NSF I ENG-86035

JAPANESE PRIVATE SECI'OR EARTHQUAKE

PROGRAMS AND THEIR APPLICABII~ITY

IN THE UNITED STATES

Volwne I:

Earthquake Programs of Companies

in the United States

REPRODUCED BYU.S. OEPAATMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL TECHNICALINFORMATION SERVICESPRINGFIELD. ,,"" 22161

SCIENTIFIC SERVICE, INC.35 ARCH ST., REDWOOD CITY, CA 94062. TELEPHONE: (415' 368-2931 ~

-

,,-,Jm..1II••••_e---

,"n·'1tII£P'ORT aaculllN1'ATION TL ........ I~ ........... ..-.- ...

PAIl NSF/ENG-86035 "'7 148839 lAS............. ..~a.e

Japanese Private Sector Earthquake Programs and Their November 1986Applicability in the United States, Volume I: Earthquake'" ..

r. ......., ~ ............ :, ......

R. Reitherman 850~FR-1

........... OIWIII •....._....

1& ",,--"..,... YIIIl ...

Scientific Service, Inc.35 Arch Street -IL CJ:se1illllQ .........,

Redwood City, CA 94062 Ie.. ECE8416400

1&"".""'" ._............... u..T,.._ ............e:-Directorate for Engineering (ENG)Nationa' Science Foundation1800 6 Street, N.W. ...Washington, DC 20550•• a was ....

.Programs of Companies in the United States

- -_.._._-.-._.-...............---Approximately 150 ea 1 i fOt'ni il compilY,ies with earthquake programs weretsur-veyed. L.rg~r firms were more likely to have active e~rthquake

prograrns thaY, small firms; firms with esseYlt ial functioY'5 that could

be seriously interrupted by an earthquake, such as ut i lit i es andban\<.s, also tend to have me,re Vigorous programs. Most firms,

thr-ough the efforts of both top management and lower level employeeswlth safety-related responsibilities, began their programs arour,d

1980. Elements of earthquake programs ineluded: centr-al izedcorporate safety audits. ne,nstructural survey and retrofit progr-ilrns,lilr-ge-sca1e struetural str-engthening of builrtings, storage ofemergency suppl ies. evacuat iorl plar,s, and impJementation ofintra- and i Ylt er--compaY,y communication network...

IF.a.-- .......... - "aEarthquakes HazardsSafety engineering SurveysCorporations

a. al II wa• .... r-

.. _".....,.... ,1& • I .- • .....O"(!tlie ...... .....-.....

lITIS .. --... 0.. (ftIIe .... .. ,.,._--...za.I. ...- ...... ....-. .... m..-m

8503-FR-l November 1986

JAPANESE PRIVATE SECTOR EARTHQUAKE

PROGRAMS AND THEIR APPLICA13ILITY

IN THE UNITED STATES

Volwne I:

Earthquake Programs of Companies

in the United States

by

Robert Reitherman

This material is based upon work supported by the NationalScience Foundation under Grant No. ECE-8416400,

Dr. William Anderson, NSF Program Manager.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendationsexpressed are those of the author and do not necessarily

reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Scientific Service, Inc.35 Arch Street, Redwood City, CA 94062

(415) 368-2931

I .J-

scl8llfifiC serviCe. inc.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The study of private seetor earthquake progral1lS is of great significance fortwo bal>ic reasons: most people live and work in private facil'ties, with the privatesector accounting for about two-thirds of the economy; also, there is a large amountof innovative talent in the private sector w:lose efforts in the earthquake neldshould be studied to stay abreast of the latest developments in the establishment ofearthquake pro~rams for companies.

Comparmg U.S. with Japanese private sector earthquake programs is really aquestion of a comparison between Csllifornia and Japan, since private sector earth­quake provoams, with only a few exceptions, do not exist in other states.

Governmental earthquake programs in the United States shoUld always bethought of in the plural, because there is great variety among the federal, state, andlocal pro~rams that exist. One can speak of "the U.S. spa~e program," but not of"the U.s. earthquake progr'lm" In most respects, governmental earthquakeprograms are ('oncentrated at the local level, e1though in california there aresignificant state earthquake programs as well. The federal government's NationalEarthquake Hazard Reduction Program's expenditures are approximatel~' 75% devotedto research. More direct federal intervention to reduce earthquake risks, such as anationwide mandatory seismic building code, has never been a feature of the federalgClvernment's program.

With few exceptions, governmental laws or policies do not directly affectprivate sector earthquake programs, and so the rapid rise in california of thisphenomenon in the past half dozen years has generally occurred only because ofvoluntary efforts motivated by a realization that relath:elv inexpensive efforts canSUbstantially reduce risk. Nonprofit organizations have been very active inpromoting private sector earthquake programs. Most companies have learned themost from ott-.er companies, often by exchanges of information and ideas at meetingssponsored by the Red Cross, Business and Industry Council for Emergency Planningand PreparednefSs, Industrial Emergency Council, and professional and trade groups.

A survey of approximately 150 California companies provides some insights intopresent patterns and trends among companies. The survey conducted used a sampleof only the higher visibility firms with earthquake programs--those who attendearthquake c'.>nferences. The results are thus representative of firms in californiawith active earthquake progralT's--not firms in general.

iii

Preceding page blank

scientific serVICe. inc.

Larger firms are more likely to have active earthquake programs than smallfirms; fi~ms with essential functions that could be seriously interrupted by anearthquake, such as utilities and banks, also tend to have more vigorous programs.

Most firms started their earthqv8.ke programs around 1980. This does notreflect the influence of any particular earthquake or piece 0: legislation at aboutthat time, but is rather probably just cue to an approximate consensus that began toevolve in the eighties that companies should investigate ways to protect themselvesfrom earthquakes.

Particular programs were begun by the efforts of both top management andlower level employees with safety-related responsibilities. None of thE'! firmsresponding to the survey reported that a union or employee association was a factorin originating an earthquake program.

Two-thirds of thi! 21 medical organizations surveyed have exercised theirearthquake plans, which is greater than any of the othel' types of organizationssurveyed, such as asseJ7lbly oceupanices (50%), financial (43%), or transportation(4:;96). This probably reflects both the very essential nature of medical services inan earthquake disaster and the accreditation requirement imposed on hospitals oftwice-a-year disaster exercises. The nuclear power industry is the only othercommon example where disaster exercises are mandated.

Earthquake programs reside in a variety of places in corporate organizationcharts, with health and safety, facilities, or security heing the most likelydepartments.

C'alifornia companies provide instructive examples of a variety of elements thatmay be included in an earthquake program. These include:

o Centralized corporate safety aUdits, incl\!ding nationwide criteria indicatingwhich facilities should have plans for which types of naturD.1 hazards.

o Nonstructural survey and retrofit programs, protecting laboratories, offices,and other are8.S within a large fa'.!ility.

o Large-scale structural strengtheningperformance in earthquakes (even though,of recent vintage).

of built!ings to ensure goodin some cases, the buildings are

o Training of employees, using classes, brochures, and video tapes.

iv

scientifIC servICe. inc.

o Provision for use of an alternative headquarters after an earthquake thatmight disable the facility where the company is normally headquartered.

o Employee ID cards for essential personnel, inclUding arrangements withlocal law enforcement to facilitate the recognition of the cards.

o Purchase of radio equipment to allow a company to communicate with otherbranches of the company or to allow communications between designatedemployees l houses distributed around a region and the downtown corporateheadquarters.

o Emergency supplies are commonly stored in metal lockers, containing water,first aid, limited food supplies, flashlights, and other gear that oftenresembles camping equipment.

o Evacuation plans have included arrangements with local structuralengineering firms to quickly have facilities inspected after an earthquake todetermine whether evacuation is called for, and studies of the safestexterior areas for post-earthquake gathering. Evacuation of wheelchair­confined individuals and "roll-taking" methods have been devised.

o Mutual aid among companies in one case includes l1 24-hour emergency radionet to facilitate requests for aid among member firms.

o Ea.rthquake insurance is not a major tactic relied upon by firms to reducetheir risk.

v

scientific service,lnc.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Numerous individuals and institutions have been extremely helpful during thecourse of this study. While it is impossible to list everyone by name, the authorswould like to give credit to some of the many people who assisted us greatly on tidsproject.

Dr. Shintaro YIlIlO, Kajima Corporation, Tokyo,Mr Yujiro Ogawa, Research Director, Urban Safety Research Institute,Tokyo,Mr. G. Mawatari and Mr. H. Okada, National Land Agency, Tokyo,Mr. Toshiroh Sugiyama, Director, and Mr. Yasuoki Saito, Chief of Staff,and the staff of the Earthquake Preparedness Division, ShizuokaPrefectural Government,Mr Tadahi Ashimi, Director of the City Planning Division, City of Osaka,and his staff,Mr. T.Suzuki and the staff of the Bureau of General Affairs, MiyagiPrefectural Office,Dr. Yoshio Kumagai, Institute of Socic-Economic Planning, University ofTsukuba,Dr. Hirokazu lemura, Earthquake Engineering Lab, Department of CivilEngineering, Kyoto University,Mr. Kawatani, Water Works Bureau, Osaka City Office.

Many other indiviudals in Japan assisted us greatly in our research. Each ofour visits (and in some cases th~re was a repeat visit on our second research trip)involved one to several days of preparation time on the part of the company oragency who received us, and the amount of information openly provided wasindispensable to our research. Assistance in interview visits was provided by thefollowing agencies, companies, and universities:

Ohbayashi CorporationLaboratory of Urban Safety PlanningTokyo Gas Company, LtdTohoku OU Company, LtdTokyo Electric Power Company, LtdSony CorporationOsaka Gas Company, LtdTokyo Metropolitan GovernmentMinistry of ConstructionNJigattt l"rllrcct~rtl.1 Government

vi

$CIanlilic service,/nc.

Hitachi, LtdFuji Bank, LtdShizuoka Bank, LtdBuilding Research Institute, TsukubaShows Shell Sekiyu Company, LtdTokieo, LtdToa Nenryo Kogyo Company, Ltd, Shimizu Oil RefineryShizl:oka HospitalTokyo Water AuthoritySoyoukaiKokubu CompanyToyokeiziTokyo National MuseumTakenaka Komuten

Robert W. Hubenette 8l1d David J. Smollar, consultants to the project,participated in the first research visit to Japan; consultants David J. Leeds and T.e.Zsutty were involved in comparative studies or seismic risk for Cslifornia and Japan.

An Advisory Committe met twice during the project to suggest directions forthe research effort and to review results. The active members of this committeewere:

Pete Ashen, American Red Cross, San FranciscoR.E. Barrett, Safety Engineer, Chevron Oil Field Research CompanyAl Doyle, Safety Coordinator, Hewlett-PlickardMichael Eliastam, M.D., Chief of Staff, Stanford University Medical centerJohn P. Miller, AT&T CommunicationsKent Paxton, Area Coordinator, san Mateo Area Office of Emergency ServicesBarabara 1. Poland, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, GTETony Prud'homme, formerly Director of Emergency Planning, ARCOAdrian Ruddell, Burke IndustriesBrian West, Cypress SemiconductorBenjamin Wong, Kaiser Foundation

Evelyn Kaplan 8Jl.d Larue Wilton of Scientific Service, Inc., performed numerousadministrative tasks to keep the project running smoothly, as well as handling theeditorial and production aspects of the final reports.

vii

Executive Summary

Acknowledgements

List of Figures

List of Tables

SectiCXI1. Introduction

CONTENTS

iii

vi

ix

ix

1

2. The Public Context of Private Sector Earthquake 3Programs in the United States

3. Patterns and Trends of Private Sector Earthquake Programs 25

4. Profiles of Earthquake Programs of Companies in california 37

References

viii

49

Number

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Number

1

2.

LIST OF !'lGURES

Typical Organization Chart of Levels and Branches ofGovernment in the United States

Typical Organization Chart of Levels of Government andTheir Disa."'ter-Related Responsibilities

Counties of the United States

Areas of the United States Where Earthql1ake Regulationsare Typically Enforced

Higher Risk Earthquake Zones of the United States

LIST OF TABLES

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Expendituresby Type of Program Element

Surv~y Questionnaire

ix

5

6

8

10

11

21

29

sciaoli'ic serVICe. inc.

Seetion 1INTRODUCfION

The topic of private sector earthquake programs is of great significance, buthas been little studied. Approximately one-third of the gross national product ofthe United States is attributable to government expenditures. while the largerportion of the economy is private. Most of the count.~y's popUlation lives and worksin privately owned facilities. The role of federal, state, and local government inensuring adequate levels of earthquake safety is an important subject, but theemphasis on the activities of governmental agencies has perhaps obscured a basicpoint: Because the majority of the earthquake risk vf the country resides in theprivate sector, and because a large variety of essential economic activities in theUnited States is within the province of companies rather than governmental agencies,solving only the government's earthquake problems and improving only governmentalearthquake programs will leave the majority of our potential earthquake problemsuntouched or only indirectly reduced.

Another important reason for looking carefully at the earthquake progt'ams ofcompanies in the United States, especially in the comparative light of programs ofcompanies in Japan, is that a great fund of innovation resides in the private sector,and the increasingly common establishment and refinement of earthquake programsamong companies in the past decade provide, in effect, a set of experiments, carriedout by a variety of organizations with varying loeational and other physicalcharacteristics, from which we can learn. Establishing an::! managing earthquakeprograms could perhaps have been studied solely as a topic related to governmentalorganizations a few years ago, but today it would be a serious oversight to neglectthe experience of the private sector, at least in california.

In discussing earthquake programs, we refer to the entire array of types ofmeasures that can be used to reduce earthquake risks, includipg the following:

o Structural strengthening of buildings and other structureso Nonstructural retrofits to protect equipment, contents, and built-in

nonstructural features such as windows or ceilingso Emergency planning, including training and education effortso Financial techniques, such as investment and insurance decisionmaking

In some companies, measures under only one of these basic categories pertain,while in other Cases activities representing all of these categories will be found.

1

scientifiC serVICe. inc.

The term "program" generally refers to a coherent assemblage of individual earth­quake countermeasures, a~tivities, or projects, combined into an effort that isdirected by an overill strategy, but we also use the word to generally describe thecollection of earthquake techniques used by a given company, even where thesetechniques are decentralized to the point where there is no overall coordinationstrategy at the level of the corporation or facility.

The topic of earthquake programs in the United States treated here actuallyconsists almost exclusively of the earthquake programs of california c )mpanies. Thereasons for this California phenomenon in comparison with the underlying morewidespread distribution of seismicity in the United States will be examined to try tolearn what prerequisites there are for the development of private sector earthquakeprograms.

Before focusing attention on the programs of companies in the United States, itis necessary to at least briefly summarize the governmental programs that exist.This is accomplished in Section 2. In comparing the experience and successes ofUnited States and Japanese firms in setting up and managing earthquake programs,the role of governmental agencies in mandating or assisting such programs is animportant factor, and it is impossible to analyze e. company's earthquake or other riskmanagem~nt activities conpletely apart from the governmental context in which thecompany functions.

section 3 sununarizes some of the general patterns noted among Californiacompanies at present, as well as possible trends underway that point toward thefuture. Presented are general observations and survey data intended to berel-resentative of California companies with advanced earthquake programs; thesection is not an attempt to describe the typical or average company.

Section 4 presents some of the more instructive individual examples ofcorporate earthquake programs in california.

2

scientific MHvicfJ. inc.

section 2THE PUBLIC CONTEXT OP PRIVATE SECI'OR EARTHQUAKE

PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES

This section has been written with the foreign ~primarily Japanese) reader inmind, as well as the American audience, since the products of this research projectare intended to be accessible to the many individuals on both sides of the Pacific whocan critically review and apply these findings where appropriate.

The need for this discussion of the public context of private sector earthquakeprograms was pointed out in the Introduction. The earthquake programs ofcompanies in Japan cannot be discussed without listing many ways in whichgovernment regulations, leadership, and encouragement affect these private efforts.This is true to a much lesser extent in the United States, and comparisons betweenthe two cases must take this into account.

Presenting a simple summary of t"'e earthquake programs of governmentalagencies and non-profit organizations in the United States is not a simple task. Thissection may seem like an elementary lesson in civics, but its contents may providesome new insights even for Americr.n readers. The process of trying to provideexplanations of public sector earthquake programs to Japanese individuals during theresearch project's two visits to Japan forced the author to look at the subject from adistant perspective.

From a distance, the larger facts are more clearly distinguished from thesmaller points. One of the larger facts that, although obvious, is easy to overlook,is that earthquakes are a very small concern when compared with all the otherproblems with which federal, state, or local governments must contend. Those whoattempt to improve governmental earthquake programs must be realistic in facing thisfact to avoid trying to make the ~ail wag the dog.

INTRODUCTION

There is no United States governmental earthquake program - rather, there is acollection of federal, state, and local level earthquake programs. American earth­Quake programs should always be thought of in the plural, not the singular. If onemistakenly assumes that a single unified program exists, this misconception will makeit impossible to understand how earthquake programs in the United States function.

3

scientific service. inc.

The way in which earthquakes and other natural hazards are treated bygovernment agencies in the United States resembles many other aspects of theAmerican political system. As intended by the Founding Fathers of the 1700's theU.S. political system is a relatively complicated system of checks and balances,shared powers, and joint responsibilities.

There were disagreements at the time the nation was formed in the late 1700'sover the extent to which the federal government should prevail over the individualstates and citizens. Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the treasury, arguedthat the central government should have a strong role in the economy, establishing anational bank, issuing bonds to pay the Revolutionary War debt, collecting taxes, andso on; Thomas Jefferson, the first secretary of state and later the third president,was reluctant to concentrate so much power in the national branch of government.In the two centuries since then, the debate concerning which level of government(federal, state, or local) and which type of agency (executive, judicial, or legis­lative) should have which specific responsibilities, and what limits should be placedon their authorities, has continued. Government roles in the field of earthquakes inthe United States may seem more defined by a series of exceptions to general rulesthan by any simple generalizations. This may well be true, and if so, it is merely areflection of the larger context of American politics.

TOP-DOWN OR BOTIOl\1-UP?

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the paradox of government roles in the United States~ they relate to earthquakes and other types of disasters. The usual organizationchart representing the levels of government in the United States, the top-down chartof Figure 1, shows the federal government on top, then the smaller and less powerfulstate, and then the even smaller and less powerful local government. In terms ofthe degree of involvement in responding to disasters such as earthquakes, thebottom-up organ:zation chart of Figure 2 is more applicable. Most hazard reductionactivities that would occur in advance of an earthquake - such as enforcement ofbuilding codes or requiring strengthening of existing buildings - and most emergencyresponse techniques that would be used during an earthquake disaster - such as firefighting, search and rescue, evacuation of areas downstream from damaged dams, ormedical treatment - are local roles. Only if local resources are overwhelmed doesthe next higher level, the state, become involved. The federal governm~nt thenbecomes involved when requested by the state. Efforts are now underway tofacilitate the immediate involvement of federal agencies when a great earthquakehits a large urban area, but at present, it is generally nectlssary for disaster losses tobe documented before the federal government actively responds.

4

scientific .,vice. inc.

LEVEL OP GOVERNMENT BRANCH OP GOVERNMENT

EXECUTIVE LEGISLATIVE .JUDICIAL

FHl)ERAL President Congress Supreme Court

\ /

ATE Governor State Legis- State SUpremelature Court

COUNTY Co\D1ty Adminis- Bo8rd of SUper- Superiortrative Officer, visors or Oom- CoW"t

'\V OHmty Mnnager missioners

LOCAU

CITY City Manager City Coweil MWlieipalor Mayor Court

ST

Figure 1. Typical Organization Chart of Levels and Branches of Government inthe United Stetes.

5

LEVEL OPGOVERMMKNT

LOCAL <COUN1'Y

CITY

STATE

FEDERAL

scientific service. inc.

PIlIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES INDISASTER PREVENTION OR RESPONSE

Fire, police, building eode, lJInd useplanning, emetgency planning, shelter,emergeney medieal care, eommunieations,public information; most disaster-relatedstandards and regulations are set at loeal level.

Baekup law enforcement, fire, building inspeetion, etc.,resources, usually totaling less than that of the largerloeal jurisdictions; eoordination of multi-jurisdictionalresponse (eoordination + eontroU. Some disaster relatedstandards and regulations are set at state level(oeeasionaDy regulations for some types of dams orbulldings)~

B.eseareh; post-disaster aid; lead role for civil defensebut secondary funding and lead roles for other hazards.Few disaster-related standards and regulations are set atthe federal level (the nood insurance and civil defenseprograms have been exceptions).

Figure 2. Typical Organization Chart of Levels of Government and Their Disaster­Related Responsibilities.

6

sc,."tific serVICe, inc.

The relationship between government agencies must be explamed by more thanmerely a recitation of statistics. For example, the federal government spends abo:.!t$70 million per year on earthquakes, a small amount compared to the amount spentannually in Japan, but a large amo'Jnt in the United States when compared with whatstate or local governments spend for earthquakes. For most states, there is noseparate budget figure for earthquake expenditures. In most cities, even in theareas of highest seismicity in the United States, no one is assigned full-time to theearthquake hazard. Thus, if we look only at budget figures, it seems the federalprograms are dominant, but in fact the bottom-up pattern is Il better portrayal.Local goVetilments, i::ven if they do not specifically allocate money for earthquakeprograms, are responsible for most earthquake hazard reduction or emergencyresponse tasks before and during earthquake disasters. The federal expenditure forearthquake!; mostly consists of research projects, not action-oriented programs. InJapan there is no debate concerning the national scope of earthquake hazards, whilein the United States this subject involves some degree of political disagreement.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

"Local government" could mean either a city or a county, or in some cases aspecial purpose local district such as a regional transportation system. A county'sjurisdiction for purposes of regUlating construction, providing fire or police services,or similar activities is essentially the entire area of the county minus the areas ofincorporated cities. Rural land will thus usually fall within the jurisdiction of acounty. Some counties are also responsible for urbanized areas after incorporatedcities are deducted. A small city may also contract with the county in which it islocated for the provision of fire or other services.

This is somewhat of an oversimplification since some activities, such a5> therecording of property deeds and numerous other legal transactions, will be handled bythe county even when the eve:lt occurs within an incorporated city. There are about2,000 counties in the United States (see Figure 3). In the state of Califorr.ia, thereare 58 counties and 441 incorporated cities. In some parts of the United States,notably New England, counties are not as important a part of the political system aselsewhere. It may come as a surprise to people from other countries, and perhapsalso to some Americans, that the U.S. Constitution does not specifically define thepowers and authoritie~ of cities and counties, while the Constiiution has manyprovisions concerning the relationship between the federal government and a state.Many typical powers and programs conducted by local govf!rnments have evolved overtime, just as the Constitution does not t1.nywhere refer to political parties, eventhough they are a major part of the American political system today.

7

01)

~~

••.. ~ " I • .&, " ..."\ ....

.. : ,/ . I .~~~. /-.---; ~ :,; - .•-0> ~•• /'':;;'1f ~1t~\:\~ ~__.'=':71::\

"",j(9 <{l~. ~ v~ I' ~ - _~.... .p ... '"-. - ..j... -" • __ -~ J

• • i ..... .••1......:- 101 "' ••••\{!

""-

i~"::.. ~

Figure 3. Counties of the United States.c----. -- ---·I)Reproduced from

best avaIlable COPy ....-- ---- -~-------

scientific ssrvice. inc.

Most of the key earthquake-related functions that can make a life or deathdifference in an emergency are local responsibilities, even though there may be stateor federal minimum standards imposed or funding provided. Building code enforce­ment, land use planning, emergency response planning, fire and police s~rvices, andemergency medical care are all primarily local responsibilities.

Most local jurisdictions, for the purpose of responding to large emergencies,have formed mutual aid agreements. These are very commonly used to coordinateresponse between adjacent fire departments, for example, and firefighting resourcesfrom one city are dispatched to a neighboring city rather routinely. More rare is theconcept of the operational area, which groups together many cities so that there canbe a single point of conta~t for communications between the local and state levels ofgovernment in an emergency.

Building CodesIn most cases, cities or counties do not write their own building codes, but they

do process building permits and enforce the regulations. The areas of the westernUnited States that enforce earthquake regulations - and earthquake regulations areenforced in only a small portion of the United States - generally use either theUniform Building Code WRC) or a local version closely related to it. Theearthquake regulations of the UBC are in turn written by the Structural EngineersAssociation of California, a non-governmental professional association. Figure 4illustrates the areas of the United States where, in general, earthquake regulationshave been enforced because of a combination of two factors: a code such as theUBC has been adop~cd, and the seismic zone is high enough to require significantearthquake-resistant practices. Figure 5 portrays the risk of experiencing severeground motion in the United States. While the very highest risk areas of the UnitedStates, such as along the West Coast and in Alaska, do use seismic codes, only veryrarely will a seismic code be enforced in any of the moderate risk areas of theeastern half of the country.

Where over three-fourths of California's population resides, a large earthquakecapable of causing a regional disaster will probably occur every century (and earth­quakes causing localized disasters occur on average every few decades). At anygiven point east of the Rockies, the recurrence interval for large disasters is at leastseveral centuries if not a thousand years or more. This difference in seismicityappears to be a telling factor. Another significant and related reason for the lowlevel of concern outside the West is that the last eastern earthquake disaster, the1886 Charleston, South Carolina earthquake, occurred one hundred years ago.

9

~Q

fP!;~.i.;.j:':~'<~,~~.'- ... "'\~ ... . .. ~,"'~

S ...~.. . I'" J...~•p "~I -q

•". • .,.~. • •.•~.;.-........ .. • •• ~..::.." oJ

..........-":"~~~.i/

·:=:';'Yr:-...'v V"

o

~---~----~

Reproduced horn . ;,-1

~~~~~t>lec,,~Building Cod.; 1. No s.ilmic design.MelSON}': Unreinlorcee(

Building Code: 2. Some $eismic desisn. "fter 19~O. N•• seismic design 1940 or .."Iier .MCbonry: Partially reinForcM eft., 1940. Ul'lteJn'orced 1940 or earlier .

Building Code: 3. USC 1949-1970; or 4. USC 1973>.MasoN}': Reinlo,ced alter 19~(l. Unreinforced 1940 or .",lier

'Figure 4. Areas of the United States Where Earthquake Regulations are Typically Enforced.Source: FEMA TR-84

........

G?J Highest Risk

~ Second Highest Risk

Source: National Survey Inst'uctlons (TR-84), FederaL.Emergency Management Agency.

Figure 5. Higher Risk Earthq~ake Zones of the United States.

scientific S81vice. inc.

In some areas of the country there are very great differences between thebuilding code regulations used in tldjacent communities. This is because buildingcodes are usually a prerogative of local government and there are politicaldifferences between local communities; this variation is not based on drasticdifferences in seismicity or types of construction from one neighboring localgovernment to another. For example, in Charleston, South Carolina, which is usuallyconsidered to be in one of the highest risk earthquake zones on the East Coast, theCity of Charleston enforces earthquake regulations for new construction and is evenconsidering a retroactive ordinance requiring some strengthening of older buildings.The neighboring City of North Charleston, located just across the river fromCharleston, does not have any earthquake regulations, and half of the counties ofSouth Carolina have not adopted a building code of any kind, let alone a code withearthquake regulations.

In California, some of the larger cities Wid counties have well-qualifiedstructural engineers on the staffs of their building departments. (In California, andin some other states, a structural engineer is a civil engineer who has passedadditional requirements. In California, earthquake engineering is emphasized on thestrict structLlral licensing examination. The states, rather than the federal or localgovernment, license most occupations.)

The places in the United States that have retroactive ordinances requirir.g thestrengthening of existing buildings for earthquakes enjoy this protection as a resultof local, not state or federal action. For example, Long Beach, Los Angeles, SantaAna, and Santa Rosa, and a few other cities in the state of California, or Ogden inthe state of Utah, enacted their p"ograms requiring the strengthening of oldunreinforced masonry buildings withol1t any state or federal requirement to do so, andthe costs of their programs are paid for at the local level.

Hospitals and Ambulances

The local government may not necessarily own its own hospital or ambulanceservice, but it is usually the level of government most involv~d in the medical field inways that are relevant to the earthquake problem. The federal government mayprovide more funding of health care, but disaster exercises, emergency responseplans, communications, committees that work on emergency medical care proceduresfor disasters, and other earthquake-related tasks are usually local activities. Manycounties also own and operate their own hospitals. Some cities and counties runtheir own ambulance services with government employees, while others contract withprivate firms for this service. (Only in a very few places in the entire United Statesare fire department services handled under a contract with a private firm.)

12

sc,."tjt,c SMvtee. inc.

Bmergeney services OfficesCoum.ies and most large-sized cities usually have 8 small office devoted to

emergency services, aside from the larger police and fire departments. The emer­gency services office would not directly provide fire services, for example, but wouldbe involved in a city-wide disaster pla.n tha. included the fire department. In ahurricane-prone qrea, the local emergency services office would probably beresponsible for receiving up-to-date information on storms, maintaining evacuationplans, and comm'.lnicating warnings. In an earthquake, the emergency services officewould be involved in such activities as verifying damage and requesting state 9.id.

Fire departments do not usually vary greatly from one city to another. Theyare usually called the same thing, "fire department", their priorities and activ~ties

are quite similar, the training aad backgrounds of their personnel are similar, etc.Local emergency services offices, however, can vary greatly from one localgovernment to another. This office may be called the office of emergency services,disaster services office, or office of civil defense. In one city or county, this officemay be concerned primarily with nuclear attack. In another area, the federally­funded civil defense activities will be minimized, and hurricanes, floods, earthquakes,or other natural hazards will be emphasized. The titles of agencies are notnecessarily accurate indications of their roles. In one community, the office may bepart of the police or fire department, while in another it will report directly to theadministrator of the city or county.

An example of an unusually active partnership between local government andindustry is the radio network coordinated by the City of Santa Clara emergencyservices office in the San Francisco Bay Area. Participating companies maintainradios at their sites that are linked to the city's central station. In an emergency,mutual aid can be coordinated among companies.

A typical local government jurisdiction with a popUlation of about one millionpeople might have an emergency services office of about half a dozen people. Thefire department for this urbanized area would perhaps have a staff of 500. Whilethe emergency services office may be the "coordinator" of emergency services, thiscoordination does not include the authority to tell the fire department how to run itsown affairs. The word "coordination" is one of the more slippery terms in the fieldof emergency preparedness in the United States, and also one of the most often used.

Pire and Poliee servicesLocal government provides almost all fire and police services, and these two

functions typically represent a large portion of a local government·s budget. Countypolice departments are called sheriff's departments.

13

scientifiC service. inc.

8ummary of Local RolesWhen one adds up the emergency services that are local roles, it is obvious that

as a practical matter, disasters in the United States are essentially treated as aproblem of local government. Fire, police, ambulance, and hospital services,enforcement of building codes and city plaMing laws are predominantly handled bycities and counties, and these activities are the essence of earthquake hazardreduction and emergency response. This is not surprising because many otherimportant functions are also handled locally, such as public education fromkindergarten through high school, administration of elections, construction andmaintenance of roads other than highways, water and sewage systems, anddistribution of welfare payments to the poor. As with these other non-earthquaketopics, there are a few state or federal guidelines that must be met, and state orfederal money may be contributed to these programs based on formulas related topopulation and other factors, but by and large lo~al governments can exercise a greatdeal of discretion in how they provide these services.

STATE GOVERNMENT

A state may also provide some earthquake-related services, but in the greatmajority of the 50 states, there are no full-time staff devoted t~ the earthquakehazard. While it is often stated that about 3/4 of the 50 states have at least amoderate level of seismic risk, it is difficult to find strong programs conducted bystate agencies with the exception of California, so the reader should keep in mindthat the follOWing comments concerning California do not apply to the other states.

Building CodesIn California, the state is responsible for building code enforcement for schools

and hospitals, through the Office of the State Architect. The Field Act, whichcreated the state earthquake regulations for schools, was a very direct result of the1933 Long Beach, California earthquake, which severely damaged dozens of schools.The state earthquake regulations cover public schools from kindergarten up tilroughhigh school and the two-year community, or junior, college system. Private schools,and the entire state college and university system were exempted from thesereqUirements. Consequently, there are no pUblic school buildings still used as sch001sthat have not been designed to the state's strict standards, or, it built prior to thattime, that have lIot been subsequently analyzed and strengthened where necessary.The retroactive strengthening occurred in many school districts in the 1960's and1970's, with a combination of state and local funding to pay for the often extensiverebuilding required.

14

scienlitic serVICe. inc.

These thousands of public elementary, junior, and high schools, or juniorcolleges, would be rated as low earthquake hazards. By contrast, because theuniversity system's buildings are not <!Overed by this law, university buildings are notas safe. The state's university system consists of nine campuses. According to arecent study (McClure, 1984) 21% of the major University of California buildingswere rated in the worst of four categories. There were 3,514 "very poor" buildingsand another 5,839 "poor" structures.

Why would California high schools be above average in their seismic safety,whereas a University of California building might be much more unsafe? The answersometimes given is that the student must attend the lower grade levels whereasuniversity education is voluntary, and a place can be much more hazardous if onevoluntarily assumes the risk of going there. This argument is not true, however:Students are not forced to attend community college after graduation from highschool, but these buildings are covered by the state law, and since the list of highhazard University of Ollifornia bUildings has not been pUblicized, it would come as 8

complete surprise to a student that he or she was "voluntarily" living in 8 highhazard dormitory or attending classes in a building that the structural study saidcould collapse in an earthquake.

This is a good example of an end result that is illogical, but is politicallydifficult to change.

The Hospital Act of 1972 was a result of the 1971 San Fernando, Californiaearthquake. Hospital damage was prominent in this earthquake. The regulations forhospitals are different from those for public schools in their details, but are similarin that thE'Y are administered by the state and the quality control during constructionis more stringently regulated than for ordinary construction. While this results ingreater safety, some private engineers have complained that, on some hospitalprojects, the fee obtained by the private engineers to design the building and produceall of the construction documents is about the same as the fee charged by the stateto oversee the design and construction. Such questions concerning whether thegovernment should be involved in regulating private ectivities, and the eost of thisintervention, ~ome up repeatedly in many fields, and so this debate is not restrictedto earthquake issues.

LIlnd Use Contri>lThe California Division of Mines and Geology is responsible for the production

of fault zone maps, which are required by the Alquist-Priolo Act (another directresult of the political momentum caused by the 1971 san Fernando earthquake). Thisstate law forces local governments to regulate construction within active fault

15

scientjfic serwee. jnc.

zones, which they had previously been reluctant to do. Keep in mind that unlessthere is a special state or federal law such as this one, which is rare, all land usepolicies are looal government decisions. Another state law requires local govern­ments to add seismic safety chapters to their general plans or city planning masterplans, which most local governments had also neglected to do. These are examplesof leadership being assumed by the state, because local government had failed to act.

To indicate the variation in earthquake safety regulations between states,consider the case of the state of Alaska, whose southern coastal region is even moreseismic than the coast of California. Even though Alaska experienced a greatearthquake with dramatic soils failures as well as severe ground motion as recentlyas 1964, there are no land use policies in Alaska similar to the california examplesdiscussed above. A '/ery large landslide area in 1964, Turnagain Heights inAnchorage, where houses moved hundreds of feet and tumbled like boxes down towardthe sea, is now being redeveloped with more houses.

As mentioned before, there are many exceptions to any generalization aboutgovernment roles in the United States. There are numerous overlaps between thelevels of government. Some cities or counties in California produce their owngeologic hazards and fault maps, for example, though the regulation of developmentin fault zones must be at least as strict as called for in state standards.

Pl'oressional Background of Stafr PersonnelBy professional background, a few state-level agencies in California are unusual

in having geologists, engineers, or administrators with high quality earthquakeexpertise. The Division of Mines and Geology or the Office of the State Architecthave enough ongoing earthquake tasks to be able to providE: long term careers to wellqualified professionals, but this is not typical of other states where the volume ofwork (which is related to the amount of regulation) and the required expertise do notjustify having earthquake experts on the governm~nt payroll.

Emergency planners at the state, or at the local or federal level, do not as yetenjoy the professional status of engineers, architects, geOlogists, or city planners.There is no particular educational curriculum for them to study in college, nostandard examinations, and little agreement on the definition of their field. Apublic works department of a government agency would obviously hire an engineer tofill a high level position in the agency, but an emergency services agency might hirepeople with a variety of backgrounds to fill a position as an emergency planner. Itis generally difficult to be promoted up through the governmental bureaucracy, if onespecializes in emergency planning, as compared to many other occupations.

16

scientific service. inc.

Government salaries for qualified professionals are often lower than in theprivate sector. An engineer or geologist with excellent talents and a goodreputation will probably make more money working for a company than for the stateuniversity sY3tem or a state agency, although in the private sector, there is lesscertainty that the job will exist through good economic times and bad.

In a large earthquake where the city and county building departments will beoverwhelmed in their task of quickly conducting post-earthquake safety inspectionsof buildings, the Structural Engineers Associativl of california and the Amc."icanSociety of Civil Engineers provide volunteers who are treated as state employees forpurposes of avoiding liability and who are organized by the state Office ofEmergency Services, rather than by local government. These volunteer engineersare organized by their own professional associations, but the state Office ofEmergency Services handles issues concerning the liability of volunteer engineers,provides an identification card, and is the central source for receiving requests foraid and dispatching volunteers. This state-coordinated service is a superior e"~ample

of wha t "coordination" can specifically mean in the field of earthquake preparedness.

Seismic Safety Commissioncalifornia is the only state that has a Seismic Safety Commission, Ii council of

part-time volunteers who suggest state legislation and who are responsible for seeingthat important seismic problems do not fall through the gaps between agencies. Thiscommission is supported by a staff of about half-a-dozen people.

One other state, Utah, had for a few years a seismic safety council, and onestate in the eastern half of the United States, Massachusetts, enacted ir. 1975 astatewide building code that requires cities and counties to enforce earthquakeregulations.

National GuardReserve military units, called the National Guard, are organized by states and

can be authorized by the governor of the state to respond to a natural disaster.This is a large source of personnel and equipment, especially air and groundtransportation units, at the state level. As with all of the relationships betweengovernment agencies described here, there are numerous legal re<;uirements involvedfor addressing communications to the proper agency, filling out the proper forms, etc.T lis can be more than a trivial matter, as was shown in the 1983 Coalinga, California~1.rthquake. Trucks, personnel, and food serving equipment of the CaliforniaNational Guard were sent to Coalinga. Because P conversation between a member ofthe Red Cross--a non-governmental, nonprofit organization--and a state official wasconstrued flS an official request by the Red Cross to have the National Guard sent in,

17

scientific aervicfl. inc.

the bill for their services was subsequently sent to the Red Cross. It' an official ofthe city of Coalinga had sent th~ request up through the proper bureaucraticchannels to the state level, the state would have paid the bill, which amounted totens of thousands 0 f dollars.

State Fire Department ResourcesMost states have very little firefighting equipment or personnel to use in an

earthquake. In California, where much of the state is mountainous and forested,there are a number of fire stations operated by the state for fighting forest fires, ascan be clearly seen from the name of the agency thFit runs these fire departments ­th~ Califcrnia Department of Forestry. The.>e state fire stations are located inareas remote fro.n the urban areas where the greatest post-earthquake fire andrescue needs would arise, however, so again it is basically a matter of the localgovernments providing the first line of resistance to the attack by the earthquakedisaster. In many states, there would be no significant supply of state fire fightingequipment.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The primary function of the federal government in the field of earthquakes upto now is research and post-disaster aid payments, not emergency response or hazardreduction, but for purposes of responding to a large disaster, federal resources canbe mObilized once certain criteria are met. A key step is the declaration of adisaster by the governor and a request by the governor to the president to issue afederal disaster declaration. These declarations are important for opening up thedoor to federal resources. While the fact that a state rather than a city or countyrequests this federal aid may seem a minor detail, the charge has been made by somemembers of Congress that federal aid to their states was delayed after disastersbecause the party in power at the state level was not the same as the party innational power. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which administers thisaid, is now proposing uniform eligibility criteria. A disaster causing $1 per capitaloss in a state might be used as a criterion that local and state resources could nothandle the loss, and thus federal aid would be justified.

Military Reso'.D'eesAs with the states' National Guard resources, the largest clearly defined

federal personnel and equipment i'~source is the military. Military aircraft havebeen used to ny resources to communities isolated by noods or snowstorms, forexample. U.S. Army aircraft of the Sixth Army headquartered in San Francisco will

be used for rapid aerial reconnaissance of key installatior:s, such as dams or

18

5ClGfltitic service. inc.

hospitals, after a major san Francisco Bay Area earthquake. There is no significantsupply of fire equipment owned by the federal government, however, and most of theresources that could be quickly used in a disaster are things that serve an everydaynon-disaster role.

The u.s. Army Corps of Engineers frequently provides disaster response aid infloods, and has also been involved with earthquake response. The actual resourcesdeployed--for example, the large cranes used at two collapsed VeteransAdministration hospital buildings in the 1971 San Fernando hospital--are in manycases owned by private construction contractors who are under contract to theCorps.

Past-Disal;ter Financial AidPost-disaster grants and loans have been federal activities for many years,

although at present the federal government is trying to minimize its responsibility formaking these kinds of payments. After the 1964 Alaska earthquake, for example, thefede!"al government distributed disaster aid within Alaska that totaled slightly morethan the total cost of damage in the earthquake. At the coastal town of Valdez,where the Alaskan oil pipeline ends, the entire towr. was rebuilt at a new site atfederal government expense. Disaster-caused damage to pUblic facilities is moreoften reimbursed than in the case of private property, which must qUalify underdifferent programs. In terms of paying for disasters after they occur, the bottom-uppattern is reversed, and the federal government is clearly the major level ofgovernment involved.

InsuranceThe National Floo<.. Insurance Program is administered by the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and has provided subsidized flood insurancerates to homeowners and businesses, but it is not involved in earthquake insurance.

Private insurance companies do not provide flood insurance directly tocustomers in the United States, while all forms of wind damage, whether caused bytornadoes, hurricanes, or wind storms, are covered by the usual property insurancepolicies issued by insurance companies. The standard property insurance policyspecifically excludes coverage for earthquake damage. This was made very explicitin california by a law (AB 2865) passed by the legislature in 1984, to clear up anydoubt about this issue. Only if a homeowner or business buys a separate earthquakeinsurance policy, which can cost about as much as the basic fire insurance policy,will there be coverage for earthquake losses. In California, about 10% to 15% of thehouses have this earthquake coverage. Earthquakes are the one major hazard that isseldom covered by insurance.

19

scientific service, inc.

ResearehThe $70 million National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) is

essentially a research program, although its name does not renect this fact. seeTable 1. For example, strengthening a collapse-prone bUilding would be an obviousexample of what is usually meant by "hazard reduction," and another example thatpeople would think of when they hear th'!! words "hazard redu~tion" would beregulation of construction on active faults, but neither of these activities is requiredor funded by NEHRP, although some of the research paid for through this program iseventually applied to such practical problems. A state such as Californiao!!casionally funds small research proje!!ts, while cities and counties virtually neverpay for earthquake engineering r-esearch.

The Trickle-Down ApproachEconomists have a term called "trickle-down" to describe economic policy that

attempts to help the poorer portions of the population by stimulating the growth oflarger businesses or encouraging wealthy individuals to place money in profitableinvestments. The theory is that the benefits generated by these wealthier strata ofthe economy will eventually trickle down to the poorer classes.

The federally funded earthquake research program is based on Ii kind of tricklc­down theory. This has been clearly stated by the body commissioned to review anddire!!t this program, the Committee on Earthquake Engineering Research of theNational Research Council. This prestigious group of prominent scientists andengineers described the policy as follows:

"The results of basic earthquake engineering research ultimately find usein practical applications, though considerable time may elapse before theresults are used fully. The way in which this research usually leads topractical application is as follows: the owners, planners, and designersof special facilities, such as nuclear power plants, major dams, offshoredrilling platforms, and high-rise buildings of fifty stories or more, usuallyrecognize the advantages to be gained by making use of research results• • .• After critical facilities and high-technology projects have usedthese results, the state of the art works its way down to the design ofordinary engineered structures and facilities that are governed bybuilding codes, industrial codes, and other standards. Finally,nonengineered sb'uctures, such 8S single-family dwellings, are affectedthrough highly simplified requirements in building codes • • • •

"The lag time for research results to be used in critical fa!!ilities is,typically, about one to three years. For research to be renected in

20

scienCilic servICe. inc.

Table 1NATICNAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM

EXPENDITURES BY TYPE OF PROGRAM ELEMENT

NATIONAL BUREAU OP STANDARDSResearchNon-research

Subtotal

499,000-0-

499,000

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCYResearch 2,650,000Non-research 3,055,000

Subtotal

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATIONResearchNon-research

Subtotal

U.s. GEOLOGICAL SURVEYResearchNon-research

Subtotal

TOTALSResearchNon-researeh

Total

5,705,000

26,900,000860,000

27,760,000

22,073,00014,481,000

36,554,000

52,122,00018,396,000

'10,518,000

Source: FEMA, 1985 (Note: Research and non-research subtotals are l:1l>proximatefigures derived from the government bUdget data.)

21

scientific service. inc.

building codes and other codes usually takes on the order of five to tenyears or longer. For nonengineered structures the lag time may be muchlonger." (Committee on Earthquake Engineering Research, 1982)

There is a great distinction in the United States between the production anduse of knowledge. In terms of accomplishments in the production of new knowledge,as measured by the numerous Nobel Prizes won by American scientists for example,the United States is very adept. In the application of this knowledge to the solutionof practical problems, however, there are some obvious inefficiencies. The UnitedStates is pre-eminent in the field of high-technology medical techniques such asheart transplants, and it also has a very high rate of heart disease, because somerelatively simple habits related to diet, smoking, and exercise have not beenimplemented throughout the population. The United States has produced some verysophisticated engineering analysis methods, such as the finite element method, but inthis same nation it is still possible to build unreinforced masonry buildings in all but afew states, and by far the majority of all gas-fired water heaters even in a highseismic state such as california are not restrained to prevent their falling over in anearthquake.

First the Disaster. Then the LegislationThe National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program was enacted by the

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977. Again, it is no accident thatthe act was enacted after the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, and after the 1~64

Alaska earthquake, which resulted in large federal disaster aid payments. TheAlquist-Priolo Fault Zones Act and Hospital Act were passed by California as aresult of the San Fernando earthquake, and the efforts of the City of Los Angeles toretroactively mandate earthquake regulations on unreinforced masonry buildings,which culminated in 1981, began ten years earlier also.

It was also no accident that the first eerthquake codes in the United Stateswere enacted in 1933 as a direct political result of the Long Beach earthquake ofthat year. This historic 1933 legislation was passed exactly one month after theearthquake. This success story was due to the government's being ready to movequickly. The engineering standards had already been developed in approximate formin California through the late 1920's and ~arly 1930's, in many ways as an import fromthe design examples of Japanese earthql1llke experts such as Naito or Suyehiro. Therationale for the state's involvement was provided by the state's d'l.m safety law,passed in 1929. (This dam safety act, the first in the United States, was enact,~d asa direct result ,>f the failure of the Saint Francis Dam and the resulting deaths ofabout 500 people in southern California.)

22

scienti'ic service, inc.

It is interesting to note that the most devastating earthquake in U.S. history,the 1906 san Francisco earthquake in northern california, had no positive politicalimpact whatsoever. seismic regulations were not adopted into the San Franciscobuilding code until 1947, for example. The special soils hazards associated with thedeep unconsolidated alluvial deposits on the edge of the Bay, including the filledground area where approximately half of the most densely developed area of down­town San Francisco is located, were not given any special attention in regulationsuntil the 1960's. In 1968, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, anagency established by the state, appointed a Board of Consultants to Review thesafety of Proposed Fills, which eventually resulted in special regulations forwaterfront areas.

GOVERNMENTAL LAWS OR PROGRAMS THAT AFFECT COMPANIES

This topic is relatively easy to summarize, since there are very few ways inwhich local, state, or federal government affects a company's earthquake ~rogram.

With very few exceptions (such as nuclear power plants) there are no earthquakeregulations, other than building code requirements as previously discussed.

Health and safety laws at the state and federal level do not specifically dealwith earthquakes, 8" d most local governments that require safety programs limit thfsto the hazards of fire and hazardous materials.

Aid to companies is also generally lacking, whether it be technical expertise inengineering or emergency planning or low-interest loans. Exceptions are some typesof filUl.ncial assistance, such as those offered in the City of Los Angeles where 8,000unreinforced masonry buildings are under retroactive building code requirements, orsome local emergency services agencies that actively respond (beyond mailing outsimplified brochures on what-to-do-in-case-of-earthquake) to information requestsfrom companies.

NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

Indirect fostering of companies' efforts is more often the case than direct aid,and when government agencies provide this indirect assistance, frequently non­governmental, nonprofit organizations are involved. In california, some prominentexamplp.s of such organizations are the Golden Gate (San Francisco) Chapter of theRed Cross and its Business, Government, and Red Cross Disaster Meetings. the LosAngeles and Orange County Red Cross chapters, the Industrial Emergency Council

23

scientific ..,vice, inc.

(San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties) and the Business and Industry Council forEmergency Planning and Preparedness (BICEPP), and the California Eme~gency

services AssoC!iation. In addition, the two regional programs jointly funded by thestate and federal governments, SCEPP (Southern California Earthquake PreparednessProject) and BAREPP (Bay Area Regional Earthquake Preparedness Project) arebeginning to hold workshops and distribute information to companies.

One of the most valuable roles served by these organization- ;s to facilitatecommunication between companies at conferences. The Golden Gate Red Crossdisaster meetings typically involve several seminars on topics such as p...ote~tion ofcomputer ce~ters from earthquakes, storage of essential emergency supplies, orcommunications in disasters.

It is also striking that all of the earthquake regulations in the United Statesare based on the work of the Structural Engineers Association of california, a non­profit organization "whose members have performed this service free of charge andindependently of any agency.

24

scientific service, inc.

Section 3PA1THllHS AND TRENDS

OF PRIVATE SECTOR EARTHQUAKE PROGRAMS

PATTERNS

The following patterns are discussed more speC!ifically with reference to thesurvey conducted during this project.

Sizeof~

It is commonly observed that only the bigger companies in california are morelikely to have earthquake programs. Small busines~es are not extensively repre­sented at conferences devoted to earthquakes, which prOVide practical information tocompanies. While emergency planning becomes more essential as the number ofemployees and the scale of operations grow, hazard reduction related to structuraland nonstructural vulnerabilities relates to both large and small companies. Forexample, probably the great majority of commercial tenants of unreinforced masonrybuildings are small. rather than large, businesses; yet this class of construction isespecially hazardous in earthquakes.

Most large businesses have multiple sites. Most small businesses, by contrast,have all their eggs in one basket because they are located at a single site, often in asingle building. Large firms have much greater flexibility in arranging financing torecover from 8 setback. (The loans available to small businesses after disastersthrough the Small Business Administration do not greatly change this picture. Onlyfirms that can demonstrate that banks will not lend them money can qualify forsignificantly subsidized interest rates.) It may not seem rational for the smallerfir:-.ls most susceptible to earthquake-caused business failure to be least prepared,but this is quite understandable. Small businesses typically have no positiondedicated to safety, facilities engineering, or risk management.

While there are some data to support the above conclusions concerning thesmaller versl.:$ the larger company, the following generalization is speCUlative, but isat least corroborated by several examples within the author's experier.ce, while therehave been no exceptions. New companies, even the large, very successful, high­growth firms, rarely concern themselves with earthquakes until the organizationmatures. This is true of several of the large, but new, high-tech firms whose namesare familiar to us in the daily news. The driving force behind these firms is the goalof acquiring larger market shares, hiring more employees, developing new products.

25

scientific service. inc.

Preserving what has been acquired is a thought that only seems relevant after a fewyears have passed.

Only after passage of a few years do preservation and protection of what hasbeen developed seem important. Consequently, a young firm of a given size andfacing a certain level of physical VUlnerability is more likely to be at greater riskfrom earthquakes than the more mature firm. Again, this may not seem rational ineconomic terms, but it is quite understandable from the standpoint of organizationalstructure.

Essential FunetionsBusinesses v.~th more essential functions or that are less able to tolerate

outages and interruptions, are more likely to be actively involved in developingearthquake programs. In California, the banking industry has been prominent in thisrespect, because service interruptions of only a few hours or a day can cause acrisis. The larger, older banks, who are clearinghouse members (responsible for mostof the check clearing operations) a.re the active companies while the small bankswith only a few branches are less involved, which also relates to the points madeabove.

Other examples of companies the t are especially interested in earthquake riskreduction techniques because of their concern over post-earthquake disruption ofservice include privately owned hospitals, telecommunications firms, non-bankingfinancial companies, utilities, electronics manufacturing companies.

Corporations whose headquarters are located in major cities where the earth­quake risk is well-known, such as San Francisco or Los Angeles, are more likely tohave strong earthquake programs. Partly this is due to the special emergencyplanning situation of central city sites. It may also be partly due to the earthquakereputation of these cities. To a seismologist, however, many of the more suburbanareas are just as likely to be affected by strong earthquakes as the big cities.

TRENDS

GrowthThe most prominent trend is the growth of earthquake programs in the private

sector. The g,')vernment1s expenditures for earthquake programs has remainedrelatively constant over the past several years or slightly declined, while companiesappear to be investing more and more in this area. The number of governmentalagencies and per,sonnel involved in the earthquuke area has not grown significantly

26

sc,."jlic service. inc.

for several years, but the number of companies and private sector employees whosejobs now include earthquake-related duties has grown significantly, especially sinceabout 1980.

Industry StandardCompanies appear to be formulating an approximate "industr'y standard" for

adequate earthquake protection. A few years ago it might have seemed adequate tohave no earthquake program, but today the question is how much is adequate, andthere is little debate over the basic need for this type of hazard protection. Whilethere is not yet a consensu~ cor,coerning the need for structural analysis andstrengthening of buildings, or for nonstructural retrofits, or e!Tlergency plans,companies are sharing information on their earthquake programs extensively atnumerous meetings and conferences, and peer pressure and fl. desire to "do what isright" are exerting powerful influences on corporate policy. Most. large companieseither train their employees in earthquake procedures or at least distribute printedmaterials on the SUbject, whereas it used to be common for only a few employees toknow of the company's earthquake plan, and these few more often than not had nodetailed acquaintance with what the written document meant. This evolution of atleast a vague standard of practice has proceeded gradually, unmarked by any singleevent, and the amount of change that has occurred is larger than people realize.

As the survey data discu3Sed later indicates, union pressure to protect workersfrom earthquake hazards has up to now been virtually non-existent. Since state orfederal OSHA regulations concerning earthquakes also do not exist, this means thatpeer preS3ure and the competitive desire to avoid disproportionately large lossesafter the next earthquake as compared with other firms, are the motives working inlieu of governmental or union pressure.

LiabilityTo slightly oversimply the past decade or more of liability legislation and

litiga1ion as it may apply to future earthquake losses, the principle seems to beestablished today that "God didn't build the building, so it isn't an act of God if itfalls down in an earthquake." The idea of an act of God and its presumed liabilityprotection is becoming an obsolete doctrine. Earthquake damage is largelyforeseeable lind preventable. Indeed, many firms have foreseen potential problemsand have already worked toward preventing their occurrence. While increasedknowledge of hazards increases liability, it is also becoming more and more true thatignorance is becoming a less sound strategy from the legal standpoint, and of courseno one ever defended ignorance on any other grounds. While legal trends have beenmoving away from the idea of aets of God and toward holding people moreresponsible for natural hazards losses, a eompany must also guess as to the way in

27

scienlitlc serVICe••nc:.

which courts will decide liability issues after the next large earthquake, and it isperhaps likely that the current liability trends will only accelerat? as judges andjuries decide these issues in the context of the aftermath of a disaster that has killedthousands of people and destroyed billions of dollars of pi"operty.

SURVEY DATA

A survey of California companies with more active earthquake prograrrn wasconducted in this research project, and although the sample is representative only ofthe more active companies rather than companies in general, this provides a validportrayal of this more advanced portion of thE' private sector. Table 2 shows thequestionnaire from which the following survey data were obtained.

S~.GC of Comp8llYSize of samples:

fewer than 50 employees:50-100 employees:100-1000 employees:over 1000 employees:

Total:

30 companies155260

157

Earthquake plan has been exercised:fewer than 50 employees: 10%50-100 employees: 139610Ll-1000 employees: 3696over 1000 employees: 4396

Water heater strtlpped:fewer than 50 employees: 69650-100 employees: 2696100-1000 employees: 2596over 1000 employees: 2696

The above two key indicators of the extent to which a company has an activeearthquake program show an increasing level of effort with size of company. (Keepin mind that if all companies, rather than just the more active companies, weresurveyed, by !Jsing general sampling rather than only the very stratified sample basedon lists of companies who attend earthquake conferences, the small companies wouldbe found to diverge much more from the larger companies, sinc':'! most very smallcompanies have no earthquake pl'ogram.)

28

ICientifiC serwee. inc.

Table 2SUR VEY QUESTIONNAIRE

May 1985

Questionnaire: Private SCetor F.arthqUllke ProgrllJlB in the United States

(Use multiple cheek marks if there is more than one appropriate answer for any ofthe following questions.)

1. EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS MEASURES

Cheek the earthquake preparedness measures undertaken by your company:

A. Emergeney Planning1. Brochures distributed to employees2.-- Written pilln proGuccd, containing procedures specific to earthquakes3.-- Exercise of earthquake plan conducted4.-- Radio equipment on hand capable of communicating without utility-

prOVided electricitys. Earthquake insurance purchased6. Medical supplies stored7.-- Water and/or food stored8.-- Audio-visual training/education progrl\~lltS)9.-- Other:

10. None

B. Structural Protection1. Enginrering consultant hired to evaluate structural snfety of building2.= In-house engineers used to evaluate struetura! safety of building3. Building structurally strengthened4.- None

Co Nonstruetural Protection1. Engineering consultant hired to evaluate nonstructural hazards2.-- In-house personnel uSild to evaluate nonstructural hazards3.--- NonstructuraI items retrofitted to increase earthquake resistance:

-ii'. Overhead light fixtures braced or s.afety chainedb.-- >'later heat..r strappedc.=--= Generator or other electrical eqUipment bolted downd. SlJfety film applied to large panes of gla!lS to prevent falling shardse. Exterior ornamentation anchoredf. -- TaIl shelving or storage racks bracedg.-- TaIl file cabinets restrainedh.-- Computers or computer floor br'lcedI. -- Air conditioning equipment or dUl~ts, heater/boi\er, pipes, water tanks-- braced

j. Other:4._-NOOP.

29

scientific service, inc.

Table 2 (contd)

2. PLACE OF EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS WITlm, ORGANIZATION

A. Where does the responsibility for earthquake preparedness reside in .vourcompany? (Attach overall organization chart if you w;sh.) If one earthquake(unction, sueh liS training, is ooTlllled by onc ocpnrtment, while another, such asnonstructural retrofitting, is handled by anether, please use mUltiple check marks andnote which department does what.

Department

1. Safety, health & safety2.-- Security3.-- Facilities, engineering--- physical plant, maintenance

4. Personnel5.-- Executive, administrative6.-- Functional manager of each-- particular manufacturing

or servip.e area7. Interdepartmental committee8.== Other: _

PlDIction (if earthquaketasks are divided betweenfl._"e than one dept.)

3. ORIGINATION OF EARTHQUAKE PROGRAM

A. Where did earthquake I1wareness program originate?

1. Senior eX3eutive2.--- Safety manager3.--- Union4.= Non-union employee grouil5. Engineer, facilities manager6.-- Security manager7.--- Personnel manager8.-- Risk manager9.-- Insurance inspector or broker

10.--- Earthquake consUltantll.-- BUilding official12.--- Government workplace safety inspector13.-- Government or public organi?ation infor'llation campaign14.--- Legal counsel15.== Other: _

B. When did the program originate?

Co Is your earthquake prog~am an outgrowth of a pre-existing safety program?NoYes (Fire)Yes (Hazardous materials)Yes (Other hazard

2

30

e. Bomb threats, terrorismr. --- Floodingg.--- Utilities outageh.--- Other:

scientific service. inc.

Table 2 (contd)

D. Was your company's involvement in earthquake preparedness activities aidedor motivated by a government agency or other public organiza:;on?

1. No aid2.-- Helpful ready-to-use information3.-- Helpful referrals to products, services, other information sources4•. _-- Technical expertise: engineering5.-- Technical expertise: emergency planning6.-- Financial aid7.-- Mandatory regulations8. Source of aid: a. Local government

b. State I\overnmentc. Federal governmentd. Other:

4. LEVEL OF EFFORT

A. Emergency preparedness and safety functions are handled by:1. A department witn several full-time staff dedicated to this task2.--- One person, full-lime3.--- One person, part-time4.= No one in particular

B. Indicate approxi'TIately r"lw much time per year employees are trained:All Employees Small Number or Employees

with special emergency tasks1. (days!yr) Earthquake2. Fire3. Hazardous materials4. Bomb threat, security5. Utilities outage6.---- Medical emergency7.=::::::::: Flooding

5. HAZARD RANKING

A. Rank the following hazards in order of concern and level of effort expended inyour organization to deal with them, with number 1 being the hazard of greatestimportance.

a. Earthquakesb.-- Firec.--- Hazardous materialsd.::::::= Medical emergency

6. SIZE OP ORGANIZATION

A. How many employees?On your site Total.

1.2.----3.----­4.----

lC multiple sitesfewer than 50 employees50 to 100 employees100 Lo 1000 employeesover 1000 employees

3

31

scientific servi<;e, inc.

Table 2 (contd)

B. Size of building (u~e multiple check mArk" If there Is more thlln one builoingl.1. One or two stories2.-- Two to seven stories3.== Over seven stories

7. ocx;UPANCY, USE

Omces----Retail---Manufacturing---Electronics

Labs===Transportation

Medical----Assembly (theater, etc.)----Utility----News media---Financial==Other _

8. IDENTIFICATION

A. (optional) If you would prefer to fill out the questionnaire anonymously, (eelfree to do so. In that case, write a separate letter if you would like to be inCludedon B mailing list to be kept informed of the availability of the project reports.

Name:

Title:

Company:

Address:

B. Would you be interested in participating in B fonow-up personal interview1 Ifso, please give your telephone number:

Telephone number: _

Co Do you have any particular questions you would like answered concerning thetechniques or programs used by Japanese companies to prepare for earthquakes?

4

32

scientifiC serVICe. inc.

When did eai·thquake program originate?fewer than 50 employees: 19BO50-100 employees: 1981

100-1000 employees: 1980over 1000 employees: 1979

This indicates tt.lt most of the companies with active programs began theireffort about 1980. This does not coincide with R particular earthquake or law, butprobably reflects a gradually increasing earthquake awareness and a common businessperception that a well-run company in California should have an earthquake program.

Type of BusinessSize of samples:

Electronics: 22 companiesMedical: 21Assembly (theater etc.): 8Office: 126Financial: 23

Utility: 13

Transportation: 16Laboratories: 37Manufacturing: 22

Retail: 16

(Because of multiple occupancies within one firm,~hese figures exceed the totalnumber of firms.)

Earthquake plan has been exercised:(1) UtlEty: 6996

(2) Medical: 66%(3) Assembly: 50%

(4) Financial: 43%

(4) Transportation: 43%

(5) Laboratories: 37%(6) Manufacturing: 31%(6) Electronics: 31%(7) Office: 27%

(8) Retail: 12%

Water he~ter has been strapped:(1) M~dical: 52%(2) Ele{'tronics: 50%(2) Assembly: 50%

(3) Transportation: 43%

(4) Financial: 39%(5) Utility: 38%(6) Laboratories: 37%(6) Retail: 37%(7) Manufacturing: 36%

(8) Office: 21%

From the above two key indicators, it appears that retail and manufacturingbusinesses are less likely to have active earthquake programs, whereas medical,assembly, and financial firms are more likely to be above average in the extent to

33

SCl8f11jfjc serVICe. inc.

which practical measures such as exercises and nonstructural retrofits are carriedout. This pattern is not a strong one, however.

Plaee of Progr 110 Within OrpnizationConsidering only the larger firms (more than 100 employees) who have a more

extensive organizational structure, health and safety ?r facilities are the twodepartments most likely to be in charge of the earthquake program. The security oradministrative departments are the next most likely to be centrally involved in theearthquake program. In most companies, some earthquake functions reside in onedepartment while other functions are the respvnsibility of one or more otherdepartments. Indeed, one of the first issues to arise in a company beginning anearthquake program is where to place this responsibility in the organization chart.

Typically, the health and safety department is involved in workplace safetyprocedures related to non-earthquake hazards. Facilities or physical plant depart­ments are often involved because the physical nature of earthquake hazard reductioninvolves strengthening buildings or retrofitting nonstructural items. Security isoften a department involved in emergency response and may be in charge of radiocommunications; it is often the only one of these basic departments staffed 24 hoursa day. (Because earthquakes occur randomly with respect to time of day, there isabout a one in four chance that one will occur during the 40-hour work week, and athree-fourths chance it will occur outside of business hours.) The administrative orexecutive department is also often involved in the earthquake program, in the samemanner that the executive branch of a government would be involved.Administrative decisions must be made as to budgets and policies in advance of theearthquake: and dccisons must be made as to overall priorities for response after theearthquake.

Origination of the Earthquake ProgramThe two most common sources for the companies' earthquake programs were a

senior executive or the safety manage!'. This is perhaps obvio!Js, but somewhatsurprising is the fact that none of the companies reported that either a union ;)r non­union employee group helped bring the program into existence, and in only oneinstance was legal counsel a cause of the origination.

A generalization based on consulting experiencs rather than the survey dataconcerns the role of individual initiative. In many firms, only because of the hardwork of one individual does a strong earthquake program exist. In some cases, thisperson was not even directly assigned the job of developing an earthquake program,but rather took the initiative to see that this was an essential part of the health andsafety or risk management function. Only in the past couple of yea:-s has it become

34

scientific service, IOC.

more common for a person to come into a job and inherit an ongoing program, ratherthan have to start one.

This situation increases the amount of innovation and experimentation occurringin this field, but it also increases the chance of discontinuity. As mentioned above,earthquake programs in most firms have yet to find a permanent home in theorganization chart and are not yet fUlly institutionalized. An extreme example isthe case of ARea, which until 1985 had one of the more highly visible earthquakeprograms of any company in California. When bad economic times neces!'itated a cutin corporate expenditures of $500 million, the manager who headed the program alongwith the two-person staff were given early retirement, and the program waseliminated.

This also relates to the relatively short-range planning used by U.S. firms ascompared to Japanese counterparts. Once the earthquake protection effort isconsidered essential by a Japanese firm, it is there to stay. Large drops in the oiland electronics industries have affected Japa'i in the past couple of years, yet firmsin these fields in Japan only trim back their earthquake programs. Export industriesin Japan have had to adjust to the major change in exchange rates the past year. Inthe past year the yen has increased by 50% versus the dollar, yet export firms withearthquake programs seem to be able to Keep these safety efforts intact.

Government AidThirty-nine percent of the companies received no aid, 1% received

governmental aid in the form of engineermg expertise, and 16% received emergeMYplanning help. Local government was most likely to be the source of the aid.

Hazard RankingThe four primary hazards in terms of concern and level of effort were, in

descending order, fire, earthquakes, medic·al emergency, and hazardous materials.Considerably below these four hazards were bomb threats and terrorism, flooding, andutilities outage.

SCEPP SURVEY

A survey of individuals who attended SCEPP (Southern california EarthquakePreparedness Project) conferences or who had requested SCEPP booklets was made byJames Goltz of the SCEPP staff (Goltz, 1985). Some of the conclusions of theportion ~f the evaluation study that dealt with the users of the corporate planningguidebook follow:

35

scientifiC service, inc.

o Emergency response is a much higher priority thBIl disaster recovery.(Only 4% indicated thtlt recovery planning would be attempted.)

o Many reported they felt their organizations were totally unpreparedfor an earthquake (moreso than among the city and county samples).

o Lack of budget or lack of top management priority were the majorbarriers to more vigorous earthquake programs.

o The Red Cross and disaster planners in other companies were themost common sources of aid.

o Security was most often tasked with the central earthquake role(l996), followed by health and safety (15%), facilities (l4%),personnel {l2%), management (12%), planning (9%), and corporateservices (8%).

a Thirty-eight percent of those who read the SCEPP guide obtainedapproval to set up a committee or have staff assignments made; ofthis 38%, committees or staff assignments were actUally made in thecase ot' 70% of them. In other words, in 25% of the cases staffassignments were actually made.

36

scientific service. inc.

Section 4PROFILES OF EARTHQUAKE PROGRAMS OF COMPANIES IN CALIFORNIA

This section presents, topic by topic, some instructive examples of earthquakeprograms of california companies. While only a few firms are singled out here byname, many others could also be cited for their innovations in this field. Theexamples have been selected for the suggestions or lessons they may provide to othercompanies in Calilomia or Japan.

SAFETY AUDITS

A frequent organizational problem faced by larger companies is theirdecentralized or divisional operating framework. Even at a single site or in a singlebuilding, different divisions of a corporation may be found, and implementingcorporbte-wide safety policies can be a major task. The problem becomes moredifficult when facilities are located at multiple sites.

An example of a successful approach toward reducing thp problems associatedwith decentralization is provided by Hewlett-Packard, headquartered in Palo Alto,California, and with facilities located in other states as well as in other countries.An af,nual safety audit is performed at each facility by corporate health and safetysupervisors. The results of the audit are processed centrally, and the implemen­tation also carries the weight of the corporate management bE:hind it. Good safetyaudits are acknowledged by letters from senior management, and, contrariwise,deficiencies are also acknowledged by this avenue, and a followup inspection isscheduled.

Recently, efforts have been made to devise nationwide criteria that wouldclearly indicate which facilitie~ should have emergency plans and other precautionsfor which specific types of natural hazards. While fire, hazardous materials spills,and workplace accidents are universal hazards to be included within a facility'ssafety plan, earthquakes, hurricanes, and some other natural hazards have arelatively clearly defined geographic distribution. As one basis for devising thethreshold criteria that indicate where a partiCUlar hazard is applicable, the FederalEmergency Management Agency National SUrvey Instructions (FEMA TR-84), anannually-updated training manual, is available. Maps indicate the areas where theFEMA Mtural hazards VUlnerability survey of essential facilities (such as firestations) is indicated, and these same areas can be taken as one definition of the

37

scientific service, inc.

areas where a company should consider a hazard. For earthquakes, the UniformBuilding Code seismic zones 3 and 4 (the two highest zones on a five-level scale) arethe underlying basis for the FEMA map. Other standards were used to devise theFEMA higher risk zones for hurricanes, non-hurricane wind storms, tornadoes, andfloods.

NONSTRUCTURAL PROTECTION

Chevron Oil Field Development Company in La Habra, California, is composedof a campus of office, lab, shop, and support buildings, inclUding 85 individuallaboratory rooms. Because of the exte~sive I\mount of chemical lab facilities, thethreat of earthquake-caused hazardous materials spills was given special attention inthe nonstructural protection program. Many interesting details of an engineeringnature could be discussed in connection with this example, bt:t the points of morerelevence here concern the successful way in which the technical solutions have beenimplemented in the organization.

While each laboratory room contains some unique equipment, many repetitiveitems are handled with standard details. Such repetive items include gas cylinders,bottles of chemicals on shelves, overhead lights, and storage lockers or cabinets.These routine solutions have been integrated into the ongoing facility angineeringand maintenance operations to the extent that quantities of the necessarynonstructural protection hardware are always on hand and are ordered in bulk.Reducing the bulk of the nonstructural restraints required to repetitive solutions isessential if the program is to be simple enough to maintain quality control in thedesign, installation, and subsequent maintenance or inspection of the protectivemeasures.

Safety inspections routinely include a checklist of nonstructural earthquakesafety items, along with the other workplace safety items previously included withinthe safety prcgram. This also seems to be a valuable lesson applicable to othertypes of facilities as well. While special surveys devoted solely to earthquakehazards may be appropriate when a program is first established, subsequent re­inspections should be combined with an ongoing schedule of multi-purpose safetysurveys.

Safety inspections by the facility engineer or safety engineer of the facility areconducted with a "we're here to help make your workplace safer" attitude, ratherthan a bureaucratic regulation-enforcement attitude, which could cause a defensiveattitude on the part of the occupants of labs. The extent to which scientists in

38

scientifiC ..,.\IiC8, inc.

some of the labs have devised and implemented their own innovative nonstructuralprotection measurlJS is quite impressive. In some cases, ordinary lab hardware, suchas tUbes that drip fluids into flasks during experiments, are modified slightly toperform the additional role of earthquake restraint. The attitude of the occupant ofthe space that is to receive nonstructural earthquake protection is an importantmatter to consider. If there is 8 resentment against the slight inconveniencesinvolved in lifting bottles over shelf restraints, or re-Iatching restraint chains, it isdiffk ·:t to supervise the employees often enough to ensure unwilling compliance. Ifthe employees have not been educated as to the likelihood of hazardous 110nstructuraldamage in earthquakes, they may have misconceptions sbout the need for themeasures. For example, one of the most common misconceptions is that heavyequipment cannot be moved by an earthquake, whereas inertial earthquake forces aregreater when items of greater mass are involved.

While many modern buildings with suspended ceilings have lay-in fluorescentlight fixtures without any positive connections these pl>ssible sources of overheadds.nger nave been thoroughly dealt with at this Chevron facility. Two hanger wires,connected to diagonally opposite corners of each fiuorescE'nt fixture are the typicalsolution. In cases where a duct or other above-ceiling element interferes with theplacement of thest:' wires, the fixture is positively connected to the main T-bar hungceiling framework members. The implementation of this above-average degree ofnonstructural protection, rather than the te~hnical aspects, is the aspect of mostinterest. The company's electricians are the ones who routinE'ly install or performmaintenance on these items, and so it is these individuals who are trained toroutin~ly ineorporate earthquake protection into their work. This is a successfulexample of de'Jising a reliable delivery system for what otherwise might be merely agood idea that only exists on paper in a report or manuel.

The Chevron example has been cited to point out some of the ways in which thetechnical aspects of nonstructural protection can be carried out rn')re reliably if thehuman relations and quality control a,;pects of the ta5k are emphaSl?;ed. Another ofthe many firms with extensive nonstructural earthquake protection programs, IBM,provides some other lessons.

At its San Jose, californin research facility, about 10,000 employees work atthe SOO-acre site, and a variety of hazardous me.terials is present. Some of thenonstructural retrofits have been of a large scale nature, relating to large tanks andpiping systems, for example. Where possible, standard details are devised forrepetitive items, and the contractors who perform the work can be field-directed tomake adaptations to fit partiCUlar conditions. (A common situation is the piece ofequipment that cannot be moved to allow for the installation of hold-down bolts or

39

scientific surVlC8. i~

braeing struts, and there may be insufficip.nt clearance between the equipment and awall or other obstruction to install the bracing scheme without some eustomizing tofit the particular geometry involved.) ~.n idea whose merit will be apparent toanyone who has had a few years' experience whh a nonstructural earthquakeprotection program is the use of labels stating "Earthquake Bracing - Do NotRemove." Maintenance and relocation can result in the removal of the bracinghardware for more than half the equipment and furnishings in a facility in a ten-yearperiod, and unless the herdware is properly re-installed, the level of protection wouldgreatly decline. It is obvious that steel must be kept painted to avoid weakening byrust, but it may be less obvious that hardware must be protected from the even morerapid deterioration that may be caused by the occupants of the building.

Automatic natural gas and chemical process shutoff valves are a commonnonstructural retrofit feature at IBM. This, again, i& a solution that has a humandimension as well as a straightforward nuts and bolts aspect. Bumping again!'lt aseismic shutoff valve may activate it, ca'Jsing unwanted gas shutoffs, and signs andtraining may be required to ensure that this does not become a problem.

STRUCTURAL PROTECTION

Although no precise data are available to document the point, the company thathas done the most to structurally evaluate and strengthen its buildings is probablyIBM. Approximately half of the more than 40 buildings at the San Jose site havebeen structurally strengthened to some degree for earthquake purposes, and some ofthese projects are,lajor multi-million dollar reconstructions. The sophistication ofthe engineering analysis employed to d:;termine the need for seismil! strengthening isas high as is typically found in any project other than large power plants. In someeases, the additional bracing required has been combined with adding to the buildingaround its perimeter, thus accomplishing an increase in needed building space alongwith the increase in seismic safety.

The vulnerabilities of existing buildings stem from either older buildings, builtprior to more ~ ~cent codes, or designs that might meet the minimum of modern codesbut thlit are deficient in some respect in meeting the general intent of the ~\)de toresist the largest of California earthquakes without collapse. In addition, when non­redundant facilities are involved and the industry is one in which there is greatcompetition and tight production schedules, avoiding major disruption after anearthquake is a concern, and this is not directly dealt with by the code, whosE'criteria only extend to life safety. For these reasons, IBM found it necessary tohave consultants develop in effect an internal seismic bUilding code that can be used

40

scientific service. inc.

as a companion to local building codes to ensure that IBM's goals as w~l1 as theminimum code requirements are met. Guidance is provided on a global scale, so thatoverseas construction projects are subject to the same central policy, adjusted toaccount for the variation in seismicity around the world. At present, this is anexceptional example, though in future years it may become more common forcompanies to realize that facilities they build or lease that have been designed onlyto meet the minimum requirements of the building code may not meet the criteria orexpectations of the company.

TRAINING

There are many examples of earthquake training among companies, but onewhich is above aVOJrage and provides several lessons is GTE (General Telephone).The tools used to train employees include two professional quality video tapes. Onedeals with earthquakes at the wo!'kplace, and the other with earthquake preparednessat home. A brochure on each topic is also distributed. This dual strategy of tryingto protect employees and their families whether the earthquake occurs during anemployee's on-shift time or during the other three-fourths of the time is extended tothe topic of emergency supplies, which is covered in a separate section.

Emergency preparedness coordinators conduct training sessions with employees,and discussion and questions are specifically encouraged. There is a greatdifference between the relatively passive approach of distributing written materialsto employees and expecting them to read and absorb the information, as compared tobringing them together in small groups to watch video tapes with a trained instructorwho encourages discussion. The employees are considered the corporation's mostessential asset, and without protection of employees, there would thus be no realcorporate earthquake protection ~: ogram.

GTE's earthquake program, including its training materials and approach, havehad a great influence on other companies' efforts. Other companies could also besingled out in this regard to make the point that most of the learning that goes on inthis field is companies learning from other companies who ha'/e a headstart andgreater experience. Through informal contacts or through the auspices of tradegroups or disaster organizations such as the Red Cross, the Business and IndustryCouncil on Emergency Preparedness Planning (BICEPP), the Southern California andBay Area Regional Earthquake Preparedness Projects (SCEPP and BAREPP), there hasbeen a great deal of openness in sharing the lessons and "tricks of the trade" thatthe firms with the stronger earthquake programs have accumulated.

41

acientitlc serviCe. inc.

ALTERNATIVE HEADQUARTERS

Companies cf national or international scale could be severely affected on acorporate level evel'l if only one facility--the headqua:,:,ters--is affected by anearthquake. The earthquake need not cause major damagp- to the headquartersitself, if, as is commonly the case, this building or group of buildings is in the midstof a densely built-up urban area. Utility outages, street closures caused by damageto other buidings, and possible fires or hazardous materials spills in the vicinity couldaffect the operability of the headquarters.

Levi Strauss, headquartered in San Francisco, is one of the firms that hasdevised an alternative headquarters plan. If for any reason the headquarterscomplex on the northeastern waterfront of San Francic;co cannot be used, anotherlarge Levi Strauss facility in another district of San Francisco would be temporarilyused for this purpose.

To help solve the problem of letting employees know about the alternativeheadquarters activation procedures, Levi Strauss distributes w811et-sized cards toemployees with the alternative headquarters plan sumrTiariz~d thereon, along withother information to be used after an earthquake disaster.

The seven largest banks in california operate two clearinghouses to facilitatethe exchange of thousands of checks every work day. One is in the San Franciscoarea, the other is in the Los Angeles area. Checks drawn on an account at one bankand deposited to an account E.~ another are physically exchanged, while all thebookkeeping is handled at large computer centers. Because reverting to the formermethod of manual processing of checks is no longer feasible, and because anearthquake could cause damage or functional loss at one or more of the banks'computer centers in either San FI'8llcisco or Los Angeles, the clearinghouse plan is asfollows. If two or more of the banks cannot operate their computer centers, thenthat city's clearinghouse will be tempora!'ily closed, and approximately 500-600 ofthe more essential workers will be nown to the other city's data processingfacilities. Because about 400 miles separate the two urban regions, the sameearthquake cannot cause disruption in both areas.

EMPLOYEE 10 CARDS

While many companies issue identification cards to employees, these are forinternal use only. If the need arose to show identification to law enforcementofficers to try to cross police lines, the usual ID card might not work. With this

42

scientific servioe. me.

potential problem in mind, special law enforcement-a!>proved essential employeediSllster ID cards have been developed, espeCially for the large banks with downtownheadquarters. The system was originated in Los Angeles and has been furtherdeveloped through the efforts of the California Earthquake Task Force.

Because the seven largest California banks have a backup plan to relocate keydata processing employees from the Los Angeles Area to the Bay Area, or vice versaif the disastrous earthquake stike3 the Bay Area, ID cards might be needed tu allowthese key employees to get to airports, and this is another stimulus for the lawenforcement-approved disaster ID card idea.

COMMUNICATIONS

Because widespread telephone outages are likely to persist for more than a dayfollowing a large earthquake, non-telephone communications links have beenestablished by some companies for this specific purpose. Other firms have foundthat their existing radio capability, which might include walkie-talkie units and autounits linked through one or more repeaters, are adequate for their needs.

One of the more innovative earthquake emergency c:ystems was devised byWoodward-Clyde, a firm with geotechnical involvement in the earthquake field.(The following description pertains to the plan in effect when the firm washeadquartered in downtown San Francisco; it has since relocated.) Although thefirm did not have a pressing post-earthquake need to communicate with otherbranches around the state or country as might a corporation in the financial servicessector, the pllssible isolation of employees from their families for a day or more wasconsidered & major issue. The large bridges that cross San Frtlneisco Bay aregenere.lly considered a~equately earthquake-resistant, but these bridges connect withapproach spans and surface highways sited on poor, Bay-margin soils, and so there isa strong chance that San Francisco employees would be unable to drive their cars ortake public transportation to their homes across the Bay. In the absence oftelephone communications, this isolation would probably cause considerable householdanxiety.

Woodward-Clyde purchased a radio system that consisted of a station on one ofthe noors it leased in a high-rise building in San Francisco's Embarcadero center,and a half dozen radios in employees' homes distributed around the Bay Area. Witheach radio provided with a generator (the electricity would probably go out in anearthquake), this created a region-wide earthquake-resbtant communications system.Employees were provided with copies of the earthquake plan to keep at home. This

43

SCIen'WC service. inc.

plan details the location of the employees who maintain the radios at theirresidences. By traveling only a short distance, one could reach the nearest houseequipped with a radio and communicate with the headquarters in San Francisco.

A more COIr4'1l0n countermeasure used by companies is to identify the employeeswho are amateur radio operators and to integrate them into a company plan.Generators are sometimes purchased to enable the employees' radio equipment athome to operate after an earthquake.

Fireman's Fund purchased a radio that, with repeaters, could communicate fromthe corporate headquarters (formerly San Francisco) to Sacramento. FromSacramento, ordinary communications would probably be intact.

EMERGENCY SUPPLIES

Personal emergency supplies (food, water, blankets, etc.) and rescue or otherspecial equipment have been stockpiled by many firms. The quantities are usuallyquite manageable. For example, in a typical high-rise building whose company hasimplemented this countermeasure, one metal locker would contain the supplies forone floor.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company stores some hand-operated cutting and liftingtools in its headquarters building, while most lockers with emergency supplies arelimited to food, water, first aid, personal hygiene, battery-powered lighting, andother supplies that resemble camping equipment.

GTE's innovative program provides to employees through payroll deductions thesame packaged kit of emergency supplies that are purchased by the company for theuse of employees at work. Employees are encouraged to purchase these kits atwholesale rates to keep in their cars or at home.

In the case of a hospital, emergency supplies may be required on a much largerscale. The chain of p!"ivately owned Kaiser hospitals in northern California has beenespecially concerned with backup water supplies. Emergency water conservationprocedures that have been developed include economization of X-ray film developingtechniques and even surgery scrub procedures by doctors and nurses. Plans havebeen devised to deploy a portable plastic-lined swimming pool in the parking lot toprovide a rapid way for tanker trucks to deliver water.

44

scien'ific service. inc.

Extra litters have been purchased and stored in stairwells. It was found that adurable but inexpensive cardboard variety of stretcher had an unexpected virtue:because they were of little value, they were never stolen, whereas other emergencysupplies such as flashlights often disappear.

Various techniques are used by companies to try to control vandalism andpilferage. One basic technique is to seal lockers or boxes with easily removable butvisible straps, so that if the supplies are tampered with, at least it will be quicklydiscovered. Another method is to lock the storage container and give keys todesignated employees. (If this plan is used, it is necessary to plan for the possibilitythat the earthquake could occur at any time of dJ.y, and that some employees duringa given shift may be on vacation or otherwise absent. One San Francisco Bay Areaschool hides a key on each p.mergency supply locker to deal with this problem.)

EVACUATION

Evacuation in the event of an earthquake is similar to evacuation for fire, bombthreat, or hazardous materials emergencies, but there are some considerations uniqueto earthquakes.

If a building is evacuated after an earthquake out of concern that it may behazardous to the occupants, at what point should it be re-occupied? Aftershocksare the rule, not the exception, with earthquakes (except perhaps for some deepfocus earthquakes, and these are not pertinent to California). It may seem to be aneasy decision to call an evacuation, but this decision sets the stage for the decisionconcerning re-entry. In some facilities, evacuation in itself creates an emergencysituation, such as in the case of a facility whose function is essential or whoseoccupants are difficult to evacuate. A hospital presents both difficulties.

The Kaiser Permanente's northern California regional group of hospitals hasdeveloped a plan to quickly bring consulting structural engineers to its facilitiesafter r.:ajor earthquakes to perform rapid safety evaluations. This system wouldprobably be much quicker than the public system of post-earthquake safetyinspections, which utilizes building inspectors aided by volunteer members of theStructural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) from other areas of the stateunaffected by the earthquake.

Another seismic consideration is the safety of the exterier areas to whiehbuilding occupants would be directed. One large research and developmentestablishment, which employed an earthquake consultant to review its emergency

45

scientific HfvlCe. inc.

plans, found that some of the half-dozen exterior areas designated as regroupingsites in the event of an evacuation were under overhead electrical lines or over highpressure gas lines. A slight adjustment of the location of these areas was possibleto avoid those potential hazards. Unless it is absolutely necessary, it is generallywise to use the same evacuation routes and evacuation destination for allemergencies, because this simplifies the training of employees and accommodates theemergency response countermeasure to the likely behavior of the occupants.

When occupants are directed to leave the building, there are some furtherissues concerning the mechanics of this process. Wheelchair-confined individualspose a special problem, because the elevators should not be used after a majorearthquake until they are checked. (In California, seismic shutdown requirementsare incorporated into state law, and the most likely eventuality is that the elevatorswould all open their doors at the nearest noor and stay locked in that position until aqualified person inspects them am' uses a key to re-activate them.) In the event ofa fire, elevators should also be a~oided, so for either emergency there would be theneed to transport the wheelchair-confined down stairs. Products are commerciallyavailable that resemble seats with handles, allowing a person to be carried downstairs much more conveniently and safely than in a wheelchair. Some companieskeep one such evacuation device at each wheelchair-confined employee's workspace.

Another important element in this system is the identification of individualswith various disabilities. Chevron, for example, has each employee fill out a shortform conc('rning the emergency plan at the headquarters buildings in San Francisco,to ensure that disabilities are recorded and that the employee has been adequatelybriefed on the disaster plan. This form also provides documentation of compliancewith the State's General Industrial Safety Orders, which require the employer toinform all employees of emergency procedures, especially concerning evacuation.

Either because of sight or hearing disabihties, or simply because individualsmay be in remote areas such as storage areas or restrooms when an earthquakeoccurs, there must be a way to ensure that building occupants realize they aresupposed to evacuate. Occupants may also be trapped or injured. An occupantcould be trapped simply by a jammed door, for example.

One means of ensuring that all occupants have left the building is the sweeptechnique, where a warden or supervisor for each floor or other identifiable spacequickly goes through each room to visually check. Since the power would probablygo out in a major earthquake, and since the backUp power generator or battery-lightsprol'lably can only dimly illuminate hallways and large open areas but not eachindividual workspace or room, the people doing the sweep would need flashlights.

46

scientific servICe. inc.

Two methods of accounting for individuals who have evacuated a building areoften used. At some of the buildings at one heavy industrial plant, employees mustsign in and out when entering or leaving the building, and so this provides anaccurate roll sheet. At one large research and development facility where theemployees often go from their own building to another during the day without aclock-in or sign-in system, the plan calls for the individuals who group at eachevacuation area to write their names on cards and hand them to the manager of thatarea, thus providing a roll sheet. This procedure, if done immediately, avoids theproblem of uncertainty over whether missing employees are trUly missing or have justgone home to check on t:leir households. At california pUblic schools, the teacher isthe last one to leave a classroom as it is evacuated, and he or she takes the roll bookalong before leaving.

MUTUAL AID

In the City of Santa Clara, about two dozen of the largest companies havejoined with the city to establish an emergenc.y radio system. The emergencyservices office provides, in effect, the c~ntral exchange, while each firm purchasesits own radio and keeps it where it is monitored 24 hours a day. Through thisnetwork, one firm could quickly communicate its need for an emergency resource,such as a generator or hazardous materials spill absorbent material, to the othercompanies. Even in an earthquake, it is unlikely that all the companies wouldexperience seriou~ problems of the same type.

INSURANCE

Earthquake insurance is required if earthquake losses are to be covered,because standard residential, commercial, and industrial pohcies exclude coverage forthis peril. While companies may set their own premium rates, the Insurance ServicesOffice (ISO) earthquake risk rating and premium guidelines indicate an annualpremium of about i% of the value for a typical commercial or light industrialbuilding. The guideline rates vary greatly for various classes of construction(combinations of types of walls floors, roofs, design basis or earthquake coderequirements in effect when the building was constructed, e~c.). Major buildings areindividually rated by engineers employed or retained by the insurer.

The earthquake insurancp. countermeasure is relatively insignificant, and thispattern has become more pronounced in recent years. A california state laweffective 1 January 1985 required all property insurers in the state to offer

47

scientific service. inc.

earthquake insurance to their residential customers. This increased the percentageof homeowners with earthquake insurance from about 5% to slightly over 10% andoccurred at the same time that interest rates were dropping; thus, there were lowerearnings on invested premiums, and exposure to liability and law suit settlement orjudgment costs were increasing. While the property insurers assumed greater risk-­about double--in the residential field, they have reduced their risk exposure in thecommercial field. The California Insurance Department's estimate of probablemaximum commercial loss for a great Los Angeles earthquake, for example, declinedby a billion dollars from 1983 to 1984 because less coverage was in effect.

48

scientific service. inc.

REFERENCES

McClure, Frank E., 1984, "Development and Implementation of the University ofCalifornia Seismie Safety PoHey," Eighth World Conference on EarthquakeEngineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1984.

Committee on Earthquake Engineering Research, Earthquake Engineering-1982,National Rel:learch Council, 1982.

Federa.l Emergency Management Agency, National Earthquake Hazards ReductionProgram Five-Year Plan, Fiscal Years 1985-1989, 1985.

Goltz, James, The Transferability of SCEPP's Products: A Report of EvaluationFindings, SCEPP, 1985.

49