[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 11]
# Š 7054Imperceptible, whilo 2.5 can bo tells neay tho point of origin and 3 can be felt (ger fair-sized area. Slight damage can be caused at 4.5, a level of 5 is considered dan a sing, 7 is major, and 8 is a "great earthquThe Issue, most geologists and semic experts agree, is not whether another block-buster quake will occur, but when. It could happen any time.Should that earthquake occur "tomorrow," these experts believe, the following realities awalt Californians:Tens of thousands of ballens built in the first half of the century, clearly hazardous under severo earthquake conditions, in use in San Franet.co and Los Angeles, could topple, endangering thousands of lives (an estimated 200,000 in fos An les alone).Other thousands of buddha, built on or near faults face destruction from ground shaking and land 1.11.High-rise buildings, bullt to more modern standards, may not topple, but face serious hazards of fire, disabled elevators and In-adequate stairwell safety.Earthquake disaster urgency plans are in the nascent stages throughout the state, hampered by apathy among public oficials, lack of funds and Infrequent exercises,The public is III-prepared to cope with earthquakes or their aftermaths. There is virtually no publicity about what to do dur-ing or after a major quake. Earthquake drills are rarely, if ever, held in communi-ties or in public buildings (schools aro an exception).A recent federally sponsored study gives these estimates of death and injury should a temblor of more than 7 or 8 on the Rich-ter scale occur in or near San Francisco or Los Angeles:San Francisco-as many as 10,000 persons dead and 40,000 injured. (Should a major dam break, the death toll could rise to 60,000.) Another 56,000 could be left home-less (not including dan evacuees).Los Angeles-as many as 20,000 deaths and up to 600,000 injured. Additional deaths possible due to major dam fallure-up to 14,000. Homeless (not including dam evacuees), up to 180,000.At the very best, Californians are fatalistic about earthquakes, accepting that they will come, and hoping they will be out of the affected area when it happens."You don't know when it is going to be or how it's going to be," sald one West Los Angeles resident. "I should put money into making my house earthquake-proof when I could be in some skyscraper swaying when it happens? Who cares?"In San Francisco, a college professor re-cently asked 125 residents in a random sampling what they would do if an earth-quake comes. Sixty per cent said, in effect, "Start praying. What else is there to do?"What can be done? In fact, quite a lot-and some of it is being accomplished in the areas of building code upgrading, land-uso planning, emergency preparedness, earth-quake prediction, and public education. But the effort of a few agressive legislators, state and local officials, and private citizens is frustrated by the low level of priority generally asstened to earthquake protection.The "kill ratio" of past California earth-quakes is extremely low compared to, say, traffic accidents. About 000 persons have died as the results of quakes since the turn of the century compared to an average annual bighway toll of 4,800. Thus there are those who argue against expenditure of time and effort on something as mercurial and unpre-dictable as an earthquake.California's new governor, Elmund G. Brown, Jr., is said to be one of those. According to a recent news story, Brown suggested that money being allocated for safe buildings might be used to improve the quality of edu-cation, to rehabilitate housing for the poor, or to create construction Jobs.ALL INFORMATION CONTAINEDHEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIEDDATE 1-19-01 EY Sparkm 186NW-88206-Doeld-32989532- Page 12# GRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATIAfter the San Frenando quake, there was a flurry of studies, hearings, plans and legislation.In Los Angeles, the building code requirements were toughened. Explained Bob Williams, general manager of Los Angeles' Department of Building and Safety: "We doubled the loading strength requirements and required standards twice as strong in re-inforced concrete and reinforced masonry."Los Angeles' building code is in some respect tougher than the Uniform Building Code to which most jurisdictions in the state adhere. One official, Long Beach building director Edward M. O'Connor, a leading proponent of better preparedness, contends that the Uniform Building Code falls short."It does not fulfill the purpose of the code: to preserve life, limb, property and the public welfare in the event of an earth-quake," he said.Changes in the uniform code come slowly. They are modeled after recommendations by the Callfornia Structural Engineers Association, composed of professional engineers who help design buildings.The recommendations usually represent a balance of conservative and liberal strains within the association, and, according to some observers, are strongly influenced by economic considerations.The drafters of the uniform code are still wrestling with one of the central lessons of the San Fernando earthquake the fact that major buildings are being constructed with little knowledge or consideration of soil and geological conditions and how they might respond to ground shocks.Geologists and seisnile experts admit they know very little about what causes earth-quakes or precisely how buildings are affected by local or even distant shocks. Now, for the first time, California is placing instruments that measure motion in key buildings around the state. But they must await an-other earthquake to produce usable data.In the meantime, seismic considerations are working their way slowly-some say too slowly-into building requirements.New laws ban construction directly over active faults, require satisfactory geologic studies before new hospitals are built, require that a "seismic safety element" be in-cluded in local planning, and require the correction of unsafe dam conditions.This legislation added up to the most pro-gressive package of earthquake measures in 40 years, but it was not accomplished without resistance. The restriction on building on or near faults, for example, Inspired a storm of protest from real estate developers and in-dividual lot owners that eventually forced a modification softening the restriction.A hospital law passed in 1972 requires that detalled geological and soil reporis for proposed hospital construction be reviewed by state geologists.James Flosson, director of the state Department of Mines and Geology, promptly ran into problems."The reports the first few months were a disgrace to the profession," Flosson said. "We Insisted that they be redone, and done again until they were right. I've had my head bloodied many times as a result. I've been threatened, told my career would be ruined-a few geologists tried to get me fired. But we stood by our guns and now the quality of the reports is excellent."Another area of controversy is highrise safety. Berkeley architect Karl V. Steinbrugge believes the modern steelframe construction will withstand Intense shocks. But Henry J. Degunkolb, a San Francisco structural en-gluser and frequent critle of safety standards, sald:"I would not find it unreasonable to expect... there will be 15 to 30 total collapses with another 50 to 100 severely damaged" in San Francisco.While there is disagreement about high-# April 29, 1975rise collapse, there is a broad consensus that most existing high rises are vulnerable to ex-tensivo internal damage from unbolted equipment and, most significantly, from fire.The dangers are serious enough to have prompted major changes recently in fire regulations for all future buildings.All future high rises (above 75 feet) will be built with automatic governors that bring elevators instantly to ground level, and, most importantly, with sprinkler systems at every level.All but a minuscale number of the nearly 2,000 high rises presently in Los Angeles and San Francisco lack sprinkler systems.Requirements that they be installed were written into a state law last year, but elforts to draft regulations ran into fierce opposition from builders, the Chambers of Commerce and other businessmen.The battle is still being fought.San Francisco's disaster plan is advanced over those of other municipalities, but it suffers from lack of a central communications network, insufficient coordination among de-partments and inadequate practical exercises, according to a city planning department study."All it is is a paper organization," said Alfred Goldberg, head of the city's building department.Goldberg's concerns are echoed by James Halgwood, state emergency services officer in charge of helping to create state-level disaster plan for Southern California.Commented Halgwood: "I don't think most elected and appointed officials understand they have a real responsibility to have their jurisdictions prepared. They are only doing a barebones job."# RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIESMr. CHURCH. Mr. President, in accordance with the provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, I submit now for publication in the RECORD the rules of procedure for the Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities. These rules were adopted by the members of the Select Committee on April 9, 1975. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the RECORD.There being no objection, the rules were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:# RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE SELECT COм-MITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERA-TIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, U.S. SENATE, ADOPTED APRIL 9, 1975These Rules are issued pursuant to the 1st Section of Senate Resolution 21, 94th Congress, 1st Sesion, agreed to January 27, 1975, and printed in full in the appendix hereto.# RULE 1. CONVENING OF MEETINGS1.  1 The Committee may schedule a regular day and hour for the Committee to meet.2.  2 The Chairman shall have authority, upon proper notice, to call such ediditional meetings of the Committee as he may diem necessary and may delegate such authority to any other member of the Com.mittee.3.  3 A special meeting of the Committee may be called at any time upon the written request of six or more members of the Committee filed with the Clerk of the Committee.4.  4 In the case of any meeting of the Committee, other than a regularly scheduled meeting, the Clerk of the CommitteeENCLOSURE 62-116395-1149