: Improved Seismic Preparedness of Industry. Washington Seismic Safety Council pg. 8 Finding State-level actions that address seismic hazards have been sporadic. There is a need for stronger state leadership to promote efforts by state agencies, local jurisdictions, industry, and citizens to avert earthquake losses. State-level actions to deal with seismic hazards have entailed a limited commitment of state resources, numerous false starts in establishing a broader agenda, and lack of coordination among state agencies. The topics of seismic safety or earthquakes rarely appear within the Revised Code of Washington.? Our review of state agency activity shows that many agencies have authority or responsibility for dealing with aspects of seismic hazards, but these responsibilities rank low in terms of agency priorities and resource commitments. The end result is a lack of state leadership, particularly in terms of inducing local-level and private actions in dealing with seismic hazards. Limited Legislative initiative The histOry of state legislative initiatives in this arena has been one of false starts in initiating state-level earthquake hazard reduction programs with few noteworthy legislative initiatives.? The most noteworthy legislative actions to date have been the mandating in 1955 of construction of public and certain other buildings to resist earthquakes (RCW 70.86), the 1970 creation of the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (RCW 80.50), and the 1975 adoption of the seismic standards of the Uniform Building Code, by reference in the State Building Code (RCW as the minimum standard for construction of new structures within all jurisdictions in the state: Earthquake Resistance Standards. The 1955 legislation mandates "hospitals, schools, except one story, portable, frame school buildings, buildings designed or constructed as places of assembly accommodating more than three hundred persons; and all structures owned by the state, county, special districts, or any municipal corporation within the state of Washington" to be constructed to resist earthquake intensities that are specified only for Western Washington. Individuals violating the provisions are guilty of a misdemeanor. As discussed in the next section, this legislation provided the mandate for the state Department of General Administration to upgrade several state buildings. Beyond that however, the legislation does not seem to have stimulated much action by the range of officials identified in the legislation. Regardless of the status of implementation of the mandate, the specified horizontal forces for Western Washington} in the 1955 legislation are extremely low. Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. The Council has been active in reviewing seismic considerations as part of its siting and licensing of nuclear power plants and review of oil pipeline projects. Council regulations specify that project applicants must include the results of comprehensive hydrological and geologic survey data, including potential seismic activities, in their application document and the environmental impact statement. t! The word "earthquake" is only mentioned 16 times in the Revisad Code of Washington. The most noteworthy statutes are summarised in this section. 1 An overview of the recent. history of state-level efforts in addressing earthquake hazards is provided in: Thomas E. Drabek, Alvin H. Mushkatel, and Thomas S. Kilijanek, Earthquake Mitigation Policy: The Experience of Two States, Monograph Institute of Behavioral Science (Boulder.CD: University of Colorado. 1983}. Washington Seismic Safety Council as 9 State Building Code. The State Building Code adopts by reference the seismic provisions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The UBC contains seismic provisions for new construction, but excludes single family residences and structures existing at the time the code is adopted. Subsequent to the 1975 adoption of the UBC, the state has adopted by reference the 1976, 1979, and 1932 revisions to the code. The effectiveness of the UBC seismic provisions has been undermined to varied degrees, particularly in smaller sized jurisdictions, because until recently enforcement of the standards was not monitored by the state. The [934 legislature strengthened the building code provisions by establishing the State Building Code Council and giving it the authority to review local compliance with building code provisions. In recent years, there have been sporadic legislative efforts to establish more comprehensive state-level seismic safety programs, and more concerted legislative efforts to address the seismic safety of public schools. The seismic safety planning efforts stem from temporary advisory committees formed at different times, including the Washington State Earthquake Engineering Advisory Council formed by the governor in 197] and the Ad Hoc Committee on Geologic Hazards formed by the Senate Committee on Commerce in 1973. Legislative consideration of a Natural Hazards Act bill calling for a permanent advisory council, review and correction of existing vulnerable public structures, and related items failed to be enacted in 1973, 1975, IQT9, and 1981. The more concerted efforts to address the seismic safety of public school populations culminated with Senate passage of Substitute SB 3448 in the 1985 legislative session, calling for a study of the seismic safety of public school buildings, recommendations for improving the safety of schools, and development of an earthquake education program within schools. The bill died on the dispute calendar. State Agencies: Low Priority and Limited Resources Our survey of state agency activity shows that seismic safety is low priority among the agencies that one might expect to have a role in aspects of seismic risk reduction.12 In many instances, a broad legislative mandate of some form exists under which the affected state agency might be expected to address aSpects of seismic safety. But in reality, seismic concerns are not viewed as a high enough priority to devote limited agency resources. It is difficult to estimate the total state resources devoted to seismic safety, but under even a generous set of assumptions the number is low. Our compilation of figures provided in response to our survey is that no more than some $200,000 of state funding is being spent annually for on-going seismic safety activities.13 This compares with some $25 million in California state expenditures in 1985-86 for activities directed specifically 12 Questionnaires ware sent to all state agencies or subagency units that members of the Council expected to have some role in seismic safety. 13 This is an estimate of on-going costs which include: Department of Transportation ($120,000 for seismic design and research), Department of General Administration (assumed equivalent of .5 FTE position), Department: of Ecology -- Dam Safety (assumed portion of a staff position}, State Geologist's Office (10 percent of one position plus publications), and Division of Emergency Management [part of Director's time}. Not included are federal funding of research at the Department of Transportation, federal funding for a planning position at the Department of Emergency Management, University of Washington funding of a part~tlme "state" seismologist, federal funding of the University of Washington state seismographic network and related research activities, and one-time legislative appropriations for repair of state buildings. Washington Seismic Safety Council pg. 10 at seismic risk reduction.? The responses to our survey of state agencies are contained in Appendix E: State Agency Activity. Of these agencies that responded to our survey, concern with some aspect of seismic safety tended to be highest where there was a more specific impetus for action than a broad agency mandate under which seismic safety might fall. For example, the Department of Transportation's seismic design of bridges is governed by federal guidelines. In other instances, like the Department of General Administration?s efforts to upgrade state buildings, the impetus came at the state level. State agency activities with respect to seismic safety can be summarized as follows: Department of Community Development - Division of Emergency Management. Essentially no state funds are dedicated within the Division of Emergency Management to seismic safety. The activities of this Council and a earthquake hazards planner position are funded with federal funds provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The approach to planning and preparedness more generally has been "all hazards" planning for which earthquake risks are incorporated into state and local disaster response plans. Department of Boeing -- Dam Safety Fragrant. The Dam Safety Office within the Department of Ecology is charged with reviewing the safety of newly constructed non-federal dams as well as with inspecting existing dams. Seismic safety concerns are included as part of the review of new construction and have been incorporated into design standards. One impetus for increased attention to darn safety was the 1982 finding by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that some 30 percent of large dams that were inspected in Washington state as part of a national inSpeetion program were labeled unsafe (although seismic considerations were not directly assessed).15 Department of Transportation. The Department of TranSportation is concerned with seismic safety as part of the design of new bridges and modification and maintenance of existing bridges. In carrying out these actions, the Department follows the guidelines of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. There is no specific state mandate to follow these design guidelines, but Department officials report it is their practice to follow them unless specifically justified to do otherwise. The agency has undertaken research in collaboration with the state universities and has a computer program developed specifically for the seismic analysis of bridges. General' Administration. The agency recommends capital improvements to study and/or strengthen the seismic resistance of state buildings as mandated by the 1955 Earthquake Resistance Standards. The following studies and reconstruction, totaling some $16 million in expenditures, have been undertaken: This ?gure excludes capital expenditures and funding for emergency preparedness activities not directed speci?cally at earthquake risks. Major expenditure categories include: hazard studies million)I schools inspection million}I hospital inspection ($12.9 million), earthquake response plan?ing million}I and Seismic Safety Commission million). Source: California at Risk; Reducing Earthquake Hazards 1987-1992, Appendix (Preliminary edition). California Seismic Safety Commission, September 1, 1936. 15 The major reason was inadequate spillway, given changes in design over the years. No response was received from the Dam Safety Office to our questionnaire about seismic safety practices. Washington Seismic Safety Council pg. ll 197?5 - Legislative Building strengthened, $3.4 million. l973, 1979 - Insurance Building strengthened, $3.5 million. 1979 - Old Capitol Building strengthened, million. 1935 Studies of the Temple of Justice, 013-2, and the DOT Buildings {computer centers}, $97,500. 1986 - Study of the State Capitol Campus Powerhouse, $67,000; Temple of Justice strucmral rennovation design, $648,000. In addition, the Department has submitted budget requests for 1987-9] for continued seismic design and renovation of state buildings. Military Department. At the time of our survey, the Military Department was renovating the Tacoma Armory to comply with City of Tacoma seismic codes at a cost of some $2 million. Consultants had previously been retained to conduct structural surveys, including seismic code compliance of national guard facilities in Everett, Olympia, and Yakima. Department of Nation! Resources -- Division of Geology and Earth Resources. The state Geologist?s Office is broadly mandated with examining the geology and resources of the state and providing special studies relating to these topics. The amount of effort specifically devoted to seismic issues is only 10 percent of one professional's time. The Division maintains a resource library and has a series of publications, in addition to publishing an annual catalog of earthquake information. Finding Noteworthy barriers exist which constrain the development of state-level initiatives and policy with respect to seismic safety. In many respects, it is not surprising that state-level leadership and initiative have been lacking with respect to seismic safety. In our discussions and review of past initiatives, several constraints upon state action were recurring themes: (1) lack of adequate information for detailed planning and policy implementation; (2) limited state control over actions taken by local jurisdictions; (3) concern over the costs of seismic safety programs; and (4) concern over state assumption of liability for damages from seismic events. As discussed in the following sections, the Council concludes that there is legitimacy to each of these concerns. However, none of these issues needs to be a barrier to state action since, as outlined later, steps can be taken to address each concern. Manning information is Locking Despite growing recognition of the potential for damage from seismic events in this state, the detailed understanding of the exposure of people and property in the state to seismic hazards has increased little since the 1975 USGS report. Seismological and soils information exist about seismic hazards in highly vulnerable areas but this information has not been translated into the type of risk maps that are necessary for planning purposes. Washington Seismic Safety Council 133- 12 The need fer risk maps that are appropriate for guiding planning and building decisions is a common concern of structural engineers and building officials. The Lateral Forces Committee of the Structural Engineers' Association of Washington formed an ad hoc committee of geologists, geotechnieal engineers, geophysicists, academic structural engineers, and practicing structural engineers which has reviewed geological hazards and current risk maps and recommended a modification of the map to be incorporated in the Uniform Building Code. This and similar efforts are essential to provide state-of?the?art risk information which can be accepted with reasonable confidence both by the engineering design community and by the legislature when considering building standards. Stale Has Limited Direct Control The effectiveness of efforts to avert earthquake losses ultimately rests upon actions taken by local governments, businesses and industry, and individuals. Land use decisions and building code enforcement are the province of local jurisdictions. Decisions to protect building contents are made by individuals responsible for managing buildings. Decisions to purchase earthquake insurance are also made by individuals. State officials cannot mandate appropriate behaviors for reducing earthquake damages and expect them to be carried out. The experience with seismic provisions of building codes illustrates the problem. Although the state adapts the UBC provisions and mandates their use by local jurisdictions, lack of an adequate enforcement mechanism has undermined their effectiveness, particularly in smaller towns where the lack of technical expertise and other factors make it difficult to comply. Adding "teeth" to the UBC mandate by making failure to enforce the provisions of the code a gross misdemeanor and establishing the State Building Code Council have been necessary steps to help induce the desired local and private actions. Concern About Costs Perhaps the most significant barrier to state action has been policymakers? concerns about the costs of programs which would substantially reduce seismic risks. Cost estimates do not exist for a comprehensive risk reduction program for Washington state, but there is no question that even a modest program of making schools and other public buildings scismically safe would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet, these costs are small compared to expenditures for reconstruction, liability suits, and so on, in the aftermath of the next, inevitable major earthquake. The costs and time period required to retrofit buildings to improve their seismic resistance tends to blind key actors to other more immediate, less expensive seismic safety efforts. As discussed in our recommendations for a risk reduction program, relatively low cost risk reduction programs can be undertaken involving non-structural hazard mitigation and the education of building occupants about correct response to earthquakes. Any decision to undertake a program of retrofitting schools or public buildings will require prior information about the vulnerability of such buildings, the costs of the retrofit, and the likely effectiveness of the retrofit. Given the magnitude of the risk, it seems prudent at least to undertake the sttidies that are necessary for planning hazard reduction efforts. Washington Seismic Safety Council pg. 13 Concern About Liability A related concern of policymakers is a fear of increased state and/or local governmental assumption of liability for earthquake damages and losses. The question of liability is obviously a complicated legal issue that depends upon the specific facts of particular suits challenging state or other governmental actions. We can be certain, as evidenced by the experience after the Coalinga, California earthquake of 1935, that legal claims will be made against the state and relevant local governments in the aftermath of a major earthquake regardless of what legislative actions are taken now. At the same time, careful legislative drafting of immunity provisions and prudent actions by the state in addressing seismic hazards will help to minimize the chances for success of such lawsuits. The background work for the Council with respect to liability, contained in Appendix (3: Liability Considerations, suggests that with enactment of the 1961 Washington Tort Claims Act and subsequent judicial interpretations, the state may be held liable in certain types of suits involving damages or deaths in the aftermath of an earthquake.16 Some legislators have been concerned that by documenting seismic vulnerability of school buildings or other public facilities, the chances for successful suits against the state in the aftermath of an earthquake will increase as compared with the potential liability if nothing is done to repair vulnerable buildings. There are several, somewhat conflicting, legal reasons why this may be incorrect justification for not undertaking vulnerability studies or other earthquake risk reduction programs. First, state and local governments (and by extension, state and local officials) may be found to be immune from liability claims under the discretionary function exception set forth by Washington State Supreme Court decisions. Second, even if not immune, state and local officials are only negligent if they have not exercised prudent judgment in balancing risks and advantages when deciding not to retrofit or take other actions to reduce earthquake hazards. Third, if nothing is done now to either further document the hazard or implement hazard reduction efforts, state and local officials may be held liable for negligent actions." Reassessing the State Role The state has a clear stake in addressing seismic hazards, making it necessary that the state take a much stronger role than in the past. In addition to the state?s general responsibility in maintaining the health and safety of its citizens, the state obligation for addressing seismic safety stems from several Specific factors: The Hazard r's Statewide -- Despite common perceptions, the earthquake hazard in Washington state is not isolated. The Puget Sound Basin is of highest vulnerability, but other parts of the state are also subject to noteworthy seismic hazards. 16 This is particularly true for "dependent populations" like prisoners or school children for which the stats mandates their presence in a facility and thus might be said to assume a special duty for the safety of these populations. 1? This would occur if the hazard reduction were interpreted as part of a mandatory function of governmental of?cials and governmental of?cials were negligent in failing to carry out that funetIOn given the state of knowledge about the existence of seismic hazards. Even if the state does not know of seismic hazards. it may be iiable if it can be shown that the state could have known of the hazards with exercise of due diligence. Washington Seismic Safety Council pg. 14 State Facilities Are At Risk -- State buildings and property, in Olympia and throughout the state, are themselves vulnerable. Public schools, for which the state has assumed increasing obligations through funding of basic education and attendance requirements, represent a major class of vulnerable facilities. In addition, state transportation, communication, and other vital systems are vulnerable. Earthquake Losses Will Require State Aid -- Even with federal, local, and private financial assistance, the state will inevitably be placed in the position of assuming major financial responsibility for cleanup, recovery, and damage repayments in the aftermath of a major earthquake. The lessons of Mount St. Helens underscore this pornt. State Liability May Already Exist -- As discussed in the previous section, the state may be held liable in certain types of suits involving damage or deaths in the aftermath of an earthquake. State Already Assumes Responsibility Through past legislative actions that reference seismic risks -- fer example, the Earthquake Resistance Standards of 1955 and the State Building Code -- policymakers have already acknowledged a state responsibility in protecting its citizens and their preperty from seismic risks. More generally, the state Emergency Management Act (RCW 38.52.030) mandates the director of emergency management to undertake all-hazards emergency planning. Defining State Responsibilities The state does m3; have the sole responsibility for earthquake risk reduction. Clearly local governments, private businesses and industry, and individual citizens have obligations as well. While many of the specific steps in addressing seismic risks rest upon local and individual actions, the state has a dual obligation to ensure that prudent efforts are made to address seismic risk. The key policy issue for the state is definition of the state role in both fulfilling its responsibilities and inducing others to fulfill theirs. The Council concludes that the state role in meeting these two sets of obligations should be: Calling attention to seismic risks -- Building awareness of both the risks and actions to reduce the risks among those groups for which educational efforts have been shown to be effective. Supporting research and disseminating information that is necessary for state and local risk reduction programs -- Working with federal, university, and private research groups to establish and disseminate timely and understandable data for governmental action. Ensuring the integrity of public facilities, hospitals, schools, and other essential facilities in the event of a major earthquake Making sure that such facilities adhere to reasonable Standards of earthquake design and that the contents of such buildings are designed to resist seismic events. Washington Seismic Safety Council pg. 15 Ensuring the integrity of state transportation, communication, and other ?lifelines? in the event of a major earthquake -- Making sure that such systems adhere to reasonable standards of earthquake design. Establishing the necessary statutes or other authorities for facilitating local governmental, private industry, and individual citizen action in averting earthquake losses -- Providing a framework for encouraging efforts by such groups to take actions which will avert future losses from seismic events. The central thrust of these state roles is emphasizing efforts to avert earthquake losses through prudent actions by the state, local governments, industry, and citizens. Less emphasis is given to planning and preparedness efforts for response to seismic events. Planning and preparedness for reSponding to disasters are important responsibilities of state and local governments which must be carried out for all types of risks, whether man-made, seismic, or some other form of natural disaster. Because we assume this is an on-going responsibility of state and local governments -- regardless of type of risk -- we place less emphasis upon it in this report. This agenda is consistent with the directions for earthquake hazards reduction set forth in 1977 by Congress under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act. That Act establishes a framework for state and federal cooperation in developing programs to reduce earthquake risks. The ability of the state to take advantage of the cooperative arrangement rests on the state providing funding to match federal funding commitments and a clear agenda for the state program. One of the priorities we stress later in this report is state commitment of funds to match federal funding for an earthquake risk reduction program in Washington state. We are under no illusion that the roles and agenda we recommend will eliminate the potential for damage and loss of life from a major seismic event. We are convinced, however, from experiences in California, Japan, Mexico City, and elsewhere that effective steps can be taken to reduce losses. The Long Term Agenda The tong term agenda for the state should he an ongoing seismic risk reduction program that carries out each of the state for seismic safety previoust outiineo'. Such a program would he an ongoing effort to encourage state and local government. private industry. and citizen efforts to avert earthquake tosses. Although some of the elements of this agenda are aireaa?y in place. many others are yet to be defined. The state should undertake appropriate administrative and iegisiative action to implement the full agenda within the next decade. The following discussion lays out the broader agenda, with brief commentary about the elements that will be important in fulfilling the state role. Our specific recommendations for initial administrative and legislative actions are discussed in the concluding section of the report. i Washington Seismic Safety Council pg. 16 Educational Efforts The goal of educational efforts should be that of calling attention to seismic risks in a manner that will stimulate precautionary actions. Much of the past efforts to educate individuals and groups about seismic risks have focused on raising awareness of the risks. Such an approach is lacking if it does not also clearly communicate what can be done to deal with the risks. At present, earthquake education in this state is limited to: a temporary, federally-funded, University of Washington demonstration program for . earthquake education in primary schools; dissemination of earthquake safety brochures by . the Division of Emergency Management; state designation of one week in April as "Earthquake Awareness Week"; and workshops sponsored by the Red Cross and other volunteer agencies. Because appropriate actions for averting earthquake losses vary among different groups, educational efforts will need to be targeted to specific groups. Groups to be considered as part of the long-term earthquake education agenda should include: School Officials and Students -- Educational efforts for primary and seCOndary school officials and students. This would entail statewide implementation of the pilot "School Safety and Education Project" that has been undertaken over the past three years. Similar provisions were contained in section 3, subsection 3 of Substitute Senate Bill 3448, of the 49th legislature. Profizsst'evtatr associations -- Coordinating and building upon the educational efforts of professional associations and other organizations involved in building or facility design, siting, and construction. These include professional associations of planners, architects, structural engineers, banking officials, insurance company officials, among others. Pilot educational efforts have been undertaken in this region in recent years by associations for planners, architects, and structural engineers. -- Educational efforts dealing with seismic risk, particularly targeted toward industries which handle hazardous materials. This could be incorporated into broader educational and preparedness efforts dealing with hazardous materials as discussed in the background report contained in Appendix F: Seismic Preparedness of Industry. Research and Information The emphasis should be on the collection and translation of scientific information for the purposes of establishing state and local government seismic safety programs and policy. This requires a focal point for infermation and cooperation among on-going federal, state, and university research projects. The extent of state involvement in funding andfor undertaking research and informational assistance could range from a relatively restricted information collection and dissemination function to a much more extensive technical assistance role in evaluating seismic concerns about potential sites for state and local government facilities. . The mechanism for carrying out the information function would be the establishment of a seismic information center, perhaps cooperatively undertaken by the Division of Geology and Earth Resources of the Department of Natural Resources and the University of Washington Seismic Monimring Program. The center?s functions could include: facilitating state cooperation in seismological research efforts; publication of Washington Seismic Safety Council pg. 17 risk and vulnerability information; commissioning of special analyses of regional or state-wide hazards; advising officials about the need for privately undertaken, site- specifie risk studies; and, responding to media, governmental, and individual inquiries about seismic risk. Public and Essential Facilities Safety The emphasis in this category is ensuring the integrity of the type of facilities covered under the Earthquake Resistance Standard provisions of 1955. Those provisions should be expanded to cover four classes of public and, in some instances, private facilities: Public Buildings State and local governmental buildings which citizens and public employees expect to be safe for use. These are cited in the 1955 legislation, with the emphasis to date being upon the Capitol campus. Buildings Occupied by Dependent Populations -- Hospitals, prisons, nursing homes, schools and other buildings which are occupied by groups of individuals who are either mandated to occupy particular facilities (prisons, schools) or for which the mobility of building occupants is limited (hospitals, nursing homes). These are cited in the 1955 legislation, but relatively little has been done to date to address the special needs and potential liabilities of such dependent populations. Essential Services Buildings housing fire, law enforcement, communications. and other services deemed to be essential to response to earthquakes. These are cited in the 1955 legislation, but to our knowledge have not been systematically addressed. Vulnerable Secondary Facilities -- Dams, power plants, and other facilities for which earthquake damage could trigger noteworthy secondary disasters. New facilities are covered under various federal and state licensing and siting provisions. We are uncertain of the amount of attention paid to the seismic vulnerability of existing facilities. For each class of facility, there are several mechanisms for drawing attention to seismic design considerations as part of new construction. The primary mechanism is inclusion of seismic considerations into reviews undertaken by the licensing and siting authorities for the various types of facilities: the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, the Department of Ecology Dam Safety Section, the Department of General Administration, the Hospital Facility Licensing and Certification Office of the Department of Health and Social Services, among others. Each of these certifying authorities should ensure that seismic risks have been addressed as part of facility design. integrity of Lifelines Much of the damage occurring in previous, major earthquakes and a large amount of the disruption of normal living patterns has been the result of failures in "lifelines" power supply, water systems, sewer systems, gas and petroleum lines, railroad lines and highway bridges. This component of the longer term agenda would entail ensuring that such Iifelines are built to resist earthquake damage. Some initial efforts have been made to address the integrity of lifelines in this state, as exemplified by the Department of Transportation?s seismic design program for Washington Seismic Safety Council pg. 13 bridges. However. the seismic resistance of lifelines has not been specifically addressed by state statute or other mandates. The potential mechanisms for review of seismic design for new construction are the existing licensing and review authorities -- principally, the Utilities and Transportation Commission and relevant state and local public authorities. Facilitating indirect Action In addition to the agenda of state agency and legislative initiatives discussed in the preceding sections. several steps can be taken by the legislature and/or state agencies to facilitate local government, industry and citizen efforts to avert earthquake losses. The following should be addressed as part of the development of the longer range earthquake risk reduction program: Seismic Resistance and Building Code Standards -- The existing standards for new construction, particularly the provisions of the 1955 legislation, should be reviewed for consistency, appropriateness, and technical design. Bniio?ing Corie Provisions for Existing Bttiidings -- Guidelines for retrofitting existing, vulnerable buildings to provide seismic resistance should be developed by the State Building Code Council.18 The short-term agenda is to develop a better understanding of extent to which the various classes of existing buildings are vulnerable. Highest priority for such studies should be those buildings with dependent populations and vulnerable secondary facilities. In developing the guidelines. consideration will need to be given to building vulnerability, uses, and historical value, among other factors. Earthquake Insurance -- Insurance for damage from "earth movement" is usually excluded from general homeowners and commercial property insurance, but is available from many property and casualty insurers as an additional rider to policies for a yearly premium. The State Insurance Office has not undertaken specific studies of the extent of earthquake insurance coverage but estimates that less than one percent of Puget Sound residences have such coverage, with commercial coverage being more frequent as part of blanket coverage of commercial facilities. Relatedly, in 197? a Risk Management Office was created within the Department of General Administratioa (RCW 43.19.19362). This division is presently making recommendations to state agencies about earthquake insurance coverage for state facilities. Governmental Liability -- Consideration should also be given to selective immunity provisions for local governments (or others) who undertake risk reduction programs within a specified period of time. For example. a loan program might be established by the state with which local jurisdictions could receive funding for retrofitting public buildings to make them seismic resistant. An immunity clause might be included so that any jurisdiction participating in the retrofit program would be indemnified from liability suits arising from earthquake damage to retrofitted buildings (assuming no negligence in the retrofit itself). This would T8 The problem of vulnerable, existing buildings is summarised at the national level along with examples of retro?t programs in An Action Plan for Reducing Earthguake Hazards of Existing Building. Earthquake Hazards Reduction Series No. 16. FEMA, December 1985. and Proceeding: Workshop on Reducing Seismic Hazards of Exigtintt Building;J Earthquake Hazards Reduction Series No. 15, FEMA. December 1985. Washington Seismic Safety Council pg. 19 encourage local jurisdictions to take action in order to reduce potential liabilities from earthquake damage. Similar provisions might be incorporated into other seismic safety legislation, or in some blanket fashion, as a means of inducing seismic safety efforts by local officials. (See Appendix G: Liability Considerations.) Mandatory Hazards Disclosure -- Consideration should be given to legislation that requires, as part of real estate transactions, the disclosure of potential seismic or other hazards for the property subject to the transaction. Priorities for State Action The legacy of state inaction in addressing seismic risks suggests that efforts to undertake the longer range seismic risk reduction program will need to overcome a lack of inertia. It should be clear that seismic hazards are serious threats to people and property in this state. for which even limited state and legislative action can be Critical to reducing future losses. The following sections set forth what we consider to be essential first steps in legislative and state agency actions. Legislative Recommendations Implementing the longer term agenda requires renewed legislative recognition of seismic hazards in the state in conjunction with a few key legislative actions: Seismic Risk Reduction Resolution -- Passage of a joint resolution acknowledging the potential for loss of life and property in the aftermath of a major earthquake and expressing the legislature?s commitment to work with federal, state, and local officials in reducing the earthquake risk in Washington state over the next decade. This resolution would call attention to the problem and signal the state?s willingness to enter into the type of partnership that is established under the federal National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1917. Funding for Joint State and Federal Programs Future federal funding for earthquake hazard reduction programs undertaken by the Federal Emergency Management Agency is dependent upon state "matching" of federal funds on a 50/50 matching basis. State commitment of matching funds of some $100,000 is essential for continuing the present levels of federal supp0rt for state earthquake risk reduction programs. Revision of the ?155 Earthquake Resistance Standards The earthquake design standards that are Specified in the 1955 legislation need to be reviewed for consistency with the State Building Code in light of present knowledge concerning seismic hazards and design standards. Revisions will most likely need to include revision of the design criteria specified for Western Washington and addition of design criteria for other parts of the state. Specific plans for implementing the Earthquake Resistance Standards need to be devised. School Seismic Safety Act -- Enactment of legislation similar to Subs?tute Senate Bill 3443 of the 49th state legislature. This legislation would mandate a study of the vulnerability of school buildings and preparation of a plan, to be developed in conjunction with school districts, for dealing with vulnerable structures. The legislation would complement the recommendations we make (below) for executive Washington Seismic Safety Council pg. 20 actions to be undertaken by the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Board of Education. Many of the state?s school buildings are believed to be hazardous because of their unreinforced masonry construction. Schools are appropriate to single out for immediate attention both because of the condition of many buildings and the fact that school children are "dependent populations" which the state has a duty to protect. State Agency Recommendations Comprehensive legislation mandating and funding a state earthquake hazards reduction program is highly desirable for accomplishing the goals the Coancil has set forth. However. state agencies need not wait for legislative action since much of the reattirea' initial work for establishing an earthquake risk reduction program can be undertaken by state agencies under existing authorities or by executive order. The appropriate agency actions are as follows: State Building Code Council The Council should be asked to address building code provisions for historic structures (in conjunction with the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation), seismic resistance standards (in conjunction with the Department of General Administration) and state building code standards for adequacy of seismic provisions for new and existing buildings. Department of General Administration -- In conjunction with affected state agencies, the Department should: (I) undertake a study of the date and type of construction, date of last structural inspection, and known 0r suspected seismic risks of all state facilities including prisons; (2) develop a plan for reducing the number of state facilities that are found to be highly vulnerable; (3) dechOp facilities guidelines for the identification and mitigation of non-structural building risks; and (4) follow-through on studies and recommendations by the Risk Management Office on state agency earhquake insurance coverage. Department of Labor and Industries -- This agency should consider steps that can be taken to incorporate earthquake education and preparedness into existing education and certification practices for industries, particularly as they relate to the vulnerability of employees and property to secondary damages from earthquakes. Department of Natnrai Resources The Division of Geology and Earth Resources should develop in conjunction with the University of Washington Seismic Monitoring Program a proposal for establishing a seismic information and research dissemination center to include state funding for a state seismologist. Department of Transportation -- In conjunction with other state entities dealing with "lii?elines" Utilities and Transportation Commission), the Department should be asked to address the need for state level regulations or other authorities for addressing the seismic safety of lifelincs. insurance Commissioner -- In order to establish an information base for decisionmaking concerning earthquake insurance and insurance industry practices, the State Insurance Commissioner should undertake a study of earthquake insurance coverage, practices, and probable maximum losses with recommendations Washington Seismic Safety Council pg. 2] for future industry practices. This work should be coordinated with actions by the state Risk Management Office concerning state agency purchase of earthquake insurance. Licensing and Siting Authorities Each of the state's licensing and siting authorities involved with overseeing construction or maintenance of facilities should be asked to review the way in which they evaluate seismic risks as part of their functions and consider rules for increasing attention to seismic risks. Superintendent of Public Instruction/State Boardr of Education -- In addition to the activities mandated by the proposed School Seismic Safety Act, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, working with local school districts, should: (I) develop state guidelines for earthquake safety and education programs as mandated by WAC 180-41, Pupil Safety; (2) develop facilities guidelines for the identification and mitigation of non-structural building risks; and (3) undertake regional training workshops to provide awareness and understanding of the need for school earthquake safety and education programs. Overcoming Barriers to State Action In addition to the previous set of legislative and agency actions, implementation of a seismic risk reduction program will require state leadership in: Strengthening the state policy function -- State efforts in addressing seismic risks have been undermined by lack of a strong advocate within state government for seismic safety efforts.19 The legacy of state-level inaction with respect to seismic Holding iegisiative hearings -- It has been some five years since the topic of a state- level natural hazards risk reduction strategy was seriously discussed in the state legislature. Since that time, our understanding of both the need and potential for state legislative action has increased substantially. This report provides a basis for organizing legislative hearings concerning appropriate state responsibilities and actions for earthquake risk reduction. The base for legislative and agency action in addressing seismic risks already exists in the state. In our deliberations and review of the current situation, we were struck by the diversity of talent that can be called upon from state agencies, local governments, the state legislature, state universities, and private industry. That talent, however, needs to be focused and supported adequately for implementing an effective risk reduction program. In California, these functions are undertaken at the state level by a highly effective Seismic Safety Commission, and at substate levels by regional planning and preparedness projects. Hl 'Hl mm?: Hire: [or SI ME (IF DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 1!;ng Hm fillf?jh'd 0 3:35 tmLober 21, 1985 uovernor bardner has directed me to form a beismic Safety 60uncil. anlosed are copies of his letters dated May El and May 28, 1985 about legislation $93) that would have created a seismic safety commission and his in- structions for me to carry out the proposed COmmission?s functions. 1 am inviting you to be a member of the council and provide the following infor- mation about the council. The purpose of the council is to identify problems and make reCOmmendations for strengthening earthquake safety by improving public policy, especially that related to reducing hazards and mitigating effects of damaging earth- quakes. Section 3 of SHE $93 further stated: "The commission is reSponsible for the following in connection with earthquake hazard reduction: (I) Review and recommend methods, practices and procedures to educate the public, including public officials, about the nature and consoquences of earthquakes, about procedures for identifyinp those locations and struc~ Lures especially susceptible to earthquake damage, and methods to reduce and mitipate the adverse effects of an earthquake; (2) Recommend goals and priorities to the state; and (3) bather anal ze and disseminate information.? a My ability to carry nut the bovernor?s instuctions is dependent upon federal funds provided under the national Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act {HLth}. Larry NcUallum, who will represent me on the council, is funded entirely with HEHRA support during FBY so (lull/85 - 9/3UISblo Since continued federal support to the state atter FFY as is uncertain, the council will need to prepare an initial report to the Governor by September 3b, lQSb. lf federal funding Support'is approved after FFY so and there is a need for further COuncil activity, work will continue. October 21, 1985 Page 2 Council membership will be limited to approximately 12 persons representing a variety of disciplines and interests. Others may be asked to help on an ad hoc basis. Council members will need to decide the most workable structure (committees, working groups, etc.). To meet the September 30, 1936 reporting date it would seem necessary for the council to meet at least once each month. I hope this information and the enclosed materials will be helpful and that you will participate. Please call me or Larry McCallum with your answer or if you need more information. Sincerely, Hugh H. Fowler Director Enclosures Copies of May 21 and May 28, 1985 letters SHE 493 RECEIVED MAY291985 PAHIMENI Ul' clipqE?EEN?Y STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFIGE OF THE GOVERNOR OLYMPIA seam-ans BOOTH GARDNER oovsnnon May 23, 1935 Hugh Fowler, Director Department of Emergency Management 4220 East Martin Hay Olympia, washington 98504 Dear Dir??tggs?ghier: For the reasons stated in the enclosed veto message, I have disapproved SHB 493 which would have created a Seismic Safety Commission. Nv'action does not reflect upon the continuing need to ensure maximum preparedness for an earthquake. You are directed to review the purposes stated for the proposed commission in Section 3 of SHB.493 and ensure that your department carries out these functions on a continuing basis. As needed, I am confident you will seek cooperation from other state agencies and advice from other public agencies or individuals. If you require further assistance from me or my staff, do not hesitate to rm us of your needs. Governor BG:lf STATE OF WASHINGTON OF THE GOVERNOR OLYMPIA 98504-0413 BOOTH GARDNER sovznuon May 21 . 1985 To the lionerable. the House of Representatives of the State of Washington Ladies and" Gentlemen: I am returning herewith, without my approval, Substitute House Bill No. 493, entitled: ACT Relating to Seismic Safetlv?i" Substitute House Bill No. 493 would create a seismic safety commission which would review preparedness for an earthquake, recommend priorities. and disseminate information. The Department of Emergency Management currently has a program and the legal authority to carry out these functions. Furthermore. the proposed commission would include only two members who are not state of?cials. Creation of new boards and commissions should be done only after careful consideration of their need. In the case of this department, the creation of a new commission without funding may lessen the needed staff time to work on this and other serious department measures. In general, commissions can be useful where functions cannot be exercised by a single existing state agency or where there is a strong public purpose served in establishing citizen oversight of governmental functions. Even in these circumstances, alternatives such as interagency coordination and temporary advisory grDUps should be considered before creating a new government entity. 1 have instructed the Director of the Department of Emergency Management to ensure that the purposes of Substitute House Bill No. 493 are carried out by the department. As needed. the Director will ask for technical advice from experts outside the department. For these reasons, I have vetoed Substitute :House Bill No. 493. Respectfully submitted . CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLED ENACTMENT SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. .993 CHAPTER NO. Passvd House Hal-"Ch 21., [9 Yeas '6 9 Nays 3 Passrd the Senate April 5 f9 Yeas ?u 3 Nays 2 CERTIFICATE f. Hack. Chicf Clerk of rho: Hons: ur' chrc~ atrium-cs of the SHIT ul? ?'Jshangwn. do ccmf} l'th' the .1:chth rs cnruHcd Subsnrutc Huusc 3m .MJ passcd by Eh: Hume of the: Swan: un the (MRS act forth (hm! --.- --. . .sar- 1. I tom-simmeSUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL ND. 493 State of Hashington 49th Legislature 1985 Regular Session by Committee on State Government {originally sponsored by Representatives Valle. Todd. Jacobsen. Leonard. Barnes. Ebersole. Cole. Rust. Crane. Appelwick. Braddock. D. Nelson and Miller) Read first time 3f8/85 and passed to Committee on Rules. AN ACT Relating to seismic safety: creating new sections; and providing an expiration date. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds and declares that there is a pressing need to strengthen earthquake safety in Washington by improving public policy. especially that related to reducing hazards and mitigating the effects of potentially damaging earthquakes. This need is not being addressed by any existing state government organization. (2) It is not the purpose of this act to transfer any authorities and responsibilities now vested by law in state and local agencies. NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. There is created a seismic safety commission. which shall report annually to the governor. the legislature. and the department of emergency management on its findings. progress. and reCOmmendations relating to earthquake hazard The commission shall submit its final the 1987. reduCtion. report to legislature by June 30. The commission shall consist of nine members as follows: supervisor's designee. the director of the department of The supervisor of the department of natural resources or the emergency management or the director's designee. and the director of the department of community development or the director's designee: One seismologist and one engineer appointed by the I governor; and Four members of the legislature. including two members of the house of representatives appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives and two members of the senate appointed by the president of the senate. The two members appointed from each house SHB 493 accountants-stow Sec. 2 shall be representative of the two major political parties. the seismic safety (2) The term of office for each member of commission shall be two years. The commission may elect its own chair. vice-chair. and other officers. All business shall be conducted by majority vote and a majority of members shall constitute a quorum. (3) without compensation. except: The members of the seismic safety commission shall serve Legislative members shall be reimbursed under RCH 44.04.120: and Nonlegislative members shall be reimbursed for travel expenses in The accordance with RCH 43.03.050 and 43.03.060. for state officials and employees shall be paid by their expenses respective departments. Travel expenses for members who are not state officials or state employees shall be paid by the department of emergency management. The commission shall be housed in the department of emergency management. (5) commission. "Commission." as used in this act. means the seismic safety NEH SECTION. Sec. 3. The commission is responsible for the following in connection with earthquake hazard reduction: educate the public. including public officials. about the nature Review and recommend methods. practices. and procedures to and consequences of earthquakes. about procedures for identifying those locations and structures especially susceptible to earthquake damage. effects of an and about methods to reduce and mitigate the adverse earthquake: Recommend goals and priorities to the state: and (3) Gather. analyze. and disseminate information. I NEH Sec. 4. The commission. in the discharge of its responsibilities. may: (1) Accept grants. contributions. and appropriations from public agencies. private foundations. or individuals: and (2) Seek advice from interested public and professional groups. SHE 493 .2. and appoint nonvoting members to advise the commission. the NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. This act may be known and cited as seismic safety commission act. NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. This act shall expire June 30. 198?. NEH SECTION. Sec. 7. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid. the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. Passed March??s. ouse. Passed the Senate April 1985. 0. President of% SHB 493