SEISMIC SAFETY MEMBERS Ray Lasmanis, Chair Mary Childers Chuck Cole Jim Erickson John Hooper Donald C. lsley Dan Mageau Carole Martens Dan McKillop Anthony Qamar Teny Simmonds Maillian Uphaus Washington State Department of Natural Resources Insurance Commissioner's Of?ce Washington State Hospital Association Of?ce of the Superintendent of Public Instruction Structural Engineers of Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs American Society of Civil Engineers Washington State Emergency Management Association Associatidn of Washington Cities University of Washington Department of Transportation Washington State Emergency Management Division Seismic Safety Subcommittee Members June 1998 Earthquake Safety lnIWashington State EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There has been impressive progress in the last ?ve years in seismic safety improvements. Prompted by the 1991 Seismic Safety Advisory Committee study titled A Policy Plan for Improving Earthquake Safety in Washington, the state has taken action to mitigate and prepare for the earthquakes of the future including the following: 6 Earthquake induced liquefaction susceptibility maps have been developed through a cooperative effort between the Departments of Natural Resources and Military Department State highway bridges prone to damage from earthquakes continue to be retro?tted by the Department of Transportation. Improving the state response capability by upgrading the Emergency Operations Center, communications systems, and providing 24-hour duty of?cer coverage. ?to Full-scale. multi-agency. mum-jurisdictional earthquake exercises such as ?Sound Shake ?95? have been conducted. The Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan has been revised with cooperation from agencies throughout Washington State government. 40 Public education programs coordinated by the Military Department are successful. such as the annual disaster month or ?Prepare Because You Care? program. and the ?Neighborhood Preparedness Program' are designed to prepare Washington families and businesses for disasters. ?to The Cascadia Region Earthquake Work Group (CREW) was created. The Archdiocese of Seattle manages an aggressive mitigation program for western Washington schools. to A majority of medical facilities are addressing seismic safety. ?to Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 3 boundaries have been expanded to cover western Washington State. Despite these and other accomplishments. Washington State has much to do to prepare for earthquakes of the future. Although, a large number of public schools have been retrofitted. there remains a high number of school children attending classes in buildings that are structurally vulnerable from earthquakes. Executive Summary . June 1998 Earthquake Safety in Washington State EARTHQUAKE SAFETY IN WASHING TON STA TE A Progress Report for the Period 1992-1997 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Findings with Respect to 1991 Policy Plan Priorities for Risk Reduction" I. Establishing Seismic Safety Oversight 3 ll. Improving Emergency Planning 3 Ill. Strengthening Buildings 6 IV. Strengthening Lifelines 9 V. Other 11 Recommendations 13 Appendices Appendix A Legislative Creation of Washington Emergency Management Council A-1 Appendix Disaster Preparedness Public Education Program Annual Report 3-1 Appendix Seismic Safety Evaluation Questionnaire Summary 0-1 Appendix Executive Summary 0-1 Appendix Summary of Responses to Seismic Questionnaire Port Facilities in Washington E-1 Appendix Seismic Safety Survey Summary Western Washington Health Care Facilities F-1 Appendix Action Initiatives for Improving Seismic Safety 6-1 Table of Contents June 1999 Earthquake Safety in Washington State MHRODUCWON The Washington State Legislature established the Washington State Emergency Management Council (EMC) (RCW 38.52.040) to advise the Governor on all matters pertaining to state and local emergency management (Appendix A). On June 13. 1996 the EMC voted to establish a Seismic Safety Subcommittee. The Subcommittee will provide policy recommendations. serve as an advocacy for seismic safety issues, and provide an annual assessment of statewide implementation of seismic safety improvements to the council. Raymond Lasmanis was appointed chair of the Subcommittee December 5, 1996. Other members were recommended with expertise in the following areas: Geology Local Government Buildings/Structures Private Industry Insurance .Structural Engineering Transportation Seismology Emergency Response Utilities/Lifelines Health Care Education Geotechnical Engineering According to RCW 38.52.040. the Council shall ensure that the Governor receives an annual assessment of statewide emergency preparedness including, but not limited to. speci?c progress on hazard mitigation and reduction efforts and implementation of seismic safety improvements. Therefore. the Seismic Safety Subcommittee was instructed to prepare a progress report concerning seismic safety issues. The Seismic Safety Advisory Committee's A Policy Plan for Improving Earthquake Safety in Washington - Ful?lling Our Responsibility, December 1, 1991 was to be used as a baseline against which to compare progress. In that policy plan, policies were developed and prioritized action recommendations were made which: Reduce the risks to public safety and properly. Ensure recommendations are realistic and feasible. ?to Create momentum for the overall program. Earthquake Safety in Washington State 1 June 1998 The four top priority recommendations for action were as follows: I. Establishing Seismic Safety Oversight ll. Improving Emergency Planning Strengthening Buildings IV. Strengthening Our Lifelines The following pages list the priority action items and the ?ndings of the Seismic Safety Subcommittee. Earthquake Safety in Washington State 2 June 1998 I. ESTABLISHING SEISMIC SAFETY OVERSIGHT OBJECTIVE: Create by Legislation an interagency Seismic Safety Policy Committee. Attempts to introduce and pass legislation to create a seismic safety policy committee have been unsuccessful. The 1995 Legislature placed the Emergency Management Division (EMD) under the State Military Department. Subsequent to this reorganization the Emergency Management Council was refocused under RCW 38.52.040 to advise the Governor and The Adjutant General on all matters relating to state and local emergency management. In November 1995 the Council established the Seismic - Safety Subcommittee and charged it with providing policy recommendations on seismic safety? Issues related to hazards presented by earthquakes. volcanoes. and tsunamis. It also provides a mechanism for the Council to work seismic safety and related recommendations. ll. IMPROVING EMERGENCY PLANNING OBJECTIVE: Conduct a State-level Review of Emergency Communications Systems and implement Review Recommendations. In accordance with RCW 38.52.040 and recommendations contained in the Seismic Safety Advisory Committee's 1991 report. the Emergency Management Division then a part of the Department of Community Development. convened the Communications Coordinating Committee in 1992. The committee reviewed the capabilities and employment of the major state systems and the emergency restoration capabilities of telecommunications service providers.? including cellular. in supporting disaster operations. Four recommendations were made to ?x identi?ed shortcomings: 4- Establish a statewide satellite system. 4. Employ an 800 two-way radio system as the primary state agency emergency network. Provide a fully functional. 24-hour operational primary Emergency Operations Center (EOC). ldentily and provide an alternate EOC with a mobile communications center capability. Although budget constraints did not permit the establishment of a statewide satellite system, EMD placed. at strategic locations throughout the state, a portable satellite communications system utilizing Mitsubishi model terminals. The system is extremely effective in areas previously inaccessible by radio or cellular phones. The Department of Transportation (DOT) uses an 800 two-way statewide radio system which is available to state emergencies. The Departments of Health, Labor and Industries, and lnfonnation Services have installed 800 base stations to connect with the state Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The state EOC base station will Earthquake Safety in Washington State 3 - June 1998 be moved to Camp Murray upon completion of the new EOC. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR). as part of its planning efforts. installed a Very High Frequency (VHF) base station on its state building' In April 1997. In October 1994, the E00 went to a 24-hour operational capability by hiring ?ve permanent Duty Of?cers. The importance of the 24-hour duty of?cer program was underscored in 1996 by the 60 percent increase in the number of reported incidents throughout Washington. Funding was approved to construct a facility that would some as the headquarters for EMD and provide a state-of-the-art EOC. The estimated completion date Is July 1998. The Military Department has the capability to provide armories as an alternate EOC site. The location of the selected am'Iories will be conditional on the severity and the - area impacted by the disaster. However. the procurement of additional equipment is required to make an alternate EOC fully operational. OBJECTIVE: Clarify Liability Law for Volunteer Emergency Workers and implement Registry of Emergency Workers and Volunteer Personnel. RCW 38.52.195 was amended in 1993 to clarify that when operating under the provision of RCW 38.52. licensed professional emergency volunteers such as architects or engineers, have the same protection from liability as any other volunteer. The amendment makes it clear that items such as business interruption are included under liability protection. To date. the Structural Engineers Association of Washington (SEAW) has not registered their volunteers through their local chapters. In 1996 the SEAW roster was registered with King County but was subsequently withdrawn. However, plans are currently being made by SEAW to register volunteers and re-establish the meter with King County. Two counties and one major city responded to a survey prepared by the Washington State Emergency Management Association by indicating they have registered volunteer structural engineers who can respond to emergencies. DOT reported that by the end of 1996 more than 120 of their employees have been trained to perform a structural evaluation of buildings following an earthquake (ATC-ZO certi?cation). They also co-produced two videos to assist in the evaluation of buildings and bridges. OBJECTIVE: Prepare and implement a Mum-Media Awareness and Education Program. The focus of the Emergency Management Division is all-hazard disaster preparedness. This Is accomplished through presentations: by assisting schools. businesses. and government agencies; conducting train-the-trainer classes; facilitating neighborhood preparedness courses; development of awareness and preparedness materials; outreach; and the coalition of building and public-private partnerships. Earthquake Safety in Washington State 4 June 1998 April has been designated ?Disaster Preparedness Month." The theme of the campaign is "Prepare Because You Care." New materials are designed each year and distributed by local jurisdictions, state agencies. schools, businesses, and the general public. 'During April a statewide earthquake "Drop, Cover and Hold' drill is conducted receiving the attention of thousands around the state. The goal of the campaign is consistent with the public education goal of fostering preparedness among the citizens of the state. Details of the 1996 EMD public education program are given in Appendix B. OBJECTIVE: Provide Standardized Materials as Part of Ongoing Training. The Family Emergency Preparedness Plan is the primary publication used in support of the public education program. Comparable Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and American Red Cross materials are also used. some of which are available in Braille and Spanish. Additional materials with a consistent message. are designed and distributed during ?Disaster Preparedness Month.? Two locally produced video tapes are used in addition to those distributed by FEMA. Also available are scripted 35-milimeter slide programs such as ?Family Disaster Plan" and ?Disaster Supplies Kit. OBJECTIVE: Standardize Planning Guidelines for Local Jurisdictions as Part of Ongoing Emergency Planning. The Comprehensive Emergency Management Planning Guide was distributed in April 1996. The guide provides emergency management program planners assistance in coordinating a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP). It provides a structure for coordinating all four phases of emergency management - mitigation, preparedness. response. and recovery. Included in the guide is a standard format for a plan that is patterned after the Federal Response Plan. The state CEMP dated November 1996. follows the standards set in the guide and serves as a working model. State agencies such as DOT and DNR developed their own CEMPs during 1996. OBJECTIVE: increase Awareness of Structmal and Nonstructural Building Hazards as Part of Ongoing Education. The EMD training section and the public education section offer classes throughout the year that address structural and nonstructural hazards. Examples of these are: 4. Earthquake Safety Program for Schools Multi-hazard Safety Program for Schools (0 Tremor Troop 4- Seismic Sleuths In addition, courses in Post Earthquake Safety Evaluation of Building and Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards are provided by EMD. Earthquake Safety in Washington State 5 June 1998 STRENGTHENING eurrJorNcs OBJECTIVE: Assess Seismic Vulnerabillty of School Facilities. Progress has been made in reducing the vulnerability of public school children in Washington State by reducing the risk of injury from structurally inadequate school buildings in ?nancially sound districts such as Seattle, Bellevue. and Tacoma. However. there is no reliable method to ascertain progress made since 1991 or the total number of schools that may still be at risk. Earlier survey results in 1984, 1990, and 1996, are based on different questions. different populations, and responses were not mandatory. . Washington State school districts are required to review the condition of their buildings. including meeting current Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements when applying for state matching funds for construction or modemization of school facilities (WAC 180-25). The "Study and Survey' report is submitted to the State Of?ce of the Superintendent of Public Instruction However. no action is required of the school districts when de?ciencies are discovered through the reporting process and no compilation of the collected data is required by OSPI. Therefore. a statewide inventory of school building seismic conditions does not exist for K-12 facilities in Washington State. The OSPI distributed a voluntary questionnaire during December 1996. A total of 202 out of 296 school districts responded. The survey respondents indicated that 359 school buildings have undergone seismic retro?tting. However, the survey also showed that 637 buildings not retro?tted. are considered structurally vulnerable to an earthquake. More than 250,000 students are housed in such buildings. The tabulation of survey responses showed that one out of ?ve responding districts has completed a seismic study to evaluate seismic?risk and expected damage. The response as to non-structural hazard mitigation is similar. Although nonstructural hazards have been reduced in 910 buildings, more than 270,000 students are still vulnerable (Appendix C). The question of school building vulnerability can not be fully answered from the responses noted above because a standard methodology and a systematic, mandated study of the seismic vulnerability of public school buildings has not been undertaken. During January 1996. the Archdiocese of Seattle implemented a School Earthquake Safety Program that covers all Catholic schools in western Washington. The following are the elements and time lines: ?to Nonstructural assessment of the school June 30. 1996 4- Nonstructural corrections completed December 31. 1996 Presentation of Seismic Structural Reports September 1996 Structural Management/Timeline Plan June 30. 1996 Payment for Structural Analysis June 30. 1999 Earthquake Safety in Washington State 6 June 1998 The seismic safety improvements to structural life-safety concerns are not an Archdiocesan requirement but are highly recommended given the potential hazard to building occupants.~However. the formulation of a management/time line plan is required. In order to ensure that action is taken. each year all schools have to provide written noti?cation to employees and the parents or legal guardians of each student identifying the Archdiocesan policy. a summary of the life-safety hazards identi?ed in the structural evaluation and a status report on correcting the life-safety hazards identi?ed in the structural evaluation. OBJECTIVE: Develop Building Code Amendments Requiring Seismic Strengthening During Remodel. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) is not retroactive and therefore existing buildings can remain legal as long as they conform to the UBC under which they were built. There is only limited language in the UBC. as adopted by Washington State relating to remodel projects and to the extent to which an owner must globally upgrade existing buildings during a remodel project. This is a long-term process that will require extensive stakeholding to change current state directives. OBJECTIVE: Review the Current Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 3 Boundaries. In response to growing evidence of major prehistoric earthquakes in the Paci?c Northwest and the evidence identi?ed by the Seismic Safety Advisory Committee policy plan, working sessions were held by SEAW in January 1992 to consider seismicity and seismic zoning. As a result of the interdisciplinary exchange of information. the working group unanimously concluded that Zone 3 should be expanded from the Puget Sound area to include all of Washington west of the Cascade crest. The eastern portion of the state would remain in Zone 23. In June 1993, the lntemational Council of Building Of?cials completed its approval of the proposed wde change. On July 1. 1995. Washington State enacted the newly revised Zone 3 boundaries of the State Building Code. - The State Building Code Council is in the process of updating the 1994 Edition of the UBC to a 1997 Edition. It should be available by the summer of 1998. There is an effort at the national level to develop a one-model code. called the lntemational Building Code by the year 2000. - OBJECTIVE: Develop Financial incentive Programs to Assist with Seismic Upgrade Projects. There are no governmental ?nancial programs in Washington State to encourage property owners to conduct seismic safety upgrades of their facilities. A poll taken of the insurance providers indicated that many companies providing earthquake coverage are restricting their sales and increasing deductibles from 5 percent to 20 percent of the Earthquake Safety in Washington State . 7 June 1998 policy limit. However. there are incentives to retro?t an older home'if a property owner wishes to obtain earthquake coverage. These include removing cinder blocks or brick foundations. Buildings built prior to 1961. should be bolted to the foundations and gas water heaters strapped and secured to studs. The Insurance Institute for Property Loss Reduction a nonpro?t educational organization launched a national initiative to nominate and support the development of "Showcase Communities." Central to the Showcase Community initiative is the use of incentives to promote mitigation. Participation in the program enables a community to take advantage of a range of incentives and cost savings such as reduction of insurance premiums, low interest loans for retro?tting, and reduction of sales tax on materials used in retro?tting. Planning is currently under way by as part of their Strategic Plan to initially select eight or ten cities. OBJECTIVE: Support and Coordinate the Geological Mapping of Sensitive Areas. Progress has been slow in obtaining map coverage at a useful scale (1:24.000) for populated areas of western Washington. In 1992, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) contracted with Shannon Wilson to evaluate the liquefaction potential of Seattle and a broad-based survey of Tacoma. Maps were produced but never published. In addition, the USGS produced four maps for'the Seattle area (7 1/2- minute quadrangles). which show slopes that have the potential for seismically induced landslides. During 1993 and 1994. DNR produced seven maps (7 Vz-minute quadrangles) covering Kent Valley and the?Vancouver area. By October 1998. mapping of the greater Olympia area by DNR should be available. OBJECTIVE: Support the implementation of a Strong Motion instrumentation Program. Planning for future large earthquakes depends on a thorough understanding of the ground motions that accompany these events. The number of instrumented sites in Washington has not changed signi?cantly over the last ten years. Though there are no state-mandated programs, there are several mandatory programs. such as Tacoma City Ordinance 20273 that provides for the creation of an Earthquake Recording Instrumentation Program funded by a 10 percent surcharge on building permit fees and strong motion seismograph sites at dams operated by the Army Corps of Engineers or critical United States Navy facilities. Other sites are installed and monitored by USGS. The University of Washington. with funding from the USGS, has an aggressive program with six telemeter digital accelerometers installed; nine on order; and an additional six funded. They have also installed six new broadband seismographs with three on order. Earthquake Safety in Washington State 8 June 1998 lV. STRENGTHENING LIFELINES OBJECTWE: Establish Statewide Policy Goals for Mitigation of Lifelines. A policy statement setting statewide goals for mitigation of seismic risk to lifelines has not been developed to date and requires further staf?ng by the Seismic Safety Subcommittee. OBJECTIVE: Continue Funding'the Washington State Department Of Transportation (DOD Bridge Retro?t Program. This has been the most successful lifeline program in the state. The state of Washington owns 3,150 bridges statewide. The bridges were evaluated and classi?ed into three priority groups. It will cost approximately $236 million to complete. The following funding has been approved by the Legislature for this project: 56 million 1991-1993 biennium 4- $10 million 1993-1994 biennium $10 million 1995-1997 biennium c- $13 million 1997-1999 biennium By June 1997, approximately 288 priority groups one and two (in span hinges and hinges at piers) retro?t were completed. These retro?ts include application of restrainers and additional span supports to prevent collapse of bridge spans. Also. 21 priority three (single column con?nement) retro?ts were completed during the last biennium. After July 1, 1997 there were 182 priority three retro?ts remaining. These retro?ts strengthen single columns supporting bridge spans (Appendix D). In addition, seismic evaluations have been completed on 24 major bridges. For example, evaluation of the Alaska Way Viaduct indicated an estimated retro?t and partial bridge replacement cost approaching $345 million (includes ground stabilization and utility relocation). Discussions regarding future actions for the viaduct are being addressed separately from the statewide seismic retro?t program. OBJECTIVE: identify Critical Lifeline Routes. There has not been a coordinated study of lifeline routes that include state and local roads. bridges. transit routes, and port facilities. However. assessments and retro?ts have been taking place on a facility by facility basis without an overview that would prioritize the critical lifelines. The success of the DOT bridge program is outlined above. There are 4 400 bridges owned and maintains-x! by counties and cities. The Seismic Safety Subcommittee was not able to survey the County Road Administration Board or the Association of Washington Cities for a report on bridge retro?t programs. Earthquake Safety in Washington State 9 - June 1998 lnforrnation was received on the City of Seattle's Bridge Retro?t Program. After implementing a "street utility fee.? a $21 million bridge retro?t program was initiated. Several million dollars were expended before the courts ruled that the fee was ?unconstitutional and that expanded funds had to be returned. SEATRAN and the City Council then came up with substitute funds. A program was established to keep bridges from collapsing and help for others toremain useable. Several pedestrian bridges over Aurora and Rainier Avenue South were retro?tted to prevent them from collapsing and closing off the vital transportation links below. Other bridges, such as the Ballard. University. and Fremont were retro?tted to remain serviceable alter a seismic event. To date. $19.5 million of the original $21.5 million have been expended on bridge retro?tting. The 1995 winter storms resulted In a hazard mitigation grant program that provided for a seismic retro?t In the City of Seattle called ?Project Bridge Seismic 6. The DOT Ferries Division does not have any plans to seismically retro?t state-owned ferry facilities. Twelve questionnaires were sent to state port facilities and nine were returned. The Ports of Tacoma and Seattle conducted studies that included an overview of the potential ground movements from liquefaction and lateral spreading as well as structural damage from ground shaking. The Port of Seattle completed a seismic evaluation of airport facilities at SEATAC and used this information to conduct a retro?t program. The Port of Seattle has spent $25 million to date on earthquake mitigation both at the airport and marine port facilities. Tacoma and Everett have retro?tted existing piers and some structures. The Port of Vancouver has added piling to an existing grain silo and plans to rebuild four piers (Appendix E). The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company is the main rail carrier in the Washington State. They are represented on the American Railway Engineering Association Committee for seismic design and the Association of American Railroads technical groups involved with earthquake-related research. No seismic risk assessment or retro?t programs have been conducted. Repairs would remedy any interruption of service due to a damaging earthquake immediately after the event. They are con?dent that the North American railroad bridges are less prone to damage from shaking than highway bridges. The design loads for longitudinal and lateral forces imposed by trains produce honzontal forces similar to those produced by earthquake accelerations. OBJECTIVE: Develop Work Program for Vulnerability Assessment of Local Bridges. There has not been a statewide vulnerability program conducted for city and county bndges. OBJECTIVE: Require Vulnerability Assessments and Adoption of Mitigation Standards for Water and Wastewater Utilities. A statewide policy or plan has not been produced. The Seismic Safety Subcommittee has not surveyed the water and wastewater utilities as to seismic hazard mitigation.? Earthquake Safety in Washington State 10 June 1998 OBJECTIVE: Provide Training for Lifeline Organizations. No action was taken on this objective. OBJECTIVE: Develop Standardized Seismic Safety Guidelines for Lifeline Emergency Plans. No action was taken on this objective. V. OTHER INITIATIVES Electrichas Utility Companies: In 1996, the Tacoma Public Utilities representative reported that the electric utility industry had been slow to respond to seismic threats. After a cost/bene?t analysis supporting seismic mitigation. Tacoma Public Utilities conducted a vulnerability analysis and implemented a plan for new design/construction methods and retro?tting of existing facilities that are at risk. Puget Sound Energy Company responded to the questionnaire that was sent to the Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup (CREW) members. At Puget Power, an Earthquake Study Project Team was formed and its recommendations incorporated into the corporate Emergency Response Manual. In terms of mitigation, many Puget Power substations were retro?tted during the 19908 to protect facilities from ground shaking gith transformers being anchored to their pads. ams: In accordance with RCW 90.54.160, the Washington State Department of Ecology Dam Safety Section reported to the Legislature in January 1997. the status of state dams exhibiting safety de?ciencies. The hazard classi?cation is based on risk to lives and property. Class 3 has the lowest risk and Class 1A the highest. dams require seismic strengthening from a survey conducted between 1993-1996. These are the Fanchers Dam in Okanogan County (Class 10) and Cultus Mountain Dams A. B, (Class 1C) in Skaglt County. The buttressing of the face of the Fanchers Dam should be completed by 1999. There is concern of liquefaction at the Cultus Mountain dams. Dames 8. Moore conducted a ?pro bono" study for the dam owner, Evergreen Council. Boy Scouts of America. The lack of action will trigger enforcement action by the Dam Safety Section. Findings from a 1997 periodic inspection report indicated that Chaplain Lake 8. dams owned by the City of Everett in Snohomish County have the potential of liquefaction during an earthquake. These are Class 1A dams with repairs estimated at between $50,000 to $300,000. The current status of dams regulated by the Department of Ecology can be found at the following intemet address: Earthquake Safety in Washington State 11 . June 1998 The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Biennial Report to Congress for the Fiscal Years 1995-1996 lists two dams in Washington State that were modi?ed due to seismic safety concerns. Poor quality concrete was used in the construction of the Clear Creek Dam. Portions of the dam have been reconstructed. The Bumping Lake Dam built in 1909-910, is an earth embankment constructed by hydraulic-?ii methods and founded on a mudflow deposit that is potentially quuetiable during earthquake shaking. Upstream and berms were constructed to prevent such liquefaction as well as to control seepage. Nuclear Facilities: Contact with of?cials at Hanford revealed the following: The Washington Nuclear Power Plant (WNP2) operated for Bonneville Power on the Hanford Reservation was built to strict seismic safety standards, and the integrity of those standards are checked annually during plant shutdown. The facilities under the control of the United States Department of Energy at Hanford are presently undergoing seismic analysis in accordance with a Presidential Executive Order. Medical Facilities: As part of the 1991 Seismic Safety Advisory Committee Policy Plan. there was a proposed action initiative which encouraged public and private hospitals to assess seismic vulnerability and planning to mitigate seismic hazards. as part of facilities planning. There was also a concern that there has been no statewide assessment of the vulnerability of medical facilities to seismic hazards. The Seismic Safety Subcommittee sent surveys to 41 medical facility managers or plant operationslmaintenance supervisors. The survey ?ndings show that a wide array of medical facilities of varying sizes and missions both within metropolitan. urban. and rural settings are addressing facilities seismic safety. Eighty percent of the respondents indicated they had taken actions to conduct facility seismic surveys and accomplish at least some retro?tting beyond that required in major building or renovation projects. With the reclassi?cation of western Washington to Zone 3, new ?ndings relative to earthquake risk in Washington, and the relatively recent major California earthquake events ('89 Lorna Prieta 8: ?94 Northridge) have created a realm of increased safety interest and mission sustainment. Approximately 80 percent have coordinated with servicing utility companies and local. state. and county of?cials in preparedness planning. Most managers were aware that FEMA had published documents regarding non- structural seismic mitigation. but found the details too general to easily implement into a retro?t program. Some facilities have developed their own unique designs for restraining medical equipment and pharmaceutical storage areas. Many managers had updated their staff training programs to devote more time regarding what the initial response should be to a seismic event. The largest negative response was to the Earthquake Safety in Washington State 12 June 1998 . .. -me ATC-20 course (Post-Earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings). Sixty-three percent of the facility managers were uninformed about the program (Appendix F). Businesses An attempt to contact the major corporations operating in the state through the Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup (CREW) met with limited success. Weyerhaeuser has an aggressive program to address seismic risk. The Boeing Company reported that they have response and recovery centers at all major Puget Sound facilities with satellite communication capabilities. Site risk assessments have been performed that has led to $50 million in seismic upgrades in the Puget Sound region. The Vancouver Division of Hewlett Packard Company reported that they conducted a voluntary structural upgrade to a three-story. 500,000 square foot of?ce building that was constructed in 1980. They also assessed an of?ce and manufacturing operations facility of over 1.25 million square feet that led to the development of voluntary upgrades to approximately one million square feet. It is clear that businesses are concerned about recovery after a disaster and are conducting mitigation activities to reduce business losses from a major earthquake. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCREASING SEISMIC SAFETY IN WASHINGTON STATE The Seismic Safety Subcommittee reviewed all the major recommended strategies, together with their objectives and principal targets that were identi?ed in A policy Plan For Improving Earthquake Safety in Washington - Ful?lling Our Responsibility, December 1, 1991 (Appendix G). The recommendations and needs addressed by the policy plan are still current and should be used to develop seismic safety strategies. The policy plan also indicates that signi?cant progress has been made in seismic safety since 1991. However, it is a long-tenn proposition that will require further re?nement and implementation in future years. The subcommittee has identi?ed three areas that wanant continued attention: 1. Strengthen Buildings: 4- School Buildings to Critical Care Facilities s- State Facilities 2. Strengthen Lifelines: Power Utilities 4- Gas Utilities ?to Water Utilities Earthquake Safety in Washington State 13 June 1998 3. Transportation Infrastructure: Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Bridge Retro?t City Bridge Retro?t Program RECOMMENDATIONS: Reoommenda?ons outlined in the 1991 plan should be followed. Accelerate the wsoor Retro?t Program. 4- Assess the vulnerability of transportation lifelines in counties and cities and establish a retro?t program. 4- Additionally. further analysis and staf?ng by specialized workgroups are needed to provide strategic planning to accomplish recommended objectives from the 1991 policy plan. Earthquake Safety in Washington State 14 June 1998 '92: 4 APPENDIX Legislative Creation of Washington Emergency Management Council RCW 38.52.040 Emergency Management Council ?Members?Ad hoo? Function as state emergency response commission?Rules review. 1) There is hereby created the emergency management council (hereinafter called the council). to consist of not more than seventeen members who shall be appointed by the governor. The membership of the council shall include, but not be limited to. representatives of city and county governments. sheriffs and police chiefs, the Washington State Patrol, the Military Department. the Department of Ecology. state and local ?re chiefs. seismic safety experts. state and local emergency management directors. search and rescue volunteers. medical professionals who have expertise in emergency medical care. building of?cials, and private industry. The representatives of private industry shall include persons knowledgeable in emergency and hazardous materials management. The members of the council shall serve without compensation. but may be reimbursed for their travel expenses incurred in the performance of their duties in accordance with RCW 43.03.050 and 43.03.080 as now existing or hereafter amended. (2) The emergency management council shall advise the govemor and the director on all matters pertaining to state and local emergency management. . The council may appoint such ad-hoc committees, subcommittees. and working groups as are required to develop speci?c recommendations for the improvement of emergency management practices, standards. policies. or procedures. The council shall ensure that the governor receives an annual assessment of statewide emergency preparedness including. but not limited to. speci?ed progress on hazard mitigation and reduction efforts. implementation of seismic safety improvements. reduction of ?ood hazards. and coordination of hazardous materials planning and response activities. The council or a subcommittee thereof shall periodically convene in special session and serve during those sessions as the state emergency response commission required by P.L. 99-499. the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. When sitting in session as the state emergency response commission, the council shall con?ne its deliberations to those items speci?ed in federal statutes and state administrative rules goveming the coordination of hazardous materials policy. The council shall review administrative rules goveming state and local emergency management practices and recommend necessary revisions to the director. [1995 269 1202; 1988 81; 1984 38 5; 1979 ex.s. 57 8; 1975 -'76 2ml ex.s. 34 82; 1974 ex.s. 171 6: 1951 179 5.1 NOTES: Effective date?1995 269; See note following RCW13.40.025 Earthquake Safety in Washington sum AM June 1999 Part headings not law?S?v'erability?1 995 289: See notes following RCW 13.40.005. Effective date?Severability?1975-76 axe. 34: See notes following RCW 2.03.1 1 5. Earthquake Safety in Washington State A-2 June 1998 APPENDIX a Disaster Preparedness Public Education Program Annual Report 1996 The Disaster Preparedness Public Education Program provides education and training opportunities to the public. and emergencies and disaster preparedness. Our goal is to be the best-prepared state in the nation. During 1996: 6 Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD) conducted a month-long multimedia/mum event all hazard preparedness campaign reaching audiences statewide. There were 2,300 packets of camera-ready information sheets distributed. Over 250 business professionals participated in the Western Washington Emergency Network Business and Industry Preparedness Conference sponsored in part by EMD, Disaster Preparedness Public Education Program. The ?rst Eastem Washington Emergency Network Business and Industry Conference was conducted in Spokane with over 50 participants from local business in attendance. The resulting coalition is now self- sustaining. This conference will become an annual event. There were 5,000 ?Emergency Action Wheels? distributed. Over one million people from government. business, schools. and the general public participated in the 'Drop, Cover, and Hold Drill? April 26, 1 996. There were 21,000 school and general preparedness posters distributed. There were 80,000 preparedness bookmarks distributed. Four different videos were distributed to 64 emergency management jurisdictions. There were 21 emergency management jurisdictions participating in school poster contests for third graders. Two ?Earthquake Safety For Schools? classes were conducted. with over 100 people in attendance. Earthquake Safety in Washington State 9-1 June 1998 Two Public Service Announcements were created with the assistance of the Seattle Mariners. Radio and television stations across the state aired this material on a frequent basis. Family disaster preparedness presentations (15) provided a personal message to 1.203 people. Three train-the-trainer classes prepared 43 more people from other organizations to deliver the preparedness message. To date. 186 have been trained in this program. One neighborhood preparedness course was taught during this year providing training to 16 local emergency mangers or their representatives. More than 330,000 copies of the Family Emergency Preparedness Plan were printed and distributed. The Third Annual State Family Disaster Preparedness Conference offered a daylong opportunity for those doing public disaster education to learn new concepts and network among their peers. The Preventor Partnership consisting of King county Fire and Life Safety Cooperate, Puget Sound Power and Light Company and the Emergency Management Division successfully conducted a pilot training program called ?Power Up Preventor' for 8 .400 children. kindergarten through sixth grades during April of 1998. This superhero approach to teaching children the right thing to do In an emergency or disaster was resumed In the fall. One hundred forty additional shows were conducted' In the October- November time frame reaching 41.176 children and 1,975 teachers in a seven-county area. The program will continue into 1997 and beyond. Grants are currently being sought to bring this program to children statewide. In cooperation with the Department of Social and Health Services. an outreach program was initiated to help nursing homes and child-care centers learn preparedness concepts. For the third year in a row. the Disaster Preparedness Public Education Program participated' In the Early Childhood Development Conference addressing the preparedness needs of child-care providers at all levels. The Disaster Preparedness Public Education Program received three awards from the National Coordinating Committee on Emergency Management. Earthquake Safety in Washington State 8-2 June 1998 APPENDIX Seismic Safety Evaluation Questionnaire Summary There were 202 surveys returned. How many school district buildings or what percentage of the district's buildings have undergone seismic retro?tting to strengthen the building's structure? Answer. 2a. How many school district buildings or what percentage of the district?s buildingshave not been retro?tted and are considered vulnerable to an earthquake? Answer: 53 26. How many students are housed in the buildings? Answer. 252.795 3. Has a seismic study been accomplished to evaluate seismic risks and expected damage? Answer: 1mg N9 159 How many school district buildings or what percentage of the district's buildings have had measures taken to reduce nonstructural seismic hazards securing shelves to walls to prevent falling)? Answer. 919 5a. How many school district buildings or what percentage of the district's buildings are considered vulnerable to nonstructural seismic hazards? Answer. 5b. How many students are housed in the buildings? Answer 71 131 Has a study been completed to evaluate nonstrucmral seismic risk and expected damages? Answer. my 3.9.15.2 What has the school district done to improve earthquake response and boost earthquake awareness? Developed an emergency plan. Answer. 1_4? Have emergency kits for students (provided by parents). Answer: ?g Produced brochures. Answer: 2 Had presentations to parents, students. and community. Answer: g9 Earthquake Safety in Washington State 0-1 April 1998 Incorporated earthquake risk data into regular curriculum: Answer: Training fer school personnel. Answer: 1_Qz Other (explain). Answer. gs Earthquake Safety in Washington State . 0-2 April 1098 APPENDIX Executive Summary As WSDOT Bridge heads toward the 1997-99 biennium with the Seismic Retro?t Program, we will see: Completion of the Priority 1's and 2's (In-span hinges and hinges at piers). Completion of our major bridge seismic vulnerability studies. Completion of retro?ts to four major bridges including Phase 1 of Interstate 5's Ship Canal Bridge. Completion of all preliminary seismic studies of the Alaskan Way Viaduct, including the Preliminary Seismic Retro?t Plan and Cost Estimate. Completion of the initial Priority 3 (single column con?nement) retro?tting started during the 1995-97 Biennium. Major focus on Priority 3 retro?ts for the next three bienniums. if funding levels remain constant Prioritized major bridge retro?ts upon the June 1997 completion of the major bridge studies. Integration of the major bridge retro?t projects with the Priority 3 retro?t projects. Continued seismic research and experimental feature projects using ?ber reinforced composite materials for column retro?t We have accomplished (Construction complete. construction starts prior to the end of the 1995-97 biennium, or it was determined retro?t was not required) the following: Superstructure retro?ts 315 ln-span hinges - log Hinges at piers - 181 Determined retro?t not required 29 Bridge supports as part of widening or superstructure retro?ts - 16_ Single column pier - 16 Multi-column pier - Determined retro?t not required - 25 Rocker bearings retro?tted - gs Rocker bearings - ?g 3? Determined retro?t no required - Earthquake Safety in Washington State 0-1 June 1999 Fracture critical retro?ts Major bridge studies 25 Major bridge retro?ts - 4 After the 1995-97 Biennium. we will have the following to accomplish: superstructure retro?ts - 13" In-span hinges - 5 Hinges at piers - 5 Bridge Support retro?ts 939 Priority 3. bridges with single column supports - g; Priority 4. bridges with multiple column piers - gm Priority 5. bridges with multiple column piers - Rocker bee?ng retro?ts - 50 Fracture critical retro?ts - 1Q Major bridge retro?t de?nition. prioritization. and integration into the retro?t program - a Earthquake Safety in Washington State 0-2 - June 1998 PORT SEISMIC STUDIES ransom-nus APPENDIX I SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO SEISMIC QUESTIONNAIRE PORT FACILITIES IN WASHINGTON PUBLIC SAFETY ENVIRONMENT EARTHQUAKE. RESPONSE OF BUSINESS EARTHQUAKE Anacortes None (Marine) None None None- None Bellingham HrMarineIAlrport) NoWesponse Time (Marine) None None Nam None Wits survey conducted by NCAA in 1996. Bremerton (NM) New structures built to recent county coda (no retro?t on older structures). None meow Response Plan lnmlemented. May be addressed as part of the county emergency plan. None Most sol-"ls sun's: indicate ground. Piers are seismicaily designed using piles. Upland structures are on spread footings and are not susceptible to iiquefac?on. ?Everett (Marine) Major huh?reads moonstructed with Writ: resistance and densi?cetio?n of soils behind walls. Piers are all concrete with seismic capability. on tanks are buried in seismic vaulh. Spill Prevention and Response Plan in place. None for earthquakes. None Kennewick (Marine) None. Earthquakes are not really an issue here. None. Use current codes that include seismic design for new structures. None None None None Longview None (Marine) Some retro?t of of?ce buildings during remodelm. Containment area at drum storage of oil. Have an active committee working on a Disaster Plan. likely be addressed as part of Disaster Plan. None Earthquake Safety in Washington State E-1 June 1998 PORT SEISMIC STUDIES SEISMIC RETROFITTING WW IPROTECT ENVIRONMENT EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE nesron'?rorr OF BUSINESS EARTHQUAKE AWARENESS ?tarted in June 1997. Marine) No response. ort Angeles (MarineIAirport) None None None Airport has a Section 325 Emergency Plan. includes responses for natural disasters. Accomplished seismic survey of over 200 facilities after 1980. SeaTac (MarinelAirport) Prioritized laciiltles in terms of seismic risk. Some additional analyses on higher-risk facilities. Rebo?'tted several piers and buildings. Increased seismic resistance of structures. $13 million (airport). 82 million (marine). Airport retro?t underway. 50mprehensive Emergency - Response Program for expedited response. Includes employee evawation. emergency command. communication. health and safely. facility inspections. Agreements locel design consultants and contractors to rebuild damaged facilities. expedited under emergency conditions. time Employees made aware of Emmi-1 Response Program. Training is planned soon. Written materials are located in buildings of concern and have been given to tenants. "Tacoma No response. (Marine) Vancouver None (Marine) No upgrade of existing buildings. New buildings design for Zone 3. Plan to tear down and rebuild terminals 1-4 using new codes. Added 310 million in new piles to existing silo. Standard containment of oil drums. Emergency Response Plan - not speci?c for earthquakes. No specific" restoration plan - rebuild as last as practical. No speci?i earthquake plan. Team captains count number of people in the buildings. same for other disasters. None Walla Walla None None None None None Earthquake Safety in Washington State E-2 - June 1998 .A 2.5-.wm 1:30: 1 mm_m_s_o maum: mczm< 5:51?20:62 Imam?.2 02am I- 5 '2 323 Eugi?i 3.. . .. it. It. 119.3 Eii?mgia: moi!? a?o nakl?ih??i all; itgii?lloitg inn-a.- 1. Ital ?iito?izig . a; 52.5.3.- 1 . (I. 3.3.. . locum-a3E111. in"; u. .. whl?nu?num . gull-g .1 at: . gag-n . . ..1l.?qo..o?llon.. .ontloo El: .ii?il?i E. - .. 1E ?asciizsl? .. 1 00000 *1 13?. EF La ?g 2 3 confuse-toga gieszgqiooir-oo?a: 5.33:; APPENDIX '6 Action Initiatives for Improving Seismic Safety I. Establishing Seismic Safety Oversight Priority. One l.a Create by legislation an interagency seismic safetypolicy committee. II. Improving Emergency Planning Priority One ll.e Conduct a state-level review of emergency communication systems and implementation review recommendations. ll.b Clarify the liability law for volunteer emergency workers and implement a central registry of trained emergency worker and volunteer personnel. ll.c Prepare and implement a multi-media awareness and education program. Il.d Provide standardized materials to help local jurisdictions more effectively train personnel. ll.e Standardize planning guidelines for local jurisdictions as part of ongoing emergency planning. l .f Increase awareness of structural and non-structural earthquake hazards as part of ongoing education. Priority Two Develop capacity for real time communication of information about the location. magnitude and type of earthquake event that has occurred. l.h Establish a clearinghouse for disseminating educational and training materials. ll.i Develop and implement an automated central inventory of equipment and resources available for emergency use. l .j Evaluate and review local emergency plans and county preparedness, transferring the best practices to other jurisdictions. Earthquake Safety in Washington scare 6-1 June 1993 ll.k 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 ll.l Review and revise the Division of Emergency Management?s handbook on mutual aid and develop model mutual aid agreements. ll.m identify and transfer examples of good local government emergency communications planning and regional coordination. Ill. Strengthening Buildings Priority One Assess the seismic vulnerability of school facilities and' Improve seismic safety as part of long-range capital planning. Develop building code amendments requiring seismic strengthening during planned remodel projects. Support the review of current Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 3 Boundaries. Develop financial incentive programs to assist with seismic upgrade projects. Support and coordinate the geological mapping of sensitive areas. Support the implementation of a strong motion instrumentation program in Washington. Priority Two Assess the seismic vulnerability of police and fire 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. Earthquake Safety in Washington State 6-2 June 1998 Encourage public and private hospitals to assess seismic vulnerability and planning to improve seismic safety, as part of facilities planning. Priority Three Assist local governments to de?ne long-range 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 jurisdich'ons to adopt local ordinances requiring minimum nonstructural seismic mitigation. Ill. Strengthening Lifelines Pn'on?ty One N.a Establish statewide policy goals for mitigation of seismic risk to lifelines. lV.b Continue funding the cunent Washington State Department of Transportation bridge retro?t program. No Identify critical lifeline routes that include state and local roads, bridges. transit routes, and port facilities. lV.d Develop a work program for seismic vulnerability assessments of local bridges. lV.e Require seismic vulnerability assessments and adoption of seismic mitigation standards for water and wastewater utilities. lV.f Require post-ealthquake response and recovery plans for water and wastewater utilities. lV.g Provide a rigorous program of training in seismic for lifeline organizations. N.h Develop standardized seismic safety guidelines for utilities emergency plans. Priority Two Earthquake Safety in Washington State 6-3 June 1998 lV.i Promote vulnerability assessments and mitigation programs for other transportation facilities. lV.j Require seIsmic vulnerability assessment and adoption-of mitigation standards by the power industry. lV.k Require electric and natural gas. utilities to address earthquake response in their emergency response and recovery plans. Priority Three . NJ Require seismic vulnerability assessments and adoption of mitigation standards for telecommunication companies. lV.m Require telecommunications utilities to develop earthquake response and recovery plans. Taken from the ?1991 Seismic Safety Advisory Committee Study, A Policy for improving Earthquake Safety in Washington.? Earthquake Safety in Washington State 6-4 June 1998