Earthquake Quarterly - Winter 1997

This newsletter is a production of the Western States Seismic Policy Council
121 Second Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94105
415/974-6422 fax 415/974-1747
e-mail: wsspc@wsspc.org
web address: http://www.wsspc.org

Steven Ganz, Executive Director
Andrea James, Administrative Assistant

WSSPC Enters The New Year

It is with much excitement and anticipation that WSSPC enters 1997. We are starting the new year as a federally recognized non-profit corporation, with a strategic plan near completion and two fabulous conferences in the works.

Before looking ahead we should reflect on the successes for WSSPC in 1996. The biggest change for WSSPC is that it established itself as a independent non-profit organization with two full-time staff members in a permanent office. Although WSSPC has been successful in years past, creating a permanent presence will allow us to develop resources, identity and institutional memory.
In 1996, WSSPC held its Annual Conference in Polson, Montana. The conference was a tremendous success both as an opportunity for WSSPC members to share resources and information and for its excellent conference sessions and speakers. We owe a debt of gratitude to the State of Montana for their work hosting the event. (See related conference article for more information about the event.) The proceedings of the conference will be available next month.

WSSPC also began the long-term process of Strategic Planning. The Strategic Planning committee was instrumental in developing a new set of bylaws for WSSPC and will be recommending a full strategic plan to the Board of Directors for adoption. Through the strategic planning process, WSSPC clarified its mission and objectives and thus focused its activities appropriately.

Nineteen Ninety-Six was the birth year of a new program for WSSPC - the WSSPC Awards in Excellence. The Awards in Excellence was designed to recognize government agencies for outstanding work they have accomplished, while at the same time sharing model programs throughout the region. Last year's winner are described in this newsletter.
In an move to further our communication efforts, WSSPC has revamped its web page (http://www.wsspc.org) to make it more content heavy and user friendly. Our goal is to have quality content and easily accessible for visitors to our web site.

In 1997, WSSPC has big plans. In May we will be hosting a ground-breaking Basin and Range Province Seismic Hazards Summit in Reno, Nevada. This will be an opportunity to share information about the province WSSPC's New Year and its unique seismic characteristics. Additionally, WSSPC will be working towards developing policy recommendations which will enhance preparedness and mitigation for the entire region.

In November, WSSPC will journey to Victoria, British Columbia for its 1997 Annual Conference. Plans are under way for a terrific event which may outshine last year's. Details regarding the schedule and speakers will be released soon.

WSSPC is also expanding it Catalog of State Seismic Products. The printed form of our product database will be fully searchable on the internet through our website (http://www.wsspc.org). If you are looking for information about earthquakes or earthquake education, this should be one of your first stops.

As 1997 progresses, we will continue to update you on the activities of WSSPC. It is our hope that throughout the year we can continue to be a forum to advance earthquake hazard reduction programs and to develop, recommend and support seismic policies and programs through information exchange, research and education.

Back to Table of Contents

WSSPC Awards in Excellence

WSSPC's new awards program was created to recognize achievement in different areas of earthquake mitigation, preparedness and response. This program is both an effective way to share model programs throughout our region, as well as to recognize the hard-working, creative and innovative efforts within the earthquake hazard reduction community. Six exemplary programs were recognized at the 1996 Annual Conference. In addition, one program was recognized for overall excellence.

Idaho Geological Survey's Earthquake Education Workshops received recognition for its outreach to schools. This program provides elementary and secondary earth science educators first hand knowledge of earthquake causes and effects as well as earthquake mitigation and classroom preparedness. The purpose of these workshops is to provide the educators with knowledge that they can effectively transfer to students. What is unique about the program is the low cost as a result of its camp setting and its sponsorship funding .

The New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources also received an award in the area of Outreach to Schools for Lite Geology. This is a quarterly publication that reaches 1,500 educators statewide as well as 1,200 additional readers. The purpose of Lite Geology is to provide less technical information that is fun to read thus appeals to a greater audience.

"Academic Aftershocks" by the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services was a third recipient of an award for Outreach to Schools. This is a video of administrators, faculty and staff members, and emergency response professional discussing the effects of the Northridge earthquake on the CSUN campus. The video examines crucial issues for the university in the hours, days and weeks following the disaster. This is one of the first videos to target higher education. It has been very well received and as a result it has stimulated preparedness and mitigation activity as well as instigated on-going coordination and exchange between universities. OES has also produced a shorter version to reach a larger audience.

Oregon's Department of Geology & Mineral Industries received recognition for their Outreach to the General Public for their program on Tsunami Awareness on the Oregon Coast. The purpose of this project is to educate coastal residents and tourists about the cause of and emergency response to Cascadia tsunamis. The program involves public education through the installation of large, permanent signs which describe the tsunami hazard in locations with high volumes of visitors each year. Due to the program's success other coastal towns have requested similar sign installation.

In a partnership with the American Red Cross, the Yukon Emergency Management Office was recognized for its Outreach to the General Public. Combining the efforts of the government, non-profit and private sectors, earthquake quizes were printed in local newspapers and prizes were offered to individuals submitting the winning answers. The program was able to generate public awareness about its seismic threat, while at the same time making education fun.

In the category of mitigation efforts, British Columbia Geological Survey was recognized for their Earthquake Hazard Mapping Project. This four year project mapped the potential earthquake hazards in the main urban and adjoining areas in southwest British Columbia. The goal is to identify areas of potential soil liquefaction, amplification and/or landslide hazards and thus display relative potential for ground disturbance due to variations in local geologic soil conditions. These maps ideally will provide basic data for emergency response, land use and community planning, setting realistic insurance rates and prioritizing seismic retrofitting of public facilities.

The final award winner in the category of Mitigation Efforts and the overall award winner is the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries and the Portland Metro Regional Government for their Portland Earthquake Hazard Mapping Project. The purpose of the Portland maps is to systematically map multiple earthquake hazards such as amplification, liquefaction and landsliding as the basis for a variety of mitigation applications and board public education. Partnerships with the regional governments helped to expedite the application of the map data in mitigation and emergency response planning. These maps have already been beneficial in prioritizing the retrofit of older school buildings as well as encouraging other retrofitting projects.

Full descriptions of the award recipients will soon be published by WSSPC. To continue raising awareness and the sharing of ideas we will be expanding our awards program at WSSPC '97 Conference. If you have any recommendations at the state, municipal or local level or would like to nominate your own program please call or write WSSPC.

Back to Table of Contents

SPOTLIGHT ON:
THE NATURAL HAZARDS RESEARCH
AND APPLICATIONS INFORMATION CENTER

The Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, located at the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA, is a national and international clearinghouse that provides information on natural hazards and human adjustments to these risks. The center's primary goal is to increase communication among hazard/disaster researchers and those individuals, agencies, and organizations who are actively working to reduce disaster damage and suffering. The Natural Hazards Center carries out its mission in four principal areas: information dissemination, an annual workshop, research, and library services.

The information dissemination program involves the publication of a printed newsletter, the Natural Hazards Observer, as well as numerous monographs, working papers, bibliographies, and special publications. In addition, the center now moderates and distributes an electronic newsletter and discussion forum called Disaster Research (DR) and maintains a World Wide Web site. The web site address is http://adder.colorado.edu/~hazctr/Home.html. The bimonthly Observer carries current information on disaster issues, hazards research, political and policy developments, world, national, and state program activities, upcoming conferences, and recent publications. The publication is sent to over 14,000 subscribers in the U.S. and abroad. It concentrates on news regarding human adaptation and response to all natural hazards and provides a forum for concerned individuals to express opinions and generate new ideas through invited personal articles. The Observer is free within the U.S. and costs $15 per year overseas. It can be ordered from the Center's publication clerk at the address below.

Because improved application of research findings is a key goal of the center, it also edits and publishes many types of books, reports, and bibliographies. These materials are designed to provide information to a wide range of readers - from government officials to emergency managers in private industry - and as such, they are carefully edited and produced in nontechnical language. A complete list of all center publications (several hundred items) is available on the Web site. A hard copy can be ordered for $3.00 or is also available free via e-mail from Janet.Clark@colorado.edu
Another part of center's information dissemination program is the production and maintenance of the moderated e-mail newsletter Disaster Research. DR comes out approximately twice monthly and comprises some of the news items that appear in the Observer as well as other timely articles. In addition, it contains queries and messages from the DR network's many users. DR is distributed worldwide via the Internet to over 1,000 subscribers. In addition, the information is re-posted on numerous bulletin boards, gopher servers, WWW home pages, and other networks around the world. Interest in using this electronic medium is clearly rapidly increasing. To subscribe to Disaster Research, send an e-mail message to listproc@lists.colorado.edu with the single command in the body of the message: Subscribe Hazards.

To strengthen the link between the research and applications communities, the Hazards Center convenes a workshop each summer in Colorado, bringing these groups together to share hazard-related problems as well as ideas for solutions. The workshop is unique in that it involves participants from a wide range of disciplines - academic researchers, front-line hazard managers, government officials, professional and nongovernmental organization representatives - and provides these individuals an opportunity to learn new perspectives and determine how their work impacts others.

The center also conducts both an in-house research program and a grant program enabling a "quick response" study of disasters. The latter program permits social scientists to go immediately to the site of a disaster to obtain information that might otherwise be lost. Their findings are subsequently published by the center in brief Quick Response Reports. The latest reports are available on the Web site. The earlier reports are available in printed form; titles are included in our publications list.

The heart of the center's work is its library, which includes over 14,000 books, articles, reports, journals, and other documents focusing on the social, economic, and behavioral aspects of natural disasters. The holdings are cataloged in a computerized, bibliographic data base, much of which is fully annotated. With this resource, the center staff responds daily to requests for information from federal, state, and local officials, researchers, members of private and nonprofit organizations, and other concerned individuals around the world.

The center is always open to new possibilities and ideas. Call, write, or e-mail them at:
Natural Hazards Center
Campus Box 482
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0482
Tel: (303) 492-6818 Fax: (303) 492-2151
E-mail: hazctr@colorado.edu
Web site: http://adder.colorado.edu/~hazctr/Home.html

Back to Table of Contents

Basin and Range Province Seismic Hazards Summit

The Basin and Range province of North America is a land of contrasts and challenges for seismic hazard analysis and application. Seismogenic faults within the province are generally intraplate in character, with earthquake recurrence intervals on the order of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. This may make the hazard sound remote, but there are literally thousands of potentially active faults, many of which are not detected or well represented at the surface. Further, earthquakes along many, if not all, of these faults seem to cluster in time and space, complicating the analysis of earthquake occurrence. Earthquake magnitudes for these structures are generally estimated to be from magnitude 6 to 8. Most people at risk from these potential earthquakes live in cities. Policies for seismic hazards in the Basin and Range province are largely based on those from other tectonic provinces, such as the San Andreas plate boundary system.

This meeting is bringing together ten state surveys, state emergency management agencies, the United States Geological Survey, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and some of the best minds in contemporary science and engineering geology to discuss seismic hazard analysis in the Basin and Range Province. In addition, fundamental users of seismic hazard analyses will discuss the uses and needs of this information. A comprehensive view of the state-of-practice will be presented to judge the most reasonable and logical approaches for seismic hazard analysis and to highlight outstanding problems. Quaternary fault and seismicity maps from each of the ten participating states will be available to use as a backdrop for neotectonic, seismic hazard and policy discussions.

The format of the summit will be a sequence of summary talks on specific topics relevant to seismic hazard information usage in the Basin and Range province. Follow up will include panel discussions and interactive audience participation. More specific seismic hazard analyses or topics will be presented in a conference long poster session. We anticipate a wide participation by scientists, engineers, emergency managers and policy makers to help gain as many ideas and viewpoints as possible. Conference sessions will include: Seismic hazard analysis, earthquake geology, seismology, users' perspectives, and policies for the usage of seismic hazards in the Basin and Range Province, problems encountered, solutions employed, and policies adopted. A proceedings volume will be produced to capture the presentations and findings from the summit.

Topics to be covered at the Seismic Hazard Summit include:
· Clustered earthquake behavior in time and space
· Long recurrence intervals for major earthquakes vs. short time-frames of probabilistic analysis
· Distinct basin effects on ground motion
· Neotectonics of the Basin Range province
· Estimating values for seismic hazard analysis
· Use of seismic hazard information in the Basin and Range province
· Any topics related to seismic hazards analysis in extensional areas are encouraged

Back to Table of Contents

SAN FRANCISCO BUILDING OWNERS URGED TO JOIN POST-EARTHQUAKE INSPECTION PROGRAM

Experts say a moderate to severe earthquake affecting the Bay Area could occur at any moment over the next 30 years. That poses a real challenge to building owners and managers responsible for emergency planning and recovery.

After a major earthquake, owners want their buildings quickly and thoroughly inspected and, if safe, reoccupied so that business operations can be resumed as soon as reasonably possible.
It would typically take the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (DBI) or mutual aid inspectors 3-10 days to provide post-earthquake rapid safety evaluation of buildings. DBI has only 16 district building inspectors and their priorities are geared to public safety rather than expeditious building reoccupancy.

Building owners now have another option. DBI - in conjunction with local members of BOMA, SEAONC, and AIA - has developed a Building Occupancy Resumption Emergency Inspection Program (BORP).

BORP will allow building owners to precertify private post-earthquake inspection of their buildings by qualified licensed engineers and architects upon DBI acceptance of a written inspection program. This would assure immediate emergency response by trained professionals assigned to specific buildings and familiar with the structural drawings and unique features of each structure.
The inspection plan submitted with the program must be a detailed evaluation consistent with ATC-20 Procedures for Post-Earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings. Approved engineers would be authorized to post assigned buildings prequalified under BORP with official City placards: green (Inspected), yellow (Restricted Use), or red (Unsafe).

Buildings prequalified under BORP are to be inspected as soon as it is safe to do so, and the inspection results reported to DBI within 72 hours of a declared emergency. DBI will perform a verification inspection if results are not reported, if a BORP building has been posted "Unsafe", or if there are other specific concerns.

DBI is now accepting applications for the Building Occupancy Resumption Emergency Inspection Program. There is currently no fee being charged for participation.

A special subcommittee of the SEAONC Disaster Emergency Services Committee comprised of DBI staff and representatives from SEAONC, BOMA, and AIA will review the submittals and establish a list of prequalified buildings. A "fill-in-the-blanks" format is provided to expedite preparation and review of submittals.

DBI encourages early enrollment by building owners, especially owners of high-rise buildings.
Anyone wanting more information or a copy of the program should contact Zan Turner at DBI, 1660 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103; phone 415-558-6104; fax 415-558-6261.

Back to Table of Contents

WSSPC 1996 Annual Conference Wrap-Up

The Western States Seismic Policy Council (WSSPC) held its annual meeting in Polson, Montana, September 18-21. Delegates from member states attended, including several state geologists and emergency management directors. This year's conference theme was "Pursuing Partnerships."
This was the first annual meeting since the reorganization of WSSPC with the full-time executive director, Steven Ganz, a Board of Directors composed of directors of state geological surveys and emergency management offices, and with Lorayne Frank as the chair of the Board.

Program highlights included: (1) a session on implementation of the new "HAZUS" national earthquake loss estimation tool developed by the National Institute for Building Sciences (NIBS) for FEMA. The goal of HAZUS is to make earthquake loss estimates that can be used by local, state, and regional officials for planning and stimulating mitigation efforts to reduce losses from earthquakes and prepare for emergency response and recovery following earthquakes; (2) the new Earthquake Information Providers Group (EqIP), a national group formed to improve earthquake technology transfer; (3) results of the U.S. Department of Transportation-funded study by WSSPC focusing on seismic threats to the transportation infrastructure in the western U.S.; (4) seismic-zonation mapping projects by various states; (5) earthquake information on the World Wide Web and the new EQNET web site (http://www.eqnet.org). Many more sessions were offered and will be detailed in the Annual Conference Proceedings to be published early this year.

What follows are excerpts from three session summaries of the WSSPC '96 Conference Proceedings. The Conference Proceedings can be ordered from the WSSPC office and will be accessible on the WSSPC web site.

Back to Table of Contents

Comprehensive Post-earthquake Information Management

Jim Buika participated in a panel discussion on Comprehensive Post-earthquake Information Management. During his presentation he discussed FEMA's role in the California Clearinghouse, future challenges for the Clearinghouse and WSSPC's potential role in a Clearinghouse situation.
After the Northridge Earthquake, Mr. Buika, on behalf of FEMA, was involved in the California Clearinghouse. This clearinghouse was a positive new experience which worked well for both the geoscientists and engineers.

Following a Presidential disaster declaration, FEMA can assign any Federal agency to get a job done. This also makes them financially responsible. Typically, the USGS functions as FEMA's geoscience experts after an earthquake.

To avoid confusion and unnecessary agency expenditures after an earthquake, FEMA must clarify its financial role in future clearinghouses. Typically, FEMA can fund a large part of the emergency response operation. This is in terms of the first ten days following an earthquake which directly support life saving and property protection emergency operations. FEMA cannot fund normal agency operations after an earthquake.

Work is now in progress to formalize clearinghouse operations. Once completed, these operations will be committed to the California Regional Operations Plan so that they, in turn, become part of the Federal Response Plan. With this information FEMA can more easily establish what operations and expenditures it can and cannot fund.

Improvement in the areas of technology and organization will also greatly enhance future clearinghouse efforts. These areas have been the primary focus over the last few months, for improving Clearinghouse operations.

With today's technology the Clearinghouse must be working towards collating and displaying information daily via GIS and the Internet. Ideally, information should be presented to the emergency response operations in an comprehensive and understandable format on a daily basis.
To respond properly and efficiently to a large earthquake, emergency management, geoscientists, and engineers must be brought together organizationally. The Clearinghouse is potentially a very practical vehicle for doing this effectively.

Organizationally, WSSPC could have a large impact in improving the Clearinghouse. If the Northridge earthquake is any indicator, many western states will wish to send emergency managers or geoscientist to observe the operations and the damage. Thereby, WSSPC's role in the Clearinghouse could be to serve as a coordination agency for providing geoscience and emergency management support to the Clearinghouse. During the initial mobilization effort, WSSPC could organize the western states and thus remove that burden from the Clearinghouse organizers.

In conclusion, there will be a Clearinghouse operation after the next significant California earthquake and the hope is that it will run more efficiently than the Northridge Clearinghouse. Important steps have been taken to improve the operation organizationally. This operation has and will continue in the future to play an important role in providing critical information to emergency management which will translate into saving lives and reducing losses to property following an earthquake.

Back to Table of Contents

Dam Safety and The Flathead Indian Reservation

In Northwestern Montana, the Flathead Indian Reservation's general economy depends on agriculture, which has been greatly enhanced by the Flathead Agency Irrigation Division (FAID). The FAID is characterized by many miles of irrigation canals and man-made dams and reservoirs, which are used to store and distribute water for irrigation.

The FAID facilities includes seventeen dams and reservoirs on or near the Reservation to store water for use on the irrigation project. The majority of the dams were built between 1910-1940. The dams and reservoirs are located at strategic locations throughout the project to provide collection and storage of spring runoff, and subsequent release of water during the summer irrigation season.
Examination of the dams associated with the project reveal that the majority are unsafe and pose a high risk to property and people down-stream. Many of the dams have spillways which cannot pass large floods, resulting in overtopping of the dams. Several of the dams have extensive seepage through the earthen fill or foundation material, and have potential for liquefaction which may result in failure of the dam.

The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes contracted from the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) a Safety of Dams (SOD) Program. The SOD Program is designed to eliminate or reduce to acceptable levels the concerns which have been identified at the FAID dams.

This program has completed extensive geologic and seismic investigations on the Reservation and in Northwestern Montana, and determined that the active Mission Fault which (continued on page 9) Dam Safety (cont. from page 6) passes through the Reservation would have greatest impact on the FAID dams. Seismic activity and movement on the fault may result in liquefaction and failure of the dams. Thus, the design of SOD corrections must include elimination of liquefaction in the dam or foundation materials.

Part of the SOD Program is the Flathead Early Warning System (EWS). EWS is designed to detect conditions upstream, at, or downstream of the dams that would indicate that dam failure may occur, or has occurred. The EWS will also alert proper authorities to evacuate downstream people from the inundation areas. A component of the EWS is the Flathead Seismic Monitoring System (SMS). The SMS will detect seismic events and resultant ground movement that may indicate damage has occurred to dams.

Each of six seismic monitoring site consists of a vertical ground motion detector, solar panel/battery power supply, radio and antenna, and equipment shelter housing. Continuous ground movement data detected at each site, is transferred than stored and downloaded several times a week Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG), Earthquake Studies Office for analysis and inclusion into their data base. However, significant or interesting events can be downloaded to the MBMG at any time for analysis. The results of the data, including magnitude and location of major events is then relayed back to the FAID headquarters. If ground movement events meet magnitude and distance-from-dam criteria established by the Bureau of Reclamation, an immediate inspection of the dams for damage will occur.

The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have an agreement with the MBMG to receive and analyze the data, and to provide assistance with periodic maintenance of the system
To date, the monitoring system has been in operation over one year, and has provided valuable seismic information. The system has recorded many seismic events, two of which were of magnitude and location that prompted inspection of the dams. The sensor sites have run continuously, except for several short duration during the winter when cold and lack of sunshine affected the power supply. Additional batteries will be added to the sensor sites to alleviate the power shortage problem. The cost of equipment and installation of the base station and six sensor sites was about $60K. Annual operation and maintenance of the system is about $5K. The Flathead Seismic Monitoring System has operated as anticipated, and is providing the information necessary to ensure that the safety hazards of the FAID dams is reduced.

Back to Table of Contents

Earthquake and Hazard Insurance

The session on hazard insurance presented by Jim Ammet attempted to provide a better understanding of the current shortages in catastrophe insurance and its effect on the stakeholders. This was done through an explanation of how property insurers measure and price risk.
Traditional insurance pricing is based on statistics generated from what are largely individual, disconnected, random events which happen often enough that they can serve as a basis for predicting the future. This prediction in turn reduces variability or risk to the risk bearer thus reducing the overall cost of funding the insured events. This means of measuring cost is useful with most insurable items such as fires, theft, vandalism, car wrecks, etc. For all of these events an actuary can come up with a solid estimate of what it might cost to insure a particular bundle of coverages for the next year as well as give management a pretty good idea of how much variance from that estimate can be expected.

Although this process works well in most cases it is not effective in predicting catastrophes like hurricanes and earthquakes. These events potential to cause to huge amounts of damage are unevenly distributed over time, and happen so infrequently that each one is essentially a unique event. In spite of this, the insurance industry until the late 1980s relied primarily on traditional history-based estimating techniques to price and measure earthquake and hurricane risk. With few events and almost nothing current, insurer estimates of expected average annual losses (premiums) and potential maximum losses were way too low.

Events such as Hurricanes Hugo, Andrew and Iniki and the Northridge earthquake highlighted the shortcomings of those current practices. As the magnitude of insured exposures became better understood it became obvious that the amount of insurance capital at risk to catastrophic events was much greater than previously assumed, that premiums charged for catastrophe insurance were very inadequate, and that the return to the providers of that at risk capital was too low.

Beginning in the late 1980s computer loss simulation began to emerge as a more reasonable way to estimate expected losses from catastrophic events. With this process the best judgment of experts in the relevant areas of study combined to produce damage parameters which can then be applied to particular inventories of insured property to provide an estimate of average annual and worst case results. Recent earthquakes coupled with computer generated modeling scenarios taught insurers that a lot more of their capital was at risk than they previously realized or ever intended. There are also other indirect impacts such as increased costs of reinsurance, lowered financial ratings and higher debt costs. Faced with this new information insurers had two choices, reduce the amount of exposure (cancel some policies and stop writing new ones) or increase the amount of retained capital as well as the return paid on that capital (raise rates). This is what has happened in California and Florida. A direct result of these actions is concerned politicians and consumer activist which ends with limitations on these practices.

One large complication is the need to have capital available for the worst case loss the day the first policy is written. This is the timing risk because insurer could have losses several hundred times greater than annual premiums in the first year of writing earthquake insurance. This is probably the most difficult of the problems to solve.

One solution is the Hawaii Hurricane Relief Fund (HHRF). The state permits insurers to choose to write residential property insurance policies that exclude hurricane coverage and write a separate HHRF hurricane policy. That coverage is provided by the HHRF and serviced by the insurer. Coverage is limited with things like a 1% deductible, a maximum of $750,000 building coverage and $50,000 personal property coverage. In addition, the capital available to pay losses is limited to the accumulated assets of the HHRF, whatever reinsurance they can buy, and the amount they can borrow against future premium income and assessments that they can level on insurance buyers in the state. If, for example, there were to be a repeat of Hurricane Iniki the HHRF would be left with a large debt that would ultimately have to be paid by buyers of all kinds of insurance in Hawaii. If there were to be a loss greater than Iniki it is likely that policyholders would get less than full recovery.

While that may not seem like a particularly good deal for Hawaiian homeowners it did accomplish a couple of things. Regular homeowners coverage is again available in Hawaii. In the unlikely event that another hurricane strikes the islands the accumulated assets of the HHRF are available and are building tax free. If nature cooperates and enough time passes before there is another Hurricane in Hawaii everything should work out.

The California Earthquake Authority (CEA) legislation awaiting the governor's signature, at this time, is based on similar principles. Coverage is provide by the CEA and serviced by homeowners insurers. Coverage is limited - 15% deductibles, four walls and a roof (no coverage on patios, pools, driveways, etc.), $5,000 on personal property, $1,500 on ALE etc. Capital is available to handle losses up to $10.5 billion at the outset. That would arguably handle earthquake loss twice that of Northridge on those coverage terms. As capital accumulates tax free in the CEA that coverage level will gradually go up - provided of course there is some time before another earthquake of any magnitude occurs. In the meantime, homeowners insurance will become available again and the capital that is available for earthquake coverage is focused where it is likely to do the most good.
One criticism of insurance companies is that little is done to support mitigation, particularly in the pricing of products. Some may be familiar with the Insurance Institute for Property Loss Reduction (IIPLR). It is an insurance industry funded association dedicated to reducing property losses. IIPLR is a young organization but has been effective in collaborating insurance industry efforts to address these issues. It is more effective than individual insurers acting as individual companies which are limited in what they might accomplish. The insurance industry has always been active in the area of standard setting, building codes, and fire protection and relied on the enforcement of those standards to reduce losses. That effort and focus continues today.

There is a need for improvement in providing direct economic incentives to policyholders for loss mitigation. There are rating variables based on construction and fire protection, credits for burglar alarms and smoke detectors, etc. This falls short with residential earthquake. Part of that arises out of the fact that, until recently at least, earthquake premiums were not large enough to allow for reduced rates. As premiums, and perhaps more importantly, deductibles, increase there is more value in direct premium incentives and greater reasons for those in the residential housing loop -- developers, lenders, builders, realtors, and home buyers -- to take more of an interest. When this occurs, those in the mitigation field must be there to assist. It will be necessary to create a mitigation conscious culture with mitigation strategies researched, documented, valued and ready.

Back to Table of Contents

National Seismic Safety Advisory Boards' Workshop hosted by FEMA and the California Seismic Safety Commission

In December of 1996, National Seismic Safety Advisory Boards' Workshop was held in Los Angeles -- the first of its kind. The event was hosted by the California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The workshop provided an opportunity for the various state seismic safety advisory board members, state earthquake program managers and many other participants to discuss earthquake issues and risk management strategies and to exchange information.

Each state in attendance had the opportunity to present the basic role of their state advisory board played in earthquake risk mitigation, how the board was formed, what is the status of the board within the state, the basic organization of the board, and one or two major risk reduction measures that the board has successfully implemented. A publication summarizing these presentations and the other workshop sessions will be made available.

Breakout sessions were opportunities for participants to explore specific topics. The breakout session topics were "How to Make Your Advisory Board Most Effective," "Developing State and Local Seismic Hazard Maps," "Adopting and Enforcing Seismic Building Codes," "Effective Communication of Earthquake Risk to Non-Technical Audiences," "Mitigation Program Development," "Hazard and Risk Assessment," "Earthquake/All Hazards Insurance," and "Legislation and Policy Development."

The workshop also provided an opportunity to see mitigation efforts in action. A choice of two field trips were offered during the workshop. The first field trip option was to the Walt Disney Pictures and Television Studios in Burbank. During that field trip a presentation was made about Disney's performance based crisis management system which includes: emergency response plan, employee training programs, earthquake mitigation measures, emergency sheltering and supplies, and seismic strengthening of structures. The second field trip option was of selected City of Los Angeles seismic mitigation and response programs. The City of Los Angeles provided attendees with examples of seismic retrofit programs for unreinforced masonry structures, cost-effective examples of single-family dwelling seismic strengthening, and a steel moment frame repair. The trip concluded with a tour of Los Angeles County's new base isolate emergency response center.

The event began with an open meeting of the CSSC and ended with an open meeting of the Los Angeles Mayor's Blue Ribbon Panel - Seismic Hazard Reduction. Both meetings were very insightful to the successful workings of policy bodies.

Back to Table of Contents