PLAN FOR DEVELOPING AND ADOPTING SEISMIC DESIGN

GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR LIFELINES

SEPTEMBER 1995

Prepared by

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Mitigation Directorate

Washington, DC 20472
CONTENTS

List of Tables ........... iii

Preface ........... v

Acknowledgments ........... v

EXECUTVE S'UMMARY .............................. vii

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview .......................................

1.2 The Vulnerability of Lifelines to Earthquake Damage ............ 1.3 The Need for Lifeline Seismic Design Guidelines and Standards

1.4 Lifelines in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.

1.5 Background for the Development of Lifeline Seismic Design

Guidelines and Standards .............................

1.6 Planning for the Development of Lifeline Seismic Design

Guidelines and Standards ............................. 1.7 References. .......... 

Chapter 2 VULNERABILITY AND CURRENT PRACTICES

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

2.1 Vulnerability Studies ......................

2.1.1 The Conterminous United States ........... 2.1.2 The Regional Level ...................

2.2 Lifeline System Vulnerability .................

2.2.1 Electric Power Systems ................ 2.2.2 Gas and Liquid Fuel Systems ............. 2.2.3 Telecommunication Systems .............

2.2.4 Transportation Systems ................ 2.2.5 Water and Sewer Systems ............... 2.3 Current Practices ........................

2.3.1 Electric Power Systems ................

2.3.2 Gas and Liquid Fuel Systems ............. 2.3.3 Telecommunication Systems ............. 2.3.4 Transportation Systems ................ 2.3.5 Water and Sewer Systems ............... 2.4 References ............................

........... 9

.......... 9.....1

. . . . . . . . . 12

. . . . . . . . . 14

. .. . . . . . . 16

......17

.. .. .. 20

. . . . . . . . . 21

. . . .. . 21

22

. . . .. . 24

. . . . . . 25

.. .. . . 26

.. .. . . 27

September 1995

Chapter 1

i
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTOR ROLES IN THE DEVELOPMENT

OF DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

3.1 Responsibilities for Seismic Safety of Lifelines ... .......... . . 33

3.1.1 Owners and Operators ................... .... .. . 34

3.1.2 State and Local Regulators ...... . . . . . . . . . 34

3.1.3 Federal Regulators .35

3.2 NEHRP Support for the Development of Recommendations for

Lifeline Seismic Design Guidelines and Standards . .36

3.3 References .. 37

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

4.1 The Process of Developing

4.2 The Recommended Approa

4.3 Policy Statement/Strategy

4.4 Management ........

4.4.1 The Roles of the NE

4.4.2 The Lifeline Seismic

4.5 Coordination of Private Se(

4.5.1 The Board's Long-T

4.5.2 ICSSC's Role ...

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.10

4.11

Work Plan .........

Implementation.

Research ..........

Integration into the Infrastr

Funding and Scheduling .

References .........

Design Guidelines and Standards .... . . 39

ch ..... ..................... 40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .4

,HRP Lead Agency and NIST .... . . . . 42

Safety Executive Board ... ......... 42

ctor Standardization Activities ... ...... 44

'erm Responsibilities .... ........... 44

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 46

. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

. . . . . . . . . . . . 49 ... .cur Program.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 ucture Program.. .................. 49

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .5

Appendix CONTRIBUTORS TO THE PLAN ......................... 53

September 1995

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

ii
TABLES

Direct damage losses to regional network lifelines

Direct damage losses to local distribution systems

Indirect economic losses .................

.. .. . 30

... .. 31

....... . . 32

September 1995

2.1

2.2

2.3 . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

iii
PREFACE

Although earthquakes are an inevitable hazard, they are not inevitable disasters.

Experiences in recent years have shown consistently that lifelines properly designed to resist

earthquakes perform well in spite of severe earthquakes; those not so designed are subject to

failure. Assessments of earthquake hazards indicate that one or more severe earthquakes can be

expected to strike U.S. metropolitan areas in the next decade. Until actions are taken to improve

the design and construction of lifelines, failures can be expected to result in substantial losses--

estimated at billions of dollars and many lives for a single severe earthquake.

The plan described in this document defines a process that, if activated, will begin the

development of seismic design guidelines and standards for both new and existing lifelines. The

plan was prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in consultation with the

National Institute of Standards and Technology, in response to Public Law 101-614, the National

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Reauthorization Act.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This plan is the result of the effort of a large group of dedicated professionals from the

private and public sectors. Mr. Ronald T. Eguchi served as chairman of the Steering Group that

provided initial direction for the plan, and as moderator of a workshop that produced the

technical bases for the plan. Dr. James E. Beavers coordinated the review of the plan for the

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Advisory Committee. Contributors are

individually acknowledged in the appendix of the plan.

Funding for developing this plan was provided by the Federal Emergency Management

Agency. Additional support was provided by the National Institutes of Standards and

Technology. The plan was prepared by Richard N. Wright, Robert D. Dikkers, and Riley M.

Chung of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and by Gary D. Johnson, William

S. Bivins, and Harold W. Andress, Jr., of FEMA.

V September 1995
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Lifelines are the public works and utility systems that support most human activities:

individual, family, economic, political, and cultural. The various lifelines can be classified under

the following five systems: electric power, gas and liquid fuels, telecommunications,

transportation, and water supply and sewers.

This plan for developing and adopting seismic design and construction guidelines and

standards for lifelines (hereafter referred to as the Plan) has been prepared in response to Public

Law 101-614, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Reauthorization

Act. The act requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in consultation with

the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to develop "a plan, including precise

timetables and budget estimates, for developing and adopting, in consultation with appropriate

private sector organizations, design and construction standards for lifelines" and

"recommendations of ways Federal regulatory authority could be used to expedite the

implementation of such standards."

The Plan focuses on developing recommendations, encouraging and supporting the

approval of these recommendations by the standards and professional organizations serving the

lifeline community, and working with the lifeline community to achieve their effective

implementation. The Plan is based on the technical input of experts from the private and public

sectors who participated in a workshop held September 25-27, 1991, in Denver, Colorado.

These experts determined that design guidelines and standards are needed to reduce the

vulnerability of lifelines to earthquakes and that adequate knowledge bases exist or can be

developed to produce them. The workshop produced a highly detailed approach for developing

and implementing seismic standards and provided the technical detail upon which the current

plan is based. The NEHRP Reauthorization Act also created the NEHRP Advisory Committee

to advise the agencies on planning and implementing the Program (i.e., NEHRP). NIST and

vii September 1995
FEMA have since worked closely with the NEHRP Advisory Committee to develop the final

approach for this Plan.

Design guidelines lay out a set of principles, which for lifelines may include performance

criteria, materials characteristics, and testing procedures for design, construction, maintenance,

repair, and retrofitting of both existing and proposed systems. Guidelines provide a basis for

making judgments or determining a course of action; they may evolve into recommendations for

standards. A standard, according to the National Standards Policy Advisory Committee, is "a

prescribed set of rules, conditions, or requirements concerning definitions of terms; classification

of components; specification of materials, performance, or operation; delineation of procedures;

or measurement of quantity and quality in describing materials, products, systems, services, or

practices."

Properly developed and effectively implemented lifeline seismic guidelines and standards

will significantly reduce the vulnerability of both existing and proposed lifeline systems to future

earthquakes. Guidelines and standards should (1) establish performance criteria for the

construction, maintenance, and operation of existing and proposed lifeline systems, equipment,

and materials for selected levels of seismic risk; (2) provide a basis for technical specifications

for use by buyers and sellers of lifeline products and services to reduce the vulnerability of

lifeline systems to earthquakes; and (3) provide a reliable basis for regulations to protect the

public health, safety, and welfare.

THE NEED FOR LIFELINE SEISMIC DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

A large portion of the population of the United States lives in areas vulnerable to

earthquake hazards. At least 39 of the 50 states are subject to major or moderate seismic risk.

Experiences in recent earthquakes show that lifeline systems not designed and constructed

for earthquake resistance are subject to failure during earthquakes. Although loss of life and

property damage are generally confined within the felt area of an earthquake, which can be quite

large (as in the case of the Mexico City earthquake of 1985), economic losses caused by the

failure of lifeline systems could be spread throughout the nation as a result of the close

interdependency of its commercial activities.

September 1995 ..i.
Assessments of earthquake hazards indicate that one or more severe earthquakes can be

expected to strike U.S. metropolitan areas in the next decade. Until actions are taken to improve

the design and construction of lifelines, lifeline failures can be expected to result in substantial

losses-estimated at billions of dollars and many lives for a single severe earthquake.

Although earthquakes are an inevitable hazard, they are not inevitable disasters.

Experiences in recent years have shown consistently that lifelines properly designed to resist

earthquakes perform well in spite of severe earthquake effects. For instance, San Francisco's

Bay Area Rapid Transit system, which received special attention to seismic safety during its

design, was functional immediately after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Yet currently, only

in the case of highway bridges, nuclear power reactors, and dams do there exist nationally

recognized guidelines and standards for the seismic design and construction of lifeline systems.

The reason is that these are the areas where federal initiative has been undertaken to support

design guidelines and standards development.

Federal initiative must be extended to all lifeline systems, not only because benefits

extend broadly to private and public sector organizations but also because no single company,

trade association, profession, or state can alone assume the costs of developing nationally

applicable design guidelines and standards consistent among all the interdependent types of

lifelines. Further, while voluntary private sector participation is essential to the success of the

program, private organizations can justify their participation only if that participation is likely

to produce timely results important to their respective businesses-that is, if when the developed

guidelines and standards are properly implemented, the private sector organizations are benefited

by the reduction of the seismic vulnerability of their existing and proposed lifeline systems, or

by their ability to deliver better products and services for lifelines.

STRATEGY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

There are diverse private and public sector responsibilities for the performance of lifeline

systems. Seismic safety and functionality are two of many requirements for successful

performance of lifelines. The Plan, therefore, calls for cooperation among existing organizations

within the lifeline community in order to develop recommendations for seismic safety design

guidelines and standards that are suitable for incorporation into the existing family of lifeline

IX September 1995
design guidelines and standards. These design guidelines and standards can be used voluntarily

by lifeline organizations or referenced in regulations of local, state, or federal agencies.

Roles of Private and Public Sectors

A variety of private sector organizations must be directly involved in the development of

recommendations for design guidelines and standards if they are to understand, have confidence

in, and implement them effectively:

* The diverse owners-both private and public-of public works and utility systems are

responsible for lifeline performance. Owning and operating organizations are vitally

concerned with the efficiency and economy of lifeline design guidelines and standards.

* Manufacturers and suppliers of equipment and services for lifelines have high stakes in

the development of recommendations for design guidelines and standards that will affect

the market for their products and services.

* Design professionals have principal responsibilities for correctly interpreting and applying

design guidelines and standards in the evaluation and retrofitting of existing lifelines and

the design of new lifelines. These professionals and their research colleagues possess

knowledge on the performance of lifelines in earthquakes.

* General and specialty contractors are responsible for correctly implementing design

guidelines and standards in retrofitting and constructing lifelines. The constructability

implications of recommendations for design guidelines and standards are critical to

contractors and are best understood by them.

State, local, and federal government agencies have diverse responsibilities for lifeline

performance as owners, regulators, guarantors of investments, and sources of information. It is

in this last role that NEHRP will request funds to implement the Plan. The Plan provides

mechanisms for the various governmental interests to be represented in the development and

implementation of the recommendations for design guidelines and standards.

Cutting across both sectors are trade associations, technical societies, and professional

societies, which aggregate the interests of owners, manufacturers, and suppliers and provide an

X September 1995
efficient means of representing their interests in the development and implementation of

recommendations for guidelines and standards. The Plan provides for such participation and uses

as its principal implementation mechanism the existing standardization organizations.

The Recommended Approach to Guidelines and Standards Development

A cost-effective approach that will result in near-term implementation activities to reduce

the current vulnerability of existing lifelines and simultaneously minimize the limitations that

may exist in financial and human resources is being recommended. Such an approach takes into

consideration limitations on resources; acknowledges particular features of lifelines that may

have greater impact on loss of life, property damage, and economic consequences; and

establishes a system of prioritization. It supports the timely and cost-effective development of

guidelines and standards by focusing initially on the highest-priority types of lifeline systems,

especially the performance of existing ones, for early realization of benefits to the public through

demonstration projects. This approach has built-in flexibility resulting from the use of guidelines

and standards prepared from current knowledge, their trial application in demonstration projects,

and their successive improvement with experience.

A policy statement/strategy has been developed for the overall effort, and one will be

developed for each lifeline system. The work will begin with an in-depth assessment of available

research results, the state of system practices, and the vulnerability of lifeline systems to seismic

effects. Work will begin on assessing and retrofitting existing lifelines by means of a generalized

risk-based vulnerability assessment approach developed from the existing knowledge base.

Lessons learned from the retrofitting of existing lifelines will be applied to the development of

guidelines and standards for new lifeline systems. Participation by users and policy makers at

the outset of the development process, especially in areas of demonstration projects, can provide

vital support for the work of the technical community. Attention should be given to

implementation strategies, education, and training during the development of guidelines and

standards; the appropriate private sector standards development and professional organizations

should be used as resources.

xi September 1995
Management and Coordination

The approach calls for strong leadership; such a diverse and complex project will require

very careful and skillful management and coordination. Such leadership will involve the NEHRP

Lead Agency, NIST, and a group of private and public sector experts for lifeline seismic design

guidelines and prestandards studies.

Close liaison will be maintained with the fundamental research programs of the National

Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that are conducted under

NEHRP. Research needs will be identified for NSF and USGS, and results of their research will

be applied in the development of lifeline design guidelines and standards. Federal agencies

outside NEHRP will also be involved in support of the project through the Interagency

Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction (ICSSC).

The development and adoption of lifeline seismic design guidelines and standards will be

carried out in two stages. The work in the first stage will be accomplished through a body called

the Lifeline Seismic Safety Executive Board (hereafter referred to as the Board). The second

stage will require sustained private sector standardization activities that must be carried out by

the existing national standards groups and professional organizations, with assistance from the

Board.

The Board will be made up of three components: the Board of Directors, the Lifeline

Directorates, and the Executive Directorate.

The Board of Directors will consist of a chair, from the private sector, a representative

of ICSSC and 12 to 15 technical experts recommended by major lifeline organizations. The

membership of the Board of Directors must provide a balance between researchers and

practitioners. The Board of Directors will define and address the needs and issues of all five

lifeline systems to develop a prioritized overall program plan including the selection of

demonstration projects.

The activities commissioned by the Board of Directors will be carried out by one of the

Lifeline Directorates (hereafter referred to as the Directorates). A separate Directorate will be

established for each of the five lifeline systems. The Directorates will address the specific issues

Xll September 1995
and concerns in each lifeline category as well as conduct specific technical studies of relevance

to the various lifelines. Each Directorate may have six to ten experts, selected by the Board of

Directors.

The Executive Directorate will include a full-time director and staff selected by the ad

hoc working group created by the NEHRP Lead Agency and NIST to form the LSSEB. This

Directorate, supported by NIST, is to provide management and administrative support to the

Board of Directors and the Lifeline Directorates.

The Board of Directors will establish a cooperative agreement with the ICSSC that, as

a minimum, defines areas of common interest, establishes a subcommittee responsible for

guiding joint activities, and appoints an ICSSC member to serve on each of the Lifeline

Directorates.

Over the long term, the Lifeline Seismic Safety Executive Board's major functions and

responsibilities will be as follows:

* To support the development and adoption of national voluntary consensus guidelines and

standards

* To serve as an independent and technical authoritative focal point, working with the

existing standards groups and professional organizations to ensure the development and

application of private design guidelines and standards for lifelines

* To encourage lifeline industries and associated manufacturers, associations, and

professionals to consider earthquakes and their impacts in the planning, design,

construction, and operation of lifeline systems

* To develop recommendations, including priorities, for lifeline seismic safety guidelines

and standards development, research, and implementation activities, including

demonstration projects

xiii September 1995
* To conduct annual workshops to present progress reports and raise project-related issues

and to encourage and obtain input from the industries and associated manufacturers'

associations, standards groups, NEHRP, ICSSC, and professional organizations

* To submit an annual written report to the NEHRP Lead Agency, through NIST, on the

progress and status of the project.

ICSSC can be a vital link in the implementation of these guidelines and standards through

its member federal agencies. It will be represented on the Board of Directors and on each

Lifeline Directorate, in accordance with the cooperative agreement discussed above. ICSSC also

can play an important role in developing nationally applicable earthquake hazard reduction

measures through its cooperative efforts with state and local governments and the private sector.

Work Plan

The process of developing and adopting seismic design- guidelines and standards for

lifelines begins with the establishment of the Board of Directors and the Executive Directorate.

The Board of Directors will select the Lifeline Directorates' members and demonstration

projects.

Demonstration projects are a key element in the process. They provide opportunities to

show early success of the program. They also allow a concentrated effort, early on, on the

performance of existing lifeline systems. Thus, priorities in the development of guidelines will

be guided by the potential for demonstration projects.

The strategy is to learn from demonstration projects. It begins by categorizing lifelines

both by nature and by size in order to select some for inclusion as early demonstration projects.

From a comprehensive list, the Board will choose three to four instances, depending on the

availability of resources. The selection should consider priorities for reducing earthquake hazards

and for federal, state, and local government and industry collaboration.

These demonstration projects should be undertaken by full-time experts drawn from the

Directorates, in collaboration with engineering organizations experienced in such projects and

with consultants as appropriate. Collaboration in each demonstration project will be obtained

XiV September 1995
from the affected industries and/or organizations before the projects proceed. Each project

should include establishing the seismic hazard for several levels of probability; estimating the

fragility of the various links and components; analyzing the implications of failure of the weakest

links and components; developing a prioritized list for replacement and upgrading, including

schedule and costs; and interacting with regulatory bodies and perhaps the public.

Draft guidelines should be prepared at the beginning of each of the demonstration

projects. The result of each project will be an updated version, which should at that stage

already be of potential practical use and which would become the starting point for subsequent

projects and the prestandard-the starting point for standardization.

It is anticipated that in the early years of the project, the Board will be focusing on the

development of prestandards and demonstration projects; in the latter years, it will be focusing

on working with standards groups and professional organizations on the development and

adoption of guidelines and standards. It is anticipated that at the end of the project, the Board

will cease to exist unless it is deemed necessary by the NEHRP Lead Agency and NIST that the

Board or an element of the Board be maintained for continued updates and consensus building.

Implementation

Education and implementation efforts should begin immediately when some lifeline

prestandards are developed and ready for adoption by standards organizations through a

consensus process. After the development of voluntary consensus lifeline seismic standards,

NEHRP will assist the Board in promoting the implementation of such standards "by Federal,

state, and local governments, national standards and model building codes organizations,

architects and engineers, and others with a role in planning and constructing buildings and

lifelines." Federal use of the standards will follow Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Circular A-1 19. To expedite the process, it is recommended that an executive order be drafted

for the implementation of seismic standards for federal lifelines. However, it should be noted

that a broadly applicable executive order will be infeasible before guidelines or standards are

available for all types of federal lifelines. ICSSC also would have responsibility for

recommending procedures for implementing the executive order pertaining to lifelines.

XV September 1995
Funding and Scheduling

Funding to implement the Plan will be requested through separate budget requests by

federal agencies with missions for support of research and development for lifeline guidelines

and standards. Funds are needed to support NIST's role in managing the activities to be carried

out by the Board and providing technical support to the implementation of the Plan. The majority

of the funds will be used for private sector work to conduct the engineering studies of the

Lifeline Directorates and demonstration projects.

The level of funding will depend on the stage of the project. Programmatic needs will be

carefully reviewed annually, along with factors such as the support of full-time experts for each

of the Directorates and the cost of conducting the demonstration projects, so that funding

requests can be adjusted to develop lifeline seismic safety guidelines and standards expeditiously

and efficiently.

The work by the Board and its Directorates is expected to take six to eight years to

complete. However, for the more vulnerable lifeline systems identified and chosen as

demonstration projects, only four years should be required to complete the work. It is estimated

that standards for all five lifeline types will be completed and adopted for use in eight to ten

years, through a well-coordinated effort including a comprehensive and aggressive education and

training program.

xvi September 1995
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW

This document has been prepared in response to the congressional mandate embodied in

Public Law 101-614. The objective was to develop "a plan, including precise timetables and

budget estimates, for developing and adopting, in consultation with appropriate private sector

organizations, design and construction standards for lifelines" and "recommendations of ways

Federal regulatory authority could be used to expedite the implementation of such standards."

Such guidelines and standards would (1) establish performance criteria for the construction,

maintenance, and operation of existing and new lifeline systems, equipment, and materials for

selected levels of seismic risk; (2) provide a basis for technical specifications for use by buyers

and sellers of lifeline products and services to reduce the vulnerability of lifeline systems to

earthquakes, and (3) provide a reliable basis for regulations to protect the public health, safety,

and welfare. The plan for developing and adopting these guidelines and standards will hereafter

be referred to as the Plan.

Guidelines and standards development activities related to the five types of lifeline

systems are presented. These systems are electric power, gas and liquid fuel,

telecommunications, transportation, and water supply and sewers. Nuclear power facilities and

dams are not included because seismic design requirements for these structures are covered

under other federal programs.

This document has four chapters. Chapter 1 describes the consequences of earthquakes

and specifically the vulnerability of lifelines to earthquake damage. It also provides a brief

background discussion of the efforts, since the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, by both the

private sector and the federal government in research and development for lifeline design

guidelines and standards. The process of developing the Plan is described.

Chapter 2 elaborates on the lifeline systems' vulnerability to earthquake damage, with

emphasis on the state of current practices for various types of lifelines. The critical roles played

by the private and public sectors are discussed in Chapter 3.

I September 1995
The Plan is presented in detail in Chapter 4. Numerous issues critical to the success of

such an approach are dealt with, including the emphasis on existing lifeline systems; risk-based

system vulnerability concepts; the policy statement/strategy; the importance of strong leadership

in management and coordination; guidelines and prestandards activities to begin the process; the

creation of an organizational framework to guide the work; the development of demonstration

projects; early implementation, including education and training; and the necessity of problemfocused research.

1.2 THE VULNERABILITY OF LIFELINES TO EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE

Among natural hazards, earthquakes can be the most devastating. The sudden release,

without warning, of strains accumulated in a fault system causes a tremendous amount of energy

to be dissipated in all directions through the propagation of seismic waves. As a result, several

phenomena can be observed: A major earthquake may cause changes in elevation and surface

ruptures over a large geographic area. Strong ground shaking may precipitate landslides and the

liquefaction of loosely compacted and saturated sandy deposits. This temporary loss of soil

bearing strength causes tilting, excessive settlement, or lateral spread of structures' foundations.

Seismic waves also affect structures. Structures resting on the ground are excited into

vibration as a function of their frequency response to seismic waves. Low buildings and short

and stiff bridges, which have higher response frequencies, will respond first to the incoming

seismic waves, followed by tall buildings and long lifeline systems that have lower response

frequencies. When the ground and the structure vibrate at or close to the same frequency, this

resonance can cause local amplification of ground shaking and lead to severe damage or total

collapse of inadequately designed and constructed structures.

A large portion of the population of the United States lives in areas vulnerable to

earthquake threat. At least 39 of the 50 states are subject to major or moderate seismic risk.

Experiences in recent earthquakes show that lifeline systems not designed and constructed for

earthquake resistance are subject to failure when exposed to earthquakes. Although loss of life

and property damage are generally confined within an earthquake's felt area, which can be quite

large (as in the case of the Mexico City earthquake of 1985), economic losses caused by the

failure of lifeline systems could be spread throughout the nation as a result of the close

interdependency of its commercial activities.

2 September 1995
Assessments of earthquake hazards indicate that one or more severe earthquakes can be

expected to strike the nation's metropolitan areas in the next decade. Until actions are taken to

improve the design and construction of lifelines, lifeline failures can be expected to result in

substantial losses-estimated at billions of dollars and many lives for a single severe earthquake.

Although earthquakes are an inevitable hazard, they are not inevitable disasters. Experiences in

recent years have shown consistently that lifelines properly designed to resist earthquakes

perform well in spite of severe earthquake effects. For instance, San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid

Transit system, which received special attention to seismic safety during its design, was

functional immediately after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Yet currently, only in the case

of highway bridges, nuclear power reactors, and dams do there exist nationally recognized

guidelines and standards for the seismic design and construction of lifeline systems. The reason

is that these are the areas where federal initiative has been undertaken to support design

guidelines and standards development.

1.3 THE NEED FOR LIFELINE SEISMIC DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

Federal initiative must be extended to all lifeline systems, not only because benefits

extend broadly to private and public sector organizations but also because no single company,

trade association, profession, or state can alone assume the costs of developing nationally

applicable design guidelines and standards consistent among all the interdependent types of

lifelines. Further, while voluntary private sector participation is essential to the success of the

program, private organizations can justify their participation only if that participation is likely

to produce timely results important to their respective businesses-that is, if when the developed

guidelines and standards are properly implemented, the private sector organizations are benefited

by the reduction of the seismic vulnerability of their existing and proposed lifeline systems, or

by their ability to deliver better products and services for lifelines.

3 September 1995
1.4 LHFELINES IN THE NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION

PROGRAM

On November 16, 1990, the President signed into law Public Law 101-614, the National

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act. It amended the 1977 Earthquake

Hazards Reduction Act, which had established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction

Program (NEHRP). The purpose of the act is to reduce the risks to life and property in the

United States from future earthquakes through the establishment and maintenance of an effective

earthquake hazards reduction program. NEHRP's objectives are:

* The education of the public, including state and local officials, as to earthquake

phenomena; the identification of locations and structures that are especially susceptible

to earthquake damage; the pinpointing of ways to reduce the adverse consequences of an

earthquake; and related matters

* The development of technologically and economically feasible design and construction

methods and procedures to make new and existing structures in areas of seismic risk

earthquake resistant, giving priority to the development of such methods and procedures

for power-generating plants, dams, hospitals, schools, public utilities and other lifelines,

public safety structures, high-occupancy buildings, and other structures that are especially

needed in time of disaster

* The implementation, to the greatest extent practicable, in all areas of high or moderate

seismic risk, of a system (including personnel, technology, and procedures) for predicting

damaging earthquakes and for identifying, evaluating, and accurately characterizing

seismic hazards

* The development, publication, and promotion, in conjunction with state and local officials

and professional organizations, of model building codes and other means to encourage

consideration of information about seismic risk in making decisions about land-use policy

and construction activity

* The development, in areas of seismic risk, of improved understanding of, and capability

with respect to, earthquake-related issues-including methods of mitigating the risks from

4 September 1995
earthquakes, planning to prevent such risks, disseminating warnings of earthquakes,

organizing emergency services, and planning for reconstruction and redevelopment after

an earthquake

* The development of means of increasing the use of existing scientific and engineering

knowledge to mitigate earthquake hazards

* The development of strategies that will ensure the availability of affordable earthquake

insurance.

A major accomplishment of NEHRP is the development of the NEHRP Recommended

Provisionsfor Development of Seismic Regulationsfor New Buildings [1]. The recommended

provisions have led to the incorporation of up-to-date seismic design and construction provisions

in nationally recognized voluntary consensus standards for new buildings and the three model

building codes that provide the bases for the building regulations of most state and local

governments. These provisions have also provided an effective means of implementing research

results in building practices. Meanwhile, the research community-through fundamental research

programs of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS)-has responded to the need for knowledge that was revealed in the development of the

NEHRP provisions.

This Plan for seismic design guidelines and standards for lifelines is based on this

successful experience in cooperative private and public sector activities for building standards

in NEHRP.

Specifically, Section 8(b) of Public Law 101-614 states:

LIFELINES-The Director of the Agency [Federal Emergency Management

Agency], in consultation with the Director of the National Institute of Standards

and Technology, shall submit to the Congress . . . a plan, including precise

timetable and budget estimates, for developing and adopting, in consultation with

appropriate private sector organizations, design and construction standards for

lifelines. The plan shall include recommendations of ways Federal authority

could be used to expedite the implementation of such standards.

5 September 1995
In response to this mandate, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in

consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), representatives of

the federal and private sector and NEHRP's Advisory Committee, developed the Plan.

1.5 BACKGROUND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFELINE SEISMIC DESIGN

GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

The 1971 San Fernando, California, earthquake demonstrated the vulnerability of

lifelines. Modern highway bridges collapsed, and water supply and electricity were lost in the

affected areas. In 1974, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) established its

Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE) to elevate the state of the art

of lifeline earthquake engineering. Under NEHRP, NSF has sponsored substantial research

efforts on lifelines. Since NSF's establishment of the National Center for Earthquake

Engineering Research (NCEER) in 1986, NCEER has devoted a major segment of its program

to lifeline research.

NEHRP has focused on buildings in its initial efforts to develop seismic safety practices.

Seismic standards for lifelines have received limited and fragmentary attention. The Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) has supported the development of seismic design standards

for highway bridges, which have been incorporated in the national standards of the American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the Interagency

Committee on Dam Safety has recommended practices for the seismic safety of dams. TCLEE

has produced Advisory Notes on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering [2] and Guidelinesfor the

Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems [3], but these are not definitive design and

construction standards.

In 1985, FEMA asked the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), the parent

organization of the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), to prepare a plan to reduce seismic

hazards to new and existing lifelines [4]. Under the direction of a BSSC action plan committee,

specialists in all lifeline categories and in legal/regulatory, political, social, economic, and

seismic risk aspects of lifeline hazard mitigation were invited to prepare issue papers. Forty-two

issue papers were circulated among peers and were the basis of discussions by the 65 participants

6 September 1995
at a workshop held November 5-7, 1986, in Denver. The major product of the workshop was

a plan titled Abatement of Seismic Hazards to Lifelines: An Action Plan [5].

The BSSC plan recommended actions in four areas: (1) public policy and legal and

financial strategies; (2) information transfer and dissemination; (3) emergency planning; and (4)

scientific and engineering knowledge. Most of the recommended activities concerned the

enhancement of scientific and engineering knowledge (e.g., improvement of geotechnical

knowledge; increase in knowledge of performance of specific components; development of

improved equipment and materials for use in seismic-resistant construction; development of

design criteria, codes, and standards of practice for design, construction, and retrofitting of

seismic-resistant lifeline facilities). However, the action plan did not focus on the systematic

development and adoption of seismic design guidelines and standards for all types of lifelines,

existing and new.

In 1989, the NIBS Ad Hoc Panel on Lifelines recommended that FEMA undertake a

national coordinated program to mitigate the effects of earthquakes and other natural hazards on

lifelines [6]. Recommended activities included awareness and education, vulnerability

assessment, design criteria and standards, regulatory policy, and continuing guidance.

As indicated by the NIBS ad hoc panel, "design criteria and standards for lifeline hazard

mitigation provide consistent minimum recommended levels of facility engineering design and

construction practice. They identify natural hazard abatement techniques and practices for those

responsible for all phases of lifeline design, construction, and operation and serve as the basis

for model code provisions, which can be considered by local, state, and federal regulatory bodies

for adoption into ordinances and regulations."

1.6 PLANNING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFELINE SEISMIC DESIGN

GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

The Plan was prepared by FEMA, in consultation with NIST. Technical input, guidance,

and resources were provided by ASCE's TCLEE, NCEER, other private sector organizations,

several agencies of the Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction (ICSSC), and

the NEHRP Advisory Committee. Individual contributors to the Plan are listed in the appendix.

7 September 1995
1.7 REFERENCES

1. NEHRP Recommended Provisionsfor Development of Seismic Regulations for New

Buildings, Earthquake Hazards Reduction Series 17, Federal Emergency Management

Agency, 1988.

2. Advisory Notes on Lifeline EarthquakeEngineering, American Society of Civil Engineers,

1983.

3. Guidelinesfor the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas PipelineSystems, American Society of

Civil Engineers, 1984.

4. An Evaluation and Planning Report-The Lifeline Segment of the FEMA Earthquake

Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency, September 1989.

5. Abatement of Seismic Hazards to Lifelines: An Action Plan, Building Seismic Safety

Council, FEMA-142, August 1987.

6. Strategies and Approachesfor Implementing a Comprehensive Programto Mitigate the

Risk to Lifelinesfrom Earthquakesand Other NaturalHazards, prepared by the Ad Hoc

Panel on Lifelines, National Institute of Building Sciences, for FEMA, June 1989.

8 September 1995
CHAPTER 2: VULNERABILITY AND CURRENT PRACTICES

2.1 VULNERABILITY STUDIES

How much loss might a city or region experience from future earthquakes? It is not

possible at present to predict accurately when and where major earthquakes will occur, how

many people will die or be injured, and what the damaging effects will be on a wide variety of

buildings and structures of different ages and conditions. However, it is possible to make

estimates that will indicate the nature and magnitude of the problem faced by a city or region.

These estimates are referred to as vulnerability studies.

Lifeline experts propose conceptual breakdowns of lifeline systems as a basis for

developing design, construction, and retrofit standards. Each system is broken down into

elements (which may also be considered major subsystems) and possibly into components

(individual items of equipment or closely integrated equipment) to determine its vulnerability to

earthquakes.

2.1.1 The Conterminous United States

In September 1988, the Applied Technology Council (ATC), with support from the

Federal Emergency Management Agency, initiated an assessment of the seismic vulnerability of

lifeline systems nationwide. The purpose of the project was to develop a better understanding

of the impact of lifeline disruption caused by earthquakes and to assist in the identification and

prioritization of hazard mitigation measures and policies [1].

Four basic steps were followed to estimate lifeline damage and subsequent economic

disruption for given earthquake scenarios: development of a national lifeline inventory database;

development of seismic vulnerability functions for each lifeline system or system component;

characterization and quantification of the seismic hazard nationwide; and development of

estimates of direct damage and of indirect economic loss for each scenario earthquake.

9 September 1995
Several problems were encountered that could not be resolved because of technical

difficulties and lack of available data. For example, telecommunication systems, nuclear and

fossil fuel power plants, dams, and certain water, electric, and transportation facility types at

the regional transmission level were excluded from consideration because of the unavailability

of inventory data or the need for more in-depth studies.

Interaction effects between lifelines, secondary economic effects (the impact of a reduced

capacity of one economic sector on a dependent sector), and damage resulting; from landslides

also could not be considered because of a lack of inventory data nationwide. These and other

limitations tend to underestimate the losses. Other factors in the study tend to overestimate the

losses. Lack of capacity information for most lifelines was also a definite limitation. In the

aggregate, the estimates of losses presented are considered to be quite conservative. Some of the

study findings for eight scenario earthquakes are summarized below.

Direct-damage losses to regional networks and local distribution systems would range

from $1.2 billion for a Wasatch Front scenario to nearly $10 billion for a New Madrid (surface

wave magnitude [MJ] = 8.0) scenario. Under the other six scenarios, direct-damage losses

would range from $2.8 billion to over $3.7 billion. (These figures are obtained by summing the

values in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.) Indirect economic losses would range from $3.9 billion for a

Wasatch Front scenario to $14.6 billion for a New Madrid (M. = 8.0) scenario (Table 2.3).

Human death and injury due to the functional curtailment of lifelines generally can be

expected to be very low. However, casualties could result from direct damage, especially

catastrophic collapse of lifeline components. Lifeline failures that could cause substantial loss

of life and injuries include bridge failure, railroad derailment, and pipeline failure.

Unfortunately, data for estimating death and injury associated with these component failures are

not available.

2.1.2 The Regional Level

Regional vulnerability studies, sponsored by FEMA, USGS, and NSF, that have estimated

all losses in a region resulting from an earthquake have been performed in various parts of the

10 September 1995
country. Studies that have included some type of lifeline vulnerability estimate have been done

for the following regions, ranked in order of their comprehensiveness in addressing lifelines [2]:

1. Southern California

2. Northern California

3. The New Madrid seismic zone

4. The Wasatch Front area in Utah

5. The Pacific Northwest, including Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon

6. The Charleston, South Carolina, area

7. The Northeast, including Boston, Massachusetts.

Since the early 1970s, at least 20 published reports have focused on earthquake losses or

reliability assessment of lifelines. Of these, at least one-third have focused on California. In

addition, probably an equal number of studies have been performed for private sector entities,

such as utility companies, and have not reached the general research community. Only a handful

of studies, however, provide quantitative estimates of losses or vulnerability. Fewer consider the

secondary, or indirect, effects of lifeline failures.

The findings of the studies [3-6] that provide quantitative estimates of regional

vulnerability can be summarized as follows: for the city of Everett, Washington, direct lifeline

losses ranging from $100 million to $304 million and indirect lifeline losses ranging from $32

million to over $136 million for a range of earthquake scenarios (M. = 6.5 to 8.25); for St.

Louis city and county, Missouri, direct lifeline losses of $690 million for an M, = 7.6

earthquake and $1.062 billion for an M. = 8.6; for the metropolitan Boston area, Sdirect lifeline

losses of $156 million (plus 53% loss of functionality for oil) in an M. = 6.25 earthquake; and

for six cities in the central United States in the New Madrid seismic zone, direct lifeline losses

of $5.5 billion for an M. = 7.6 earthquake and over $8.1 billion for an M. = 8.6.

Some studies have estimated numbers of breaks or service leaks or the percentage of

disruption, and others have provided qualitative statements of lifeline vulnerability. In almost

all cases where quantitative losses have been estimated, the largest direct losses are attributed

to either transportation or electric power systems.

To a large extent, the data collected from the 1971 San Fernando and 1989 Loma Prieta

earthquakes substantiate these relative vulnerabilities. In the 1971 San Fernando earthquake,

direct damages to the electric power and transportation systems were among the highest. For

electric power systems, direct losses exceeded $33 million. In comparison, direct losses to

11 September 1995
natural gas systems were approximately $2 million. In the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, as

well, the more significant direct losses were associated with electric power and transportation

system failures.

2.2 LIFELINE SYSTEM VULNERABILIY

2.2.1 Electric Power Systems

The dependence of modem society on electric power becomes clear if power is lost for

any reason; it is obvious to any individual from personal experience. But there are more subtle

effects on community services and industry. In many respects, power systems are the lifelines

to other lifelines. Because of the reliability of power systems in the United States, emergency

power is typically provided only to those functions that would cause an immediate life-safety

threat should there be a loss of power. Typically, emergency power is provided only for the

control of systems so that they can be safely managed, rather than for their continued operation.

Many water systems are dependent on pumps to maintain pressure, so that a loss of

power will quickly cause a drop in water pressure and flow. This can be critical for fire control

and suppression after an earthquake. Even in the case of gravity-feed water systems, water

treatment facilities require electric power for their control and operation; there can be a loss of

water quality and safety with a loss of power.

Transportation systems would be severely affected by the loss of power. Mass transit in

many large cities is directly powered by electricity. With the loss of power, traffic signals do

not operate, so that. urban transportation is severely disrupted. Liquid fuels that are used to

power most motor vehicles would be useless without power to pump fuel from storage tanks to

the vehicles.

While telephone systems are designed with emergency power backup, the introduction

of optical fibers in user loops poses a new problem. These systems are often powered by

batteries that are not provided with emergency recharging facilities. As a result, the impact of

power disruption on telephone communications may be much more severe than it was in past

earthquakes.

The impact of the loss of power on communities can also be severe. The loss of light

would disrupt most business operation. The impact on computers, which permeate modem

commerce, would be extreme. While most large data processing centers have emergency power

12 September 1995
so that the system can be safely shut off, terminals, such as those used by the banking system,

would not operate. Within the home there would be a loss of refrigeration. Power losses longer

than a day would cause severe health problems. Most heating systems will not operate without

electricity, even if the primary energy source is gas. Under severe winter conditions this would

result in extensive freezing of water pipes and severe exposure of persons in unheated buildings.

Electric power system seismic performance in the United States, as measured by power

disruption, has been very good for the small and moderate earthquakes experienced to date.

Network redundancy has been adequate to overcome the extensive damage to isolated highvoltage substations. In the case of the Loma Prieta earthquake, where several substations were

damaged, the character of the damage and the use of emergency procedures made it possible to

restore most service in less than one day.

Damage to power distribution systems has also occurred, but this has caused only

localized disruption. Its occurrence is not well documented.

The major cause of power system damage to date has been the effect of induced

vibration. Liquefaction has the potential to cause power system damage, but in the few cases

where power facilities have been directly affected by liquefaction, its consequences have been

minor. The effects of landslides, subsidence, ground faulting, and tsunamis on power systems

have been minor. However, many power-generating stations are on shorelines, so tsunamis may

have a potential damaging effect.

Since most damage observations in the United States have been limited to California

earthquakes, extrapolation of power-system performance to large and great earthquakes must

take several factors into consideration:

* There are no data from a great or major earthquake centered in a modern metropolitan

area.

* Seismic design practices in California have been evolving since the 1920s; since the 1933

Long Beach earthquake, an impetus has been given to the seismic design of California

power facilities.

* An earthquake occurring in most any region outside California will affect a larger area

than an earthquake of the same magnitude occurring within California.

13 September 1995
* Liquefaction may cause more damage to power-generating facilities than has been

observed in California.

* California and many other seismically active regions of the world do not have coal-fired

generating stations, so the seismic performance of these facilities is untested.

* Some power systems outside California have higher operating voltages. The seismic

vulnerability of substation equipment (especially porcelain members) increases with its

operating voltage.

2.2.2 Gas and Liquid Fuel Systems

Gas and liquid fuel systems provide energy for transportation as well as for electric power

generation and the production of necessary goods and services, including heating in cold

environments. In areas directly affected by a destructive earthquake, the general public could

be adversely affected by the shutdown of oil and gas transmission lines, damage to gas

distribution systems, or interruption of electric power generation due to loss of fuel supply. The

lack of a fuel source can also pose a serious problem for many industrial facilities. Curtailed

operation of such facilities affects not only the companies involved but the public served by or

dependent upon the company's product or service. The monetary losses and social disturbance

attributable to a shutdown can be substantial, especially if the disruption in service is for a

significant period of time.

Earthquake damage to oil and gas transmission lines also may have an adverse effect on

the populace hundreds of miles from the stricken area. For example, a number of pipelines

transporting crude oil, crude oil products, and natural gas pass through the central United States

within and adjacent to the New Madrid seismic zone in southeastern Missouri and northeastern

Arkansas. The amount of crude oil transported by three pipelines that pass near or within the

New Madrid seismic zone is estimated to be 1.4 million barrels per day, or about one-half the

total amount delivered to refineries in the Midwest. In the case of natural gas, there are about

18.5 million residential customers in the Midwest and Northeast (8.8 and 9.7 million customers,

respectively). About 70% of the Midwest gas and 60% of the Northeast gas is transported by

pipelines that pass through or near the New Madrid region. Consequently, a major earthquake

in the New Madrid area could cause shortages to as many as 18.5 million customers, with the

relative impact depending to a large degree on time of year and weather conditions.

14 September 1995
The effect on the national energy supply of earthquake damage to transmission pipelines

in the New Madrid seismic zone is difficult to assess. Interruptions in crude oil delivery would

not be immediate because some inventory would be held downstream in refineries. Normally,

inventories on the order of two to three weeks should be available. However, the recurrence of

a great earthquake in the New Madrid area that resulted in widespread liquefaction or

catastrophic slides could leave a number of pipelines out of service for a longer period of time.

The earthquake consequences for gas transmission lines are similar to those for liquids

lines, except that the potential impact on customers is more immediate, especially if the seismic

event occurs in the winter. Only limited storage facilities are available to accommodate peak

period usage.

The consequences of pipeline rupture differ for gas and liquid fuel pipelines. The

principal concerns for natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines are explosion and fire,

which could be a threat to public safety and could mean loss of service to customers.

Environmental concerns are virtually nonexistent, because the release of natural gas to the

atmosphere is generally inconsequential.

For crude oil or liquid oil product pipelines, the explosion and fire hazard is diminished

considerably, but the potential release of crude oil. or liquid products into watersheds and

groundwater and the potential contamination of water supplies are serious environmental and

health issues. The loss of service to customers is also an important concern but is secondary to

the environmental threat.

Gas and liquid fuel transmission and distribution systems traverse large geographic areas

and thus may encounter a wide variety of seismic hazards and soil conditions. The major seismic

hazards that can significantly affect gas and liquid fuel systems are:

* Fault movement

* Liquefaction (lateral spreading, flow slides, loss of support, buoyancy)

* Landslides

* Ground shaking

* Tsunamis or seiches

15 September 1995
The various components of gas and liquid fuel systems are affected by seismic hazards

in different ways. For example, ground shaking and subsidence are major concerns for aboveground components, such as buildings and storage tanks, but are of little concern for buried

pipelines. Faulting, liquefaction, and landslide hazards, on the other hand, can often be avoided

for above-ground structures by careful siting but cannot always be avoided for buried pipelines.

In coastal areas, tsunamis or seiches are potential hazards for marine terminal facilities.

Other potential seismic hazards, which are less likely to damage welded steel pipelines,

include seismic wave propagation and subsidence.

2.2.3 Telecommunication Systems

There have been two major telecommunication system failures in recent years. While

neither of them was earthquake-related, both demonstrated the potential impact of

telecommunication disruption. The impact was widespread-six states, three airports,

transatlantic long distance. One of these failures was caused by software, while the other was

caused by power failure. The impact lasted only a few hours, since there was no physical

damage to the equipment. The consequences of earthquake-related disruption with resultant

damage to components in the telecommunication system would be many times more severe than

the two incidents described above. The cost associated with the damage, both direct and indirect,

would be huge. Emergency services and reconstruction efforts would be impaired. A damaged

node in the network could cripple other states that are not considered seismically active. National

security would be affected if communication was lost.

The earthquake performance of telecommunication systems has been satisfactory on the

West Coast. However, the same cannot be said for potential performance on the East Coast and

in the Midwest. Advances in technology have added more concentration and less dispersion to

the system, thereby making it more vulnerable. The so-called redundant system in most cases

is not truly redundant, since the cables-copper and fiber-optic-share the same route or the

same conduit. Computers deployed in the network to facilitate network management are not

protected against earthquake load. Failure of this equipment could impair the function of the

network. In some cases, communications would be lost.

Little is known about the overall vulnerability of the telecommunication system. Several

activities have been recommended to begin to remedy this situation.

16 September 1995
A common occurrence in the telecommunication system during an earthquake is focused

overload. A system is not designed to handle calls above its capacity, which is set according to

the traffic patterns of each central and toll office. It is not cost-effective to provide full-capacity

connectivity to all subscribers when the highest demand at peak periods is only a small

percentage of full-capacity connectivity. Overload can be minimized by educating the public.

They should be aware that indiscriminate use of the phone during and after earthquakes may

cause hardship for people who need assistance and that the phone should be used for

emergencies only; and they should know to place receivers back on the hook when they are

knocked off by an earthquake. This information can be disseminated by the telecommunication

industry.

Telecommunication operators can use network management features to direct or manage

traffic to avoid overload. However, since the trend is toward unmanned offices, activating a

special function for overload control may require human intervention. An alert mechanism

should be in place to prompt key individuals to monitor and execute special functions (e.g., for

essential services) in an emergency.

As signaling and circuit connection path functions are being performed less and less by

switching equipment and more commonly by newer technology, the redundancy inherent in the

existing system is greatly reduced. This will increase potential vulnerability unless compensated

by sufficient redundant routes.

2.2.4 Transportation Systems

The consequences of failure in a transportation lifeline due to an earthquake or other

natural disaster can involve:

* Direct loss of life due to collapse or structural failure of the lifeline

+ Indirect loss of life due to an inability to respond to secondary catastrophes, such as fires,

and/or provide emergency medical aid

* Delayed recovery operations

* Release of hazardous products (e.g., losses from tank cars derailed by track failure, gas

leaks from ruptured utility lines)

17 September 1995
* Direct loss of property and utility service (e.g., the collapse of a bridge carrying utilities)

* Losses due to interruption of access (e.g., export losses due to port damage)

E Disruption of economic activity across the nation as well as in the community directly

affected.

Although transportation lifeline disruption or failure is not considered a major risk to life

safety, the socioeconomic consequences can be particularly devastating to the general public.

These include the primary impacts that flow directly from impeded access to hospitals,

evacuation areas, emergency relief centers, and fire departments, and the secondary impacts due

to closed mass-transit facilities and the inability to get to or from work for an extended period

of time.

With the exception of systems in California, few transportation lifelines in the United

States have been designed for earthquakes. As a consequence, their vulnerability to seismic loads

is high and, in some cases, critically so. It is recognized that if a moderate earthquake of the

past were to recur on the East Coast today, major if not crippling losses would be sustained.

Outside California, the probability of occurrence of a damaging earthquake is low, but

the consequences of such an event would be very great, far greater than the consequences of

such an event within California. Such a situation is the direct result of an absence of nationally

applicable seismic design standards for transportation lifelines. However, the situation is further

aggravated by the deteriorating state of the nation's infrastructure, which includes most of the

transportation lifelines. Furthermore, many of these lifelines fall under multiple jurisdictions,

both public and private, and many are dependent on each other or located in parallel arteries.

Should one fail, others might fail as a consequence-the domino effect.

Historically, bridges have proved to be vulnerable to earthquakes, sustaining damage to

substructures and foundations and in some cases being totally destroyed as substructures fail or

superstructures are unseated from their supporting elements. In 1964 nearly every bridge along

the partially completed Cooper River Highway in Alaska was seriously damaged or destroyed.

Seven years later, the San Fernando earthquake damaged more than 60 bridges on the Golden

State Freeway in California. It is estimated that it cost the state approximately $100 million to

repair and replace these bridges, including the indirect costs due to bridge closures. In 1989, the

Loma Prieta earthquake in Northern California damaged more than 80 bridges in a five-county

region and caused the deaths of more than 40 people in bridge-related collapses alone. The cost

18 September 1995
of the earthquake to the transportation system was $1.8 billion, of which the damage to stateowned viaducts was about $200 million and the damage to other state-owned bridges was about

$100 million.

Pavements are also vulnerable to earthquake damage, due principally to ground failure

such as liquefaction. Recent examples include the failure of the approaches to the San FranciscoOakland Bay Bridge in October 1989 and the closure of the highway between Lim6n and San

Jose in Costa Rica due to the Valle de la Estrella earthquake of April 1991. Pavements can also

be damaged as a result of fault rupturing, as observed during the Hebgen Lake earthquake in

Montana in 1959.

Landslides are another common reason for highway closure, especially in mountainous

regions. Slides occurred in Montana (1959), on Highway 17 in California during the Loma

Prieta earthquake (October 1989), and also in the Philippines (Baguio, 1990).

Although railroad systems suffer damage similar to that suffered by highways, their

operation is much more sensitive to permanent ground deformation than highway operation is.

A survey of damage to railroad components during past earthquakes in the United States and

Japan shows damage to bridges, embankment failures, vertical and horizontal track

misalignments, tunnel misalignments, failure of tunnel linings, structural damage to railroad

buildings, and overturned rail cars and locomotives.

Mass-transit systems have generally behaved well during large earthquakes (Mexico City,

1985, and San Francisco, 1989). This is most probably because they are essentially buried

structures, and few lines actually cross active faults. However, loss of electric power can disrupt

service, as it did in San Francisco during the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989.

Ports and waterways are, by their nature, constructed on soft, saturated sites that are

susceptible to site amplification effects and/or soil failure. Historically, damage due to

earthquakes has included flooding due to tsunamis (Anchorage, 1964), massive flows and

flooding due to liquefaction (Seward, Prince William Sound, 1964), and structural damage to

wharves and container cranes (Oakland, 1989). Even relatively minor damage can close a port

for an extended period of time, and loss of export revenue can have a crippling effect on some

economies (e.g., Chile, 1985).

Failures of airport runway pavements have occurred in the past because of ground

deformation and/or liquefaction effects. In 1989, 3000 feet of the north end of the 10,000-foot

19 September 1995
runway at Oakland Airport was damaged as a result of liquefaction, causing the closure of that

section of the runway. Flight operations were not severely affected, because an adequate length

of runway remained undamaged. At San Francisco Airport, however, damage-to the windows

and contents of the control tower caused temporary closure of the facility, followed by restricted

operations for a period of 36 hours. The airport terminal building also experienced widespread

secondary damage to nonstructural components. The potential for severe structural damage

appears to be lower for airports than for other transportation systems, principally because the

basic components are pavements and buildings. However, even minor structural damage can

cause closure of a facility and severely impede recovery efforts. Current building codes are lifesafety oriented and do not protect against damage to secondary, or nonstructural, components.

Control centers at airports or at en route centers are particularly vulnerable to contents damage

and consequential loss of operation. Similarly, loss of electric power, telecommunication, or

radar equipment due to relatively minor structural damage can have a major impact on both local

and regional air traffic operations.

2.2.5 Water and Sewer Systems

The disruption of water and sewer lifelines could seriously affect emergency facilities,

fire suppression systems, telecommunication systems, water supplies, sewers, and sewage

treatment plants.

* Emergency facilities: Water could be unavailable to serve emergency facilities. Hospitals

in Santa Cruz, California, lost their water supplies in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.

* Fire suppression systems: The loss of water systems would greatly increase the risk of

conflagration, which is potentially more destructive than the earthquake itself. Following

moderate earthquakes, water systems for fire suppression have not been functional in

critical areas (San Francisco, 1906, 1989; Olympia, Washington, 1949; Seattle,

Washington, 1965; and Santa Cruz, California, 1989).

* Telecommunication systems: The cutoff of water supplies with the resulting shutdown of

cooling systems could render computer-dependent telecommunication systems inoperable.

* Water supplies: If distribution systems were damaged, drinking water would have to be

trucked in until the water system could be restored. Businesses would have to remain

closed until water service was restored because of health and fire hazards.

20 September 1995
* Sewers: As a result of loss of power and damage to pump station buildings and

equipment, sewage (in reduced volumes because of water system dysfunction) would

overflow from manholes into city streets, back up into basements, and run into drainage

conduits. Sewers in areas that suffer significant permanent ground deformation would be

destroyed completely. Sewers in less-affected areas might sustain damage that would go

unnoticed, presenting a hazard to health.

* Sewage treatment plants: In an earthquake, sewage treatment plants not designed for

seismic resistance would sustain damage. Raw or inadequately treated sewage that had

reached the sewage treatment plant would be discharged into the receiving water body.

Providing water for fire suppression is the most critical requirement for water system

function following an earthquake. The city of San Francisco was largely destroyed by fire after

the 1906 San Francisco earthquake because the water system was inoperable. Following the 1906

earthquake, the city constructed an earthquake-resistant auxiliary water system to provide water

for fire suppression for the next earthquake.

Neither the municipal nor the auxiliary water system was functional in some areas of San

Francisco requiring water for fire suppression following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The

city was extremely fortunate that there was no wind the evening of the earthquake to spread the

fires that resulted.

2.3 CURRENT PRACTICES

2.3.1 Electric Power Systems

Buildings associated with power systems generally are subject to local building codes.

This includes power plants, the structures that contain plant energy control centers, substation

control houses, service center buildings, and buildings for the technical support staff. Within

California, building codes have included seismic requirements for some time and are constantly

being updated. However, older structures may be deficient. Outside California, most building

codes have not had seismic requirements--a situation that only now is beginning to change.

Building codes establish minimum criteria for life safety. Lifeline experts believe that severe

damage can be expected in a major earthquake and that buildings necessary for continued power

system operation may not be functional.

September 1995 21
In general, most power system facilities other than buildings are not governed by seismic

codes or standards. An exception is the Western Area Power Administration's substations.

WAPA uses Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Standard 693, Recommended

Practicefor the Seismic Design of Substations, a standard that otherwise is seldom used. Large

power utilities have manuals of practice that cover the design and construction of power

facilities; outside California, however, most utilities have few ifany seismic requirements. Many

utilities have formally adopted a 0.2g horizontal static force requirement for substation

equipment, which if used in procurement specifications is typically not considered seriously. The

use of this requirement for equipment anchorage, particularly for critical high-voltage substation

equipment, is very limited.

In general, California utilities have instituted practices to improve seismic performance.

For most utilities outside California, earthquake hazard is not considered a salient issue, and

little has been done to improve the seismic response of their facilities. One exception is the

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) in the Northwest, which since the 1971 San Fernando

earthquake has completed a comprehensive seismic study; initiated a seismic upgrade program;

and established policy, criteria, and standards for new and existing systems [7].

The Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering of ASCE has conducted a

series of specialty conferences and symposia addressing seismic issues related to power systems.

Proceedings have been published. TCLEE has also published Advisory Notes on Lifeline

EarthquakeEngineering. This material is descriptive in character and is not in a standard or code

format. These notes review earthquake damage and give some general guidance for improving

the seismic response of power systems. Detailed suggestions are given for the anchorage of a

few types of equipment.

2.3.2 Gas and Liquid Fuel Systems

The minimum standards for gas and liquid fuel systems are defined in Title 49 of the

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 192 and 195, respectively [8,9]. The federal

regulations for transportation of gas and liquids are based, respectively, on American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) B31.8 and B31.4, which have been developed and maintained by

technical committees of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Except for a

general statement of the need to design liquid pipelines (ANSI B31.4 and 49 CFR 195) for the

effects of earthquake-induced external loads, the ANSI standards and the CFR do not prescribe

seismic design requirements. These standards and regulations represent minimum requirements

22 September 1995
for design, construction, and operation; many companies exceed the requirements stipulated by

the ANSI standards and the CFR for safety.

A guideline on the seismic design of most major components of oil and gas pipeline

systems was prepared by the ASCE Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifelines in the early

1980s [10]. The document was intended primarily for engineers engaged in the design of oil and

gas pipelines and facilities; however, it also provides guidance to pipeline company management,

regulatory groups, disaster recovery agencies, and insurance companies. The document is a

compendium of knowledge on the practice of earthquake engineering for oil and gas pipeline

systems but is not a design manual, code, or standard.

Most new pipeline systems, especially those in regions of high seismic exposure, are now

subject to the requirements of federal and state governmental regulatory agencies for design to

mitigate geologic hazards. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the

Department of the Interior regulate interstate natural gas and oil transmission systems,

respectively, while state public utility commissions regulate intrastate pipelines. There is no

regulation or guiding policy for prescribing seismic mitigation measures; rather, it seems that

seismic issues are addressed' more or less independently for each project.

Current practice for the seismic design of major pipeline systems (new construction)

follows the precedent set by the nuclear industry in that two levels of earthquake hazard are

selected for design. The low-level event generally has a return period of 50 to 100 years and is

referred to as the probable design earthquake (PDE). As a requirement self-imposed by the

owner, the system is designed to withstand the PDE without significant damage and with

minimal interruption of operational functions. The higher-level event is generally one that has

a return period of 200 to 500 years or more, depending upon the nature of the facility. This

event is referred to as the contingency design earthquake (CDE) and is an event for which the

major regulatory requirement is that the system not pose a threat to safety or to the environment,

although significant structural damage could occur. The amount of permissible damage varies

according to the type of structure or component and its function.

Except for American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 650 for liquid storage tanks and

various standards and regulations for liquid natural gas tanks (e.g., 49 CFR 193 [11]), no codes

or standards are directly applicable to the seismic design of gas and liquid fuel systems. The

1984 ASCE guidelines partially fill this void by providing a comprehensive and perceptive

summary of accepted practice.

September 1995 23
Since the publication of the ASCE guidelines, a number of studies have advanced the

knowledge of seismic hazard mitigation for gas and liquid fuel systems.

At most plant facilities, structural design has been performed in accordance with

governing building codes. Since 1988, the Uniform Building Code (UBC) has been generally

applicable to industrial facilities. Lifeline experts believe that the code lacks specific guidance,

however, in the classification of structures and components according to performance objectives

and relative importance.

2.3.3 Telecommunication Systems

There are no uniform practices across the range of telecommunication companies,

although there are some remnants of the historic Bell System practices in most of the central

offices. Furthermore, private networks have practices that are different from those of the public

networks. Telecommunication systems have evolved so quickly after divestiture that it is difficult

to track what has changed.

Since the industry is no longer regulated, competition dominates most planning and

investment decisions. There are no standards governing all telecommunication systems. Although

a competent level of engineering to mitigate earthquake damage is feasible and achievable, the

lack of demand and requirement has kept the industry from reaching that level.

For equipment protection in switching facilities, planners and purchasing agents are

specifying seismic protection as a requirement. Bellcore and ATC specifications are used for this

purpose. New products are required by the Bell Operating Companies to meet seismic

requirements specified in the Network Equipment Building System specifications. However,

non-Bell companies are not following this practice.

Public Switched Network facilities in general do not use central fire suppression systems,

but materials used in these facilities have to meet Underwriters Laboratories (UL) specifications.

When Public Switched Network facilities share a building with other tenants, however, the fire

suppression system is required to meet codes. Lifeline experts believe that damage caused by

these systems may be far more extensive than that caused by the fire itself.

Regarding transport facilities, the Bell Operating Companies follow Bellcore specifications

(TRTSY-000043, Above-Ground Electronic Equipment Enclosures, and TRTSY-000026, BelowGround Electronic Equipment Enclosures). Much of this information originated from Bell

24 September 1995
System practices. These specifications do not address earthquake-related design and installation

practices, however, and there is a knowledge gap in certain areas, such as fiber-optic cable.

It is common practice to leave cable slack between splice points or between poles.

Though not driven by seismic considerations, this practice reduces the possibility of excessive

strain on the cable due to ground movements.

2.3.4 Transportation Systems

Very few standards have been written explicitly for the design and construction of

transportation lifelines. Those that do exist are only for components (e.g., bridges), and none

addresses system wide performance.

Current practice is therefore based on sound professional judgment, which means that

where relevant codes or standards are available they are used; where they are absent, design

guidelines are based on judgment. This judgment may, in turn, be based on previous experience

in the same field or borrowed from similar experience in related fields (e.g., building design).

Of all the transportation components, the highway bridge has been the most closely

studied for seismic vulnerability, and standards have been prepared for bridge seismic design.

The best example of such a standard is the seismic specification for new highway bridges,

adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in 1990.

These AASHTO requirements are philosophically defensible and nationally applicable. Some

states, such as California, have developed their own seismic specifications for bridges, which

take into account regional differences in seismicity and design practice.

On the other hand, standards for upgrading existing highway bridges are not as well

developed. A set of retrofit guidelines was issued by FHWA in 1983, and the California

Department of Transportation (CalTrans) has prepared in-house material for its bridge engineers,

but there is no standard or universal guide for the seismic retrofitting of existing bridges at this

time.

The same is true for other common modes of transportation, such as railroads and rapidtransit systems. Nationally accepted seismic design requirements do not exist for these systems,

and hence considerable differences are found in seismic design requirements and practice.

However, general recommendations for bridges are included in Chapters 8 and 15, for concrete

25 September 1995
and steel railroad structures, respectively, of the current American Railway Engineering

Association (AREA) Manualfor Railway Engineering, but these are not considered to be as

rigorous as the AASHTO highway bridge requirements.

In the absence of a unified code, current design practice for mass-transit systems in

seismic areas appears to use a selection of codes and standards drawn from various sources.

The situation for the other transportation lifelines appears to be similar. There are no

codes or standards written specifically for these systems.

2.3.5 Water and Sewer Systems

Current design and construction practices have been documented by ASCE's TCLEE,

primarily through the use of a guideline approach. Guidelines and/or standards of practice have

been specifically developed for water and sewer systems by the U.S. military, the Japan Society

of Civil Engineers, a municipal utility, and a consultant. These documents are in varying levels

of detail, incorporate an inconsistent list of considerations, and do not have consensus among

a wide range of users in the United States. While the first of these, the Tri-Service Manual, was

not developed specifically for water and sewage facilities, it may have the most complete

coverage available for such facilities. This document considers some policy, system evaluation,

and component design. It includes relevant chapters on mechanical and electrical elements;

structures other than buildings, including elevated tanks, vertical tanks, horizontal tanks, and

buried structures; and utility systems, including earthquake considerations for utility systems,

general and specific planning considerations, and design considerations. Design details are also

included.

Equipment and materials standards that consider seismic design exist in some categories

for tanks, pipe, plant piping, and electrical equipment.

* Tanks: The American Water Works Association (AWWA) has standards for steel

(AWWA D100-84), bolted steel (AWWA D103-87), and prestressed concrete tanks

(AWWA Dl 10-86). Each of these three standards has specific requirements for seismicresistant design of these three categories of tanks.

* Buried pipe: The AWWA has standards for ductile iron, steel, concrete, and asbestos

cement pipe; fittings; valves; and hydrants. It also has standards for pipe installation.

While these standards address such things as materials controlling ductility and bell

26 September 1995
dimensions controlling spigot insertion length and allowable rotation, there is no specific

reference to seismic design.

* Plant piping: Several professional and manufacturers' organizations have standards and

guidelines for plant piping. ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Code 31.1 includes

detailed requirements for design of pipe/support structural systems. The code is used in

the energy and manufacturing industries. The National Fire Protection Association

(NFPA) standard for installation of fire sprinklers includes seismic-resistant pipe-support

details [12]. This standard is usually applied only to sprinkler systems, although it is a

good reference for other types of pipe-support detailing. The Manufacturers

Standardization Society has three standards (MSS 58, 69, and 89) governing different

aspects of pipe supports, none of which considers seismic design [13-15].

* Electrical equipment: IEEE has a standard for seismic qualification of equipment for the

nuclear industry [16]. This standard is not applied in the water and sewage industry

because of the extreme additional cost of the equipment. The National Electrical

Manufacturers Association (NEMA) has no provisions for seismic resistance in its full

spectrum of electrical equipment specifications normally applied in water and sewage

facility designs.

* Wells: Current well design standards do not include seismic considerations.

2.4 REFERENCES

1. Seismic Vulnerability and Impact of Disruption of Lifelines in the Conterminous United

States, ATC 25, Applied Technology Council, 1991.

2. Eguchi, Ronald T., and Susan D. Pelmulder, "Impact on the National Energy

Distribution Network," Indirect Economic Consequences of a CatastrophicEarthquake,

Development Technologies, Inc., Washington, DC, October 18, 1991.

3. Earthquake Loss Estimationfor the City ofEverett, Washington's Lifelines, prepared by

Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton for USGS, May 1991.

4. EstimatedFutureEarthquakeLossesfor St. Louis City and County, Missouri, Earthquake

Hazards Reduction Series 53, FEMA/Central United States Earthquake Preparedness

Project, June 1990.

27 September 1995
5. Ebel, John, E. Fratto, K. Kadinsky-Cade, N. Remmer, E. Thomas, M. N. Toksoz, and

K. Wiesner, MetropolitanBoston Area Loss Study, Loss Analysis Committee Report and

Recommendations, Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency, February 1990.

6. An Assessment of Casualtiesfor Six Cities in the Central United States Resulting from

Earthquakesin the New MadridSeismic Zone, FEMA/Central United States Earthquake

Preparedness Project, October 1985.

7. Procedures and Criteriafor Increasing the Earthquake Resistance Level of Electrical

Substations and Special Installations, R-7211-13-2859, prepared by Agbabian and

Associates for the Bonneville Power Administration, September 30, 1973.

8. "Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline," Title 49, Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR), Part 192, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1991.

9. "Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline," Title 49, Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR), Part 195, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1991.

10. Guidelinesfor the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, American Society of

Civil Engineers, 1984.

11. "Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities: Federal Safety Standards," Title 49, Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR), Part 193, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1991.

12. Installationof SprinklerSystems, NFPA 13, National Fire Protection Association, 1989.

13. Pipe Hangers and Supports-Materials, Design, and Manufacture, ANSI/MSS SP-58,

Manufacturers Standardization Society of the Valve and Fittings Industry, Inc., 1975.

14. PipeHangersandSupports-SelectionandApplication,ANSI/MSS SP-69, Manufacturers

Standardization Society of the Valve and Fittings Industry, Inc., 1976.

15. Pipe Hangers and Supports-Fabricationand Installation Practices, MSS SP-89,

Manufacturers Standardization Society of the Valve and Fittings Industry, Inc., 1978.

28 September 1995
16. Recommended Practicefor Seismic Qualification of Class JE Equipmentfor Nuclear

Power Generating Stations, IEEE Standard 344-1987, Institute of Electrical and

Electronic Engineers.

29 September 1995
Table 2.1

DIRECT-DAMAGE LOSSES TO REGIONAL NETWORK LIFELINES

($ millions)

Scenario

Earthquake

Cape Ann

Charleston

Fort Tejon

Hayward

New Madrid

(M = 8.0)

New Madrid

(M = 7.0)

Puget Sound

Wasatch Front

Electric

Highways Power

382 1312

773 1264

470 886

206 1310

2216

204

496

323

2786

1077

1834

90

Railroads

9

156

158

115

458

106

96

31

Natural

Gas

0

0

-11

6

Refined Crude

Oil Oil Water

0

0

0

0

0 0

0 0

28 140

0 91

56 28 47 0

19

6

6

9

0

0

19 0

0 18

0 0

Data from References 2.4.1 - 4.

30 September 1995
Table 2.2

DIRECT DAMAGE LOSSES TO

LOCAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

($ billions)

Scenario Electric

Earthquake Power Water Highways

Cape Ann 0.89 0.30 0.60

Charleston 0.74 0.31 0.50

Fort Tejon 0.91 0.23 0.23

Hayward 0.90 0.20 0.25

New Madrid (M = 8.0) 2.07 0.88 1.40

New Madrid (M = 7.0) 0.65 0.28 0.44

Puget Sound 0.58 0.09 0.28

Wasatch Front 0.38 0.13 0.26

Data from References 2.4.1 - 4.

31 September 1995
Table 2.3

INDIRECT ECONOMIC LOSSES

Scenario

Earthquake

Cape Ann

Charleston

Fort Tejon

Hayward

New Madrid (M = 8.0)

New Madrid (M = 7.0)

Puget Sound

Wasatch Front

Indirect Loss

(in billions. 1991 $)

9.1

10.2

11.7

11.1

14.6

4.9

6.1

3.9

Data obtained by summing Table 2.1 and 2.2

32 September 1995
CHAPTER 3: PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTOR ROLES IN THE

DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

3.1 RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SEISMIC SAFETY OF LIWELINES

The nation's lifeline infrastructure encompasses thousands of individual facilities that are

owned, operated, and regulated in distinctly different ways to fill critical national needs. The

lifeline infrastructure reflects the diversity inherent in providing the various services (electric

power, gas and liquid fuel, telecommunications, transportation, water and sewer) [1]. Discussed

below are the responsibilities for the performance of lifeline facilities, including their seismic

safety, which extend across many public and private sector interests

-owners, operators, regulators (local, state, federal), manufacturers, suppliers, design

professionals, and contractors.

The development, adoption, and application of effective seismic design guidelines and

standards for existing and new lifelines are the major means through which future earthquake

damage could be reduced. Information on how a cooperative program will be managed and

coordinated to accomplish the goal is presented and discussed in Chapter 4.

The various owners, operators, and regulators of lifelines (private and public) are vitally

concerned with the efficacy, efficiency, and economy of design guidelines and standards that

govern the seismic performance of lifelines. They must be directly involved in the development

of recommendations for such guidelines and standards if they are to understand them, have

confidence in their quality, and implement them effectively.

Other groups as well-manufacturers, suppliers, design professionals, researchers,

contractors, trade associations, technical and professional societies-should be directly involved.

In the case of manufacturers and suppliers of equipment and services, design guidelines and

standards will affect the properties required of, and the market for, their products and services.

Design professionals have principal responsibilities for correctly interpreting and applying

guidelines and standards in the evaluation of and retrofitting of existing lifelines and in the

design of new ones. Researchers must be involved because their experience and expertise will

33 September 1995
be valuable to the development process. General and specialty contractors are responsible for

correctly implementing project specifications in retrofitting and constructing lifelines. Trade

associations and technical and professional societies aggregate the interests of owners, operators,

manufacturers, and suppliers and provide efficient means for their interests to be represented in

the development process and in implementation.

3.1.1 Owners and Operators

Most electric power, gas and liquid fuel, telecommunication, and railroad facilities are

privately owned and operated, as are many water supply systems. State highways, bridges, and

tunnels and federal-aid highways are owned by individual states. Local governments own

municipal, county, and parish roads, bridges, and tunnels. They and regional authorities own

and operate water and sewer, light rail/transit, airports, and ports and harbors. In the midst of

these facilities, and sometimes interconnected with them, are federally owned lifelines. Federal

facilities represent a small percentage of the total number of lifeline facilities.

- Ownership influences how the application of mitigation measures for the retrofitting of

existing facilities or for new facilities can be effected. Theoretically, government-owned systems

(e.g., highways and bridges) should be more readily updated and protected because they are

operated in the public interest; however, fiscal considerations often impede this process, as has

been the case with bridges and highways that require upgrading and replacement. Also, it would

be reasonable to expect that investor-owned utilities (e.g., telephone, pipeline, and certain

electric power systems) would update their facilities to maintain their corporate reputation for

safety and reliability, to protect themselves from liability claims by victims of lifeline failure,

and to protect their capital investments. In actuality, this happens only if the utility perceives its

facilities to be sufficiently at risk, and if mitigation is feasible [1].

3.1.2 State and Local Regulators

Electric power, gas, telecommunication, and railroad utilities typically are regulated by

state public utility commissions. State highway and transportation departments administer

highways, bridges, and tunnels. Municipalities, counties, and parishes generally operate and

maintain their highways, bridges, and tunnels through local public works departments. Those

local governments or authorities established to own and operate region-wide water and sewer,

34 September 1995
light rail/transit, airport, and port and harbor facilities tend to be self-regulators; that is, states

often delegate authority to them to regulate their own operations. Many state and local activities

are similar to those described below for federal regulators.

3.1.3 Federal Regulators

The existing framework of federal regulation of lifelines includes:

* Direct federal ownership and operation of lifelines

* Financing and grants-in-aid

* Licensing, permitting, and rate making

* Disaster assistance

Systems owned and operated by the federal government include the Department of

Energy's Western Area Power Administration, Bonneville Power Administration, and

Southwestern Power Administration (transmission systems) and Alaska Power Administration

(a generation and transmission system). The federal government also owns and operates the

Tennessee Valley Authority and, under the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway

Administration (which designs and constructs roads and bridges within federal lands) and the

Federal Aviation Administration (which constructs, owns, leases, or operates staffed and unstaffed facilities to support the National Airspace System). Through the Bonneville Power

Administration, Southeastern Power Administration, Alaska Power Administration, and

Southwestern Power Administration, the Department of Energy sells as well as transmits power.

The federal government provides financing and grants-in-aid through the Department of

Transportation's Federal Highway Administration, which funds the Federal-Aid Highway

Program, the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program, and emergency repair

and reconstruction. DOT's Urban Mass Transportation Administration makes matching grants

to finance construction and rehabilitation of public transit systems, and its Federal Aviation

Administration funds airport planning and development programs.

The government's function in licensing, permitting, and rate making for lifelines is

fulfilled by a number of federal bodies. The Department of Energy's Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission sets rates and charges to transport and sell natural gas, transmit and sell electricity,

35 September 1995
and transport oil by pipeline. It also licenses hydroelectric projects. The Federal

Communications Commission regulates interstate and foreign communications by wire and radio,

including radio and television broadcasting; telephone, telegraph, and cable television operation;

two-way radio and radio operation; and satellite communication. And the Interstate Commerce

Commission regulates interstate surface transportation, including railroads, and certifies carriers,

rates charged, and adequacy of service. In a related role, the federal government creates safety

regulations through the Department of Transportation. DOT's Office of Pipeline Safety regulates

natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline safety standards programs, including a program

through which states can assert safety regulatory jurisdiction. Also through DOT, the Federal

Railroad Administration regulates rail safety, including track maintenance, inspection standards,

equipment standards, and operating practices, and inspects railroad and related industry

equipment, facilities, and records. And through the Environmental Protection Agency, federal

regulators administer programs for water supply and water pollution control and ground-water

protection, as well as other programs not related to seismic design for lifelines.

The federal government provides disaster assistance through several agencies. The

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) coordinates these activities. Additionally,

FEMA administers federal disaster assistance programs for presidentially declared disasters,

including funds to repair, restore, reconstruct, or replace public and private nonprofit facilities

owned by state or local governments.

3.2 NEHRP SUPPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR LIFELINE SEISMIC DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

When the risks of and vulnerability to damage from earthquakes from all areas of the

country are added together, the federal government has more potential exposure than any other

single unit of government or organization. No other governmental body or private entity has as

much incentive to foster consistent standards on a national basis. If the various lifeline areas

were to move wholly by voluntary consensus, without the catalytic encouragement and financial

assistance of the federal government, the process would take decades and the results would be

uneven.

In keeping with the objectives of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program,

it is recommended that federal responsibilities for the development and adoption of seismic

36 September 1995
design guidelines and standards for lifelines be carried out under NEHRP. The approach and

responsibilities of the NEHRP Lead Agency and NIST for carrying out the Lifeline Seismic

Standards Program are discussed in Chapter 4.

3.3 REFERENCES

1. Strategies and Approachesfor Implementing a Comprehensive Program to Mitigate the

Risk to Lifelines from Earthquakes and Other NaturalHazards, prepared by the Ad Hoc

Panel on Lifelines, National Institute of Building Sciences, for FEMA, June 1989.

September 1995 37
CHAPTER 4: THE DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN

GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

4.1 THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

Design guidelines lay out a set of principles, which for lifelines may include performance

criteria, materials characteristics, and testing procedures for design, construction, maintenance,

repair, and retrofitting of both existing and proposed systems. Guidelines provide a basis for

making judgments or determining a course of action; they may evolve into recommendations for

standards. The definition of a standard provided by the National Standards Policy Advisory

Committee is "a prescribed set of rules, conditions, or requirements concerning definitions of

terms; classification of components; specification of materials, performance, or operation;

delineation of procedures; or measurement of quantity and quality in describing materials,

products, systems, services, or practices" [1]. In terms of building design and construction, a

standard may be a specific set of requirements or instructions for the testing, design,

manufacture, installation, and use of a building material component or system [2]. Standards for

lifeline design and construction must give special attention to the performance of each lifeline

as a system and to the interdependence of the various lifeline systems.

The primary public benefits of standards are the improvement of safety and the

safeguarding of health and welfare. A standard exists when an agreement has been obtained on

its content. The level of agreement may range from a consensus of employees of an organization

(company standard) to a full consensus developed by representatives of all sectors that have an

interest in the use of the standard (consensus standard). Consensus standards generally receive

the highest level of recognition by regulators and others involved in design and construction

because of the rigorous procedural requirements and broad participation in the process. Once

a consensus standard is approved, it usually is maintained and updated periodically.

In general, the promulgation of a consensus standard is preceded by a variety of research,

testing, and prestandard development activities. Under certain appropriate conditions, guidelines

and standards may be developed at a faster pace through an iterative process. It begins with a

set of preliminary guidelines, applied and assessed in demonstration projects through which

39 September 1995
technical knowledge gaps can be identified; needed problem-focused research can then be carried

out to fill those gaps. In other words, demonstration projects provide the opportunity to improve

the original set of guidelines that later will be developed into a standard.

4.2 THE RECOMMENDED APPROACH

A cost-effective approach that will result in near-term implementation activities to reduce

the current vulnerability of existing lifelines and simultaneously minimize the limitations that

may exist in financial and human resources is being recommended.

The approach takes into consideration limitations on resources; acknowledges particular

features of lifelines that may have greater impact on loss of life, property damage, and economic

consequences; and establishes a system of prioritization. It focuses initially on the highestpriority types of lifeline systems, on the performance of existing lifeline systems, and on the

early realization of benefits to the public through prototype demonstration projects.

Development activities would begin with several of these demonstration projects, each

involving a specific lifeline system, using draft guidelines developed with the existing knowledge

base. Each would involve vulnerability assessments for a range of earthquake scenarios, the

development of prioritized lists of possible actions to upgrade the system, the evaluation of

performance improvement and cost, and the formulation of an action plan, in conjunction with

the owners and regulators. It is envisioned that there will be two rounds of prototype

demonstration projects (possibly overlapping). Experience from the first round will form the

basis for guidelines-in effect, the first version of prestandards-for the conduct of such projects.

This approach would evolve prestandards-and thence standards-while at the same time

providing valuable ongoing examples of significant hazard reduction efforts. The assessment of

available knowledge and the identification and performance of problem-focused research and

development would proceed concurrently with the prototype demonstration projects-with crossfeeding concerning research needs and results.

The approach has built-in flexibility, which results from the use of guidelines and

standards prepared from current knowledge, the trial application of those guidelines and

standards, and their successive improvement as experience with application increases.

40 September 1995
4.3 POLICY STATEMENT/STRATEGY

As stated, the basic strategy for this approach is to evolve prestandards through

demonstration projects involving the upgrading of existing lifelines. Lessons learned from the

retrofitting of existing lifelines can be applied as well to the development of design guidelines

and standards for new systems. It is recognized that this approach may not initially use consistent

performance requirements for the various lifeline systems, but the evolving prestandards will be

monitored, and efforts will be directed toward achieving as much consistency as possible.

The work plans for the initial demonstration projects will be based on existing technology

and knowledge, through which the; draft guidelines can be prepared. Critical problem-focused

research needs will be identified at the outset through assessment of current knowledge and also

will emerge in the course of the earliest projects. Results from such research will be applied to

the later projects and in the writing of prestandards.

Planning for and management of the initial projects will be provided by a group of people

experienced in lifeline earthquake engineering. At this stage it is not essential for this group to

include representatives of all standards-writing organizations, although the knowledgeable people

may come from some of these groups. However, all interested parties will be kept informed

during this early phase of the project. As the time for developing actual prestandards approaches,

it will be necessary to bring the standards-writing organizations into the project in a more formal

way.

4.4 MANAGEMENT

Strong leadership is needed for a project as diverse and complex as this one. The

successful execution of the Plan will require very careful and skillful management and

coordination. It is envisioned that management will involve the NEHRP Lead Agency, NIST,

and a group of private and public sector experts for lifeline seismic design guidelines and

prestandards studies, who will later interact with representatives of existing national standardssetting organizations and professional organizations.

41 September 1995
4.4.1 The Roles of the NEHRP Lead Agency and NIST

The NEHRP Lead Agency, in coordination with NIST, will provide oversight of the

Plan's development and implementation. The NEHRP Lead Agency's mechanisms for providing

grants and technical assistance to the states and the private sector will support the

implementation of standards.

Subsequent to a decision to activate this Plan, The NEHRP Lead Agency, in coordination

with NIST, will create an ad hoc working group for the purposes of nominating and selecting

the chair and members of the Board of Directors of a body that will be known as the Lifeline

Seismic Safety Executive Board, and of nominating and selecting the director and staff of the

Executive Directorate. Upon completion of these tasks, the working group will be dissolved.

NIST, principal agency of NEHRP for research and development for improving building

codes and standards and practices for structures and lifelines, will provide subsequent program

management and technical support for implementing the plan.

Close liaison will be maintained with the fundamental research programs of the National

Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey that are conducted under NEHRP. Research

needs will be identified for NSF and USGS, and research results will be applied in the

development of lifeline seismic design guidelines and standards.

4.4.2 The Lifeline Seismic Safety Executive Board

The development and adoption of lifeline seismic design guidelines and standards will be

carried out in two stages. The work in the first stage will be accomplished through the Lifeline

Seismic Safety Executive Board (hereafter referred to as the Board). The second stage will

require sustained private sector standardization activities, which must be carried out by the

existing national standards groups and professional organizations, with assistance from the

Board.

The Board will be made up of three components: the Board of Directors, the Lifeline

Directorates, and the Executive Directorate.

42 September 1995
The Board of Directors will consist of a chair, from the private sector, a representative

of ICSSC and 12 to 15 technical experts recommended by major lifeline organizations. These

organizations may include the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, the American

Petroleum Institute, Bellcore, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the American Water Works Association.

The membership of the Board of Directors must provide a balance between researchers and

practitioners. The Board of Directors will define and address the needs and issues of all five

lifeline systems to develop a prioritized overall program plan, including the selection of

demonstration projects.

The activities commissioned by the Board of Directors will be carried out by one of the

Lifeline Directorates (hereafter referred to as the Directorates). A separate Directorate will be

established for each of the five lifeline systems. The Directorates will address the specific issues

and concerns in each lifeline category as well as conduct specific technical studies of relevance

to various lifelines-for example, the development of risk-based vulnerability analysis models.

Each Directorate may have six to ten experts, selected by the Board of Directors. For each

lifeline system, a Directorate will review and synthesize existing research and existing guidelines

and standards to develop draft guidelines for that lifeline system. These guidelines will be

assessed in demonstration projects and refined by the Directorates at the completion of these

projects. Not all the Directorates need be established at the outset of the Board's process. Only

those lifeline types for which demonstration projects are selected will need their corresponding

Directorates in place to support and facilitate prestandards development.

The Executive Directorate will include a full-time director and staff selected by the ad

hoc working group created by the NEHRP Lead Agency and NIST to form the LSSEB. This

Directorate, supported by NIST, is to provide management and administrative support to the

Board of Directors and the Lifeline Directorates.

The Board of Directors will establish a cooperative agreement with the Interagency

Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction. ICSSC is the mechanism by which federal

agencies affected by NEHRP can collaborate in the establishment of earthquake hazard reduction

practices. Currently 31 agencies involved with the construction or use of buildings and lifelines

participate in ICSSC. The interests of these agencies and their technical expertise are represented

on ICSSC through its Subcommittee on Lifelines. This subcommittee has participated in the

43 September 1995
studies leading to this Plan. The agreement, as a minimum, defines areas of common interest,

establishes a subcommittee responsible for guiding joint activities, and appoints an ICSSC

member to serve on each of the Lifeline Directorates.

4.5 COORDINATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR STANDARDIZATION ACTIVITIES

Each of the lifeline types has existing regulatory, standards, and specifications

organizations that represent the interests of the owners and the public served. Each also includes

representation or input from the technical community, designers, suppliers, operators, and the

public. Improvements in seismic design and construction practices and standards for existing and

proposed lifeline systems will be most effectively implemented through these organizations.

Some of these organizations have not yet been concerned with earthquake performance issues,

however, and need to use expertise from the earthquake hazard mitigation community.

Lifelines are public works and utility systems owned and/or regulated by the private sector

and local, state, and federal governments. All of these have fundamental interests in protecting

lifeline systems from earthquakes. Because the federal government has more lifeline systems

exposed to potentially damaging earthquakes than any other single organization has, the

successful adoption and implementation of design and construction guidelines and standards for

lifelines requires close coordination between federal agencies and nonfederal organizations,

including local and state governments.

4.5.1 The Board's Long-Term Responsibilities

The Board may play a critical role in facilitating and coordinating development and

implementation activities, interacting with the private standards-setting bodies and professional

organizations. The Board is to offer knowledge and ideas, policy and technical expertise, and

a forum for establishing broad representation and guidance in the development of standards for

seismic safety in the planning, design, construction, retrofitting, and operation of lifeline

systems.

The Board's major functions and responsibilities in this regard will be as follows:

44 September 1995
* : To support the development and adoption of national voluntary consensus guidelines and

standards

* To serve as an independent and authoritative focal point, working with the existing

standards groups and professional organizations to ensure the development of private

design guidelines and standards for lifelines

* To encourage lifeline industries and associated manufacturers, associations, and

professionals to consider earthquakes and their impacts in the planning, design,

construction, and operation of lifeline systems

* To develop recommendations, including priorities, for lifeline seismic safety guidelines

and standards development, research, and implementation activities, including prototype

demonstration projects

* To conduct annual workshops to present progress reports and raise project-related issues

and to encourage and obtain input from the industries and associated manufacturers'

associations, standards groups, NEHRP, ICSSC, and professional organizations

* To submit annually a written report to the NEHRP Lead Agency, through NIST, on the

progress and status of the project.

4.5.2 ICSSC's Role

The authority for the establishment of ICSSC is pursuant to provisions of the National

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 and its amendments thereafter, and Executive Order

12381. ICSSC helps the federal departments and agencies involved in construction to develop

and incorporate earthquake hazard reduction measures in their ongoing programs. These

measures will be based on existing standards when feasible and will be consistent with OMB

guidelines giving preference to the use of appropriate private sector, national consensus

standards. ICSSC also cooperates with state and local governments and private sector

organizations in developing nationally applicable earthquake hazard reduction measures. It can

become a vital link in the implementation of these measures through its individual agencies.

ICSSC will be represented on each Lifeline Directorate, per the cooperative agreement discussed

45 September 1995
above, to help promote federal use of standards promulgated by the lifeline standards

organizations and to obtain consistency in federal and private sector uses of the recommendations

for lifeline standards.

4.6 WORK PLAN

The process for developing and adopting seismic design guidelines and standards for

lifelines begins with the establishment of the Board and its Executive Directorate to perform

their respective functions described herein. With input from the lifeline community and federal

agencies, the Board and the Executive Directorate will select the Directorates' members and

demonstration projects.

Demonstration projects are a key element in this recommended approach. They provide

opportunities to show early success of the program. They also allow a concentrated effort, early

on, on the performance of existing lifeline systems. Thus, priorities in the development of

guidelines will be guided by the potential for demonstration projects.

The strategy is to learn from demonstration projects. There have already been a few such

projects in California, such as those of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. These pilot projects

have demonstrated that much can be accomplished by replacing key equipment as part of regular

maintenance cycles, and that equipment manufacturers already have made available more

seismically resistant equipment at relatively little increase in cost.

This approach will begin by categorizing lifelines both by nature and by size in order to

select some for inclusion as early demonstration projects. For example, FHWA is already

addressing seismic standards for new and existing highway systems. Telecommunication facilities

may be dealt with in cooperation with private companies and concerned federal agencies.

Ports/harbors and airports may be best addressed jointly with port and airport authorities. A

comprehensive list of lifeline systems might include the following examples:

* Large utilities in California (perhaps the need is only to encourage them in what they are

already doing and to be sure to learn from their efforts)

* Small utilities in California

46 September 1995
+ Large utilities in areas of moderate seismic hazard: Puget Sound, New Madrid, etc.

* Small utilities in areas of moderate seismic hazard

* Large federal utilities (e.g., TVA)

* Small federal utilities, such as those connected with military facilities

From such a list, the Board would choose three to four instances, depending on the

availability of funds. The selection should be carried out in consideration of priorities for

reducing earthquake hazards and for federal, state, and local government and industry

collaboration. When appropriate, federally owned utilities may be selected as demonstration

projects.

These projects should be undertaken by full-time experts drawn from the Directorates, in

collaboration with engineering organizations experienced in such projects and with consultants

as appropriate. Collaboration in each demonstration project will be obtained from the affected

industries and/or organizations before the projects proceed. Each project should include

establishing the seismic hazard for several levels of probability; estimating the fragility of the

various links and components; analyzing the implications of failure of the weakest links and

components; developing a prioritized list for replacement and upgrading, including schedule and

costs; and interacting with regulatory bodies and perhaps the public.

Draft guidelines should be prepared at the beginning of each of the demonstration projects.

The result of each project will be an updated version, which should at that stage already be of

potential practical use and which would become the starting point for subsequent projects and

the prestandard-the starting point for standardization. Lessons learned from the conduct of these

demonstration projects will help shorten the time needed for the development of standards for

proposed lifeline systems.

It is anticipated that in the early years of the project, the Board will be focusing on the

development of prestandards and demonstration projects; in the latter years, it will be focusing

on working with standards groups and professional organizations on the development and

adoption of guidelines and standards. It is anticipated that at the end of the project, the Board

and its Directorates will cease to exist unless it is deemed necessary that the Board or an element

of the Board be maintained for continued updates and consensus.

47 September 1995
4.7 LMPLEMENTATION

Education and implementation efforts should begin immediately when some lifeline

prestandards are developed and ready for adoption by standards organizations through a

consensus process. This is one of the most important tasks that the Board will tackle. Potential

users will be involved early in the design guidelines and standards development process.

Education and training must be part of the implementation process.

After the development of voluntary consensus lifeline seismic standards, NEHRP will

promote the implementation of such standards "by Federal, state, and local governments,

national standards and model building code organizations, architects and engineers, and others

with a role in planning and constructing buildings and lifelines" [3]. With private sector, local,

and state government participation in developing recommendations for design guidelines and

standards (as well as their participation in voluntary consensus standards committees) and in

educational programs for their use, it is expected that adoption and implementation of lifeline

seismic standards will be expedited.

Federal voluntary use of the standards will follow OMB Circular A-i19 (October 26,

1982), which states that it is the policy of the federal government in its procurement and

regulatory activities to: '

[6.ja. Rely on voluntary standards, both domestic and international, wherever feasible and consistent with

law and regulation pursuant to law; ...

Circular A-1 19 states that voluntary standards that are consistent with applicable laws and

regulations should be adopted and used by federal agencies unless the agencies are specifically

prohibited by law from using them, and should be given preference over nonmandatory

government standards- unless the use of such voluntary standards would adversely affect

performance or cost or have other significant disadvantages. Preference should be given to those

standards based on performance criteria when such criteria may reasonably be used instead of

design, material, or construction criteria. Agencies should not be inhibited, if within their

statutory authorities, from developing and using government standards in the event that voluntary

standards bodies cannot or do not develop a needed, acceptable standard in a timely fashion.

48 September 1995
To expedite implementation by federal agencies, it is recommended that an executive order

be drafted for the implementation of seismic design guidelines and standards for federal lifelines.

An executive order might require federal agencies to use seismic guidelines and standards for

federal and federally assisted or regulated existing and new lifelines and provide incentives for

private sector and state and local government adoptions. Agencies involved would request funds

through their respective budget request processes to carry out the executive order. However, a

broadly applicable executive order will be infeasible before guidelines or standards are available

for all types of federal lifelines.

As with Executive Order 12699, Seismic Safety of Federal and Federally Assisted or

Regulated New Building Construction, the ICSSC would have responsibility for recommending

procedures for implementing the executive order pertaining to lifelines [4].

4.8 RESEARCH

As the work described above proceeds, needs for fundamental research will be identified

in order to guide the efforts of NSF, NCEER, and USGS in the continued improvement of the

knowledge base for seismic safety of the nation's lifelines.

4.9 INTEGRATION INTO THE INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM

Execution of the lifeline plan will be coordinated closely with the nation's infrastructure

programs, both the ongoing ones and the ones that are planned for the future. For example,

many federal agencies are currently planning for programs to revitalize the nation's

infrastructure systems. These include FHWA, which has initiated seismic standards development

in its own programs for highways. NSF has organized a civil infrastructure research program

through coordination among several divisions within NSF. All of these agencies are active in

ICSSC, which can relate lifeline seismic standards efforts to other federal infrastructure

activities.

4.10 FUNDING AND SCHEDULING

Funding to implement the Plan will be requested through separate budget requests by

federal agencies with missions for support of research and development for lifeline guidelines

49 September 1995
and standards. For example, FHWA, working with NCEER and others, is already supporting

studies for developing and adopting seismic design guidelines and standards for highway

lifelines.

Funds are needed to support NIST's role to manage the activities to be carried out by the

Board and to provide technical support for the implementation of the Plan. The majority of the

funds, however, will be used for private sector work to conduct the engineering studies of the

Board's Directorates and demonstration projects.

The level of funding request will vary depending on the stage of the project. Programmatic

needs will be carefully reviewed annually, along with factors such as the support of full-time

experts for each of the Directorates and the cost of conducting the demonstration projects, so

that funding requests can be adjusted to develop lifeline seismic safety guidelines and standards

expeditiously and efficiently.

The work by the Board and its Directorates is expected to take six to eight years to

complete. However, for the more vulnerable lifeline systems identified and chosen as prototype

demonstration projects, only four years should be required to complete the work. It is estimated

that standards for all five lifeline types will be completed and adopted for use in eight to ten

years, through a well-coordinated effort including a comprehensive and aggressive education and

training program.

4.11 REFERENCES

1. Breitenberg, Maureen A., The ABC's ofStandards-RelatedActivities in the United States,

NBSIR 87-3576, National Bureau of Standards, May 1987.

2. Dikkers, Robert D., "Standards-Tools for Excellence," Corrections Today, American

Correctional Association, April 1987.

3. Section 5, Public Law 95-124, Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, as amended.

50 September 1995
4. Todd, D., and Ann Bieniawski, Guidelines and Proceduresfor Implementation of the

Executive Orderon Seismic Safety of New Building Construction, NISTIR-4852/ICSSC

RP-2. IA, National Institute of Standards and Technology, June 1992.

51 September 1995
APPENDIX: CONTRIBUTORS TO THE PLAN

1. COORDINATING MEMBERS

Mr. Ronald T. Eguchi

EQE Engineering and Design

18101 Von Karman Ave., Suite 400

Irvine, CA 92715

Mr. Harold W. Andress, Jr.

FEMA

500 C Street SW

Washingtonj DC 20472

Mr. William S. Bivins

FEMA

500 C Street SW

Washington, DC 20472

Mr. Robert D. Dikkers

NIST

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Mr. John Foss

Bell Communications Research

435 South Street, Room 1A334

Morristown, NJ 07960

Mr. James R. Hill

U.S. Department of Energy

Safety and Technology Division

Washington, DC 20585

Dr. George C. Lee

SUNY/Buffalo

412 Bonner Hall

Buffalo, NY 14260

Dr. H. S. Lew

NIST

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Mr. R. Michael McCafferty

Western Area Power Administration

P.O. Box 3402

Golden, CO 80401

Mr. H. Crane Miller

3401 Lowell Street NW

Washington, DC 20016

Dr. Douglas J. Nyman

D. J. Nyman & Associates

12337 Jones Road, Suite 204

Houston, TX 77070

Dr. Masanobu Shinozuka

NCEER

SUNY/Buffalo

Red Jacket Quadrangle

Buffalo, NY 14261

53 September 1995
Mr. James R. Smith

National Institute of Building Sciences

1201 L Street NW, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

2. NEHRP ADVISORY COMMITTEE

George K. Bernstein, Esq.

1730 K Street NW, Suite 313

Washington, DC 20006

Dr. Clarence R. Allen

Seismological Lab 252-21

California Institute of Technology

Pasadena, CA 91125

Dr. Richard Andrews

California Office of Emergency Services

2800 Meadowview

Sacramento, CA 95832

Mr. Christopher Arnold

Building Systems Development

3130 La Selva, Suite 308

San Mateo, CA 94403

Dr. James E. Beavers

Martin Marieta Energy Systems, Inc.

Building 9207, Mail Stop 8083

P.O. Box 2009

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8083

Dr. Vitelmo V. Bertero

Civil Engineering Department

Earthquake Engineering Research Center

University of California

1301 South 46th Street

Richmond, CA 94804

Dr. John N. Davies

Geophysical Institute

University of Alaska

Fairbanks, AK 99775-0800

Ms. Evelyn Davis

Community Education Services

Children's Television Workshop

1 Lincoln Plaza, 4th Floor

New York, NY 10023

Mr. Gerald H. Jones

Codes Administration

City of Kansas City

18th Floor, City Hall

Kansas City, MO 64106

Mr. Paul Pomeroy

86 Abeel Street

Kingston, NY 12401

Mr. Roland L. Sharpe

Roland L. Sharpe Consulting

Structural Engineering

10051 Pasadena Avenue

Cupertino, CA 95014

Dr. Kathleen J. Tierney

Disaster Research Center

University of Delaware

77 East Main Street

Newark, DE 19716

Mr. L. Thomas Tobin

California Seismic Safety Commission

1900 K Street, #100

Sacramento, CA 95814

54 September 1995
Dr. Robert Whitman

Department of Engineering

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Room 1-342

Cambridge, MA 02139

3. PRELIMINARY LIFELINES ASSESSMENT

Electrical Power Lifelines

Dr. Anshel J. Schiff

Stanford University

27750 Edgerton Road

Los Altos Hills, CA 94022

Dr. James E. Beavers

Martin Marieta Energy Systems, Inc.

Building 9207, Mail Stop 8083

P.O. Box 2009

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8083

Mr. Ben Damsky

Electric Power Research Institute

Safety & Technology Department

3412 Hillview Avenue

Palo Alto, CA 94304

Mr. Edward N. Matsuda

Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

Civil Engineering Dept., Rm. F 1504A

1 California Street

San Francisco, CA 94106

Mr. Dennis Ostrom

Southern California Edison Co.

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue

Rosemead, CA 91770

Mr. Ronald A. Tognazzini

Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power

1890 Canyon Close Road

Pasadena, CA 91107

Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifelines

Dr. Douglas J. Nyman

D.J. Nyman & Associates

12337 Jones Road, Suite 204

Houston, TX 77070

Mr. Thomas L. Anderson

Fluor Daniel Inc.

3333 Michelson Drive

Mail Stop 533T

Irvine, CA 92730

Mr. Charles B. Crouse

Dames and Moore

500 Market Place Tower

2025 1st. Ave

Seattle, WA 98121

Dr. William Hall

University of Illinois

3105 Valley Brook Drive

Champaign, IL 61821

Mr. Peter W. McDonough

Mountain Fuel Supply Co.

180 E. 1st South

Salt Lake City, UT 84139

Dr. Thomas D. O'Rourke

Cornell University

265 Hollister Hall

Ithaca, NY 14853

55 September 1995
Telecommunication Lifelines

Mr. Alex Tang

Northern Telecom Canada Ltd.

2591 Pollard Drive

Mississauge, Ontario

Canada, L5C 3G9

Mr. Ted J. Canon

H. J. Degenkolb Associates

350 Sansome Street, Suite 900

San Francisco, CA 94104

Mr. John Foss

Bell Communications Research

435 South Street, Room 1A334

Morristown, NJ 07960

Dr. Jeremy Isenberg

Weidlinger Associates, Inc.

4410 El Camino Real, Suite 110

Los Altos, CA 94022

Dr. S. Chi Liu

Program Director

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Blvd.

Arlington, VA 22230

Dr. Masanobu Shinozuka

NCEER

SUNY/Buffalo

Red Jacket Quadrangle

Buffalo, NY 14261

Dr. Ian Buckle

NCEER

SUNY/Buffalo

Red Jacket Quadrangle

Buffalo, NY 14261

Mr. James D. Cooper

ICSSC

cdo Federal Highway Administration

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101

Mr. James H. Gates

Caltrans Division of Structures

P.O. Box 942874

Sacramento, CA 94274

Dr. Geoffery R. Martin

Department of Civil Engineering

University of Southern California

3620 S. Vermont Ave., KAB, Rm. 210

Los Angeles, CA 90089

Dr. James E. Monsees

PB/MK Team

7220 South Westmoreland Rd., No. 200

Dallas, TX 75237

Dr. Stuart D. Werner

Dames & Moore

2101 Webster St., Suite 300

Oakland, CA 94612

Mr. Lawrence F. Wong

Pacific Bell

2600 Camino Ramon, Room 3S800

San Ramon, CA 94583

September 1995

Transportation Lifelines

56
Water and Sewer Lifelines

Mr. Donald B. Ballantyne

Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton

530 South 336th Street

Federal Way, WA 98003

Mr. Walter F. Anton

Seattle Water Department

Dexter Horton Bldg., 9th Floor

710 2nd Avenue

Seattle, WA 98104

Mr. Holly A. Cornell

CH2M Hill

2300 NW Walnut Blvd.

P.O. Box 428

Corvallis, OR 97339

Mr. William M. Elliott

Portland Water Department

2250 Park Road

Lake Oswego, OR 97034

Mr. Le Val Lund

3245 Lowry Road

Los Angeles, CA 90027

Dr. Michael O'Rourke

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Troy, NY 12180-3590

Federal Roles in Development. Adoption, And

Imnlementation of Seismic Design Standards for

Lifelines

Mr. H. Crane Miller

3401 Lowell Street NW

Washington, DC 20016

Dr. Harold C. Cochrane

Department of Economics

Colorado State University

Ft. Collins, CO 80523

Dr. Joanne Nigg

Disaster Research Center

University of Delaware

Newark, DE 19716

Dr. William J. Petak

University of Southern California

Inst. of Safety & System Mgmt.

Los Angeles, CA 90089-0021

Mr. Robert A. Olson

VSP Associates, Inc.

455 University Avenue, Suite 340

Sacramento, CA 95825

Dr. Craig E. Taylor

Dames & Moore

911 Wilshire Place, Suite 700

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Other Contributors

Dr. T. Arimnan

College of Engineering &

Applied Sciences

University of Tulsa

Tulsa, OK 74104-3189

Dr. Clifford Astill

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Blvd.

Arlington, VA 22230

57 September 1995
Ms. Sandy Auchmoody

NIST

Building & Fire Research Laboratory

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Mr. Robert J. Belecky

Public Service Company of Colorado

2701 West 7th Avenue

Denver, CO 80204

Lt. Col. Michael S. Cleary

National Communications System

Joint Secretariat (NCS-NJ)

701 South Courthouse Road

Arlington, VA 22204

Mr. Steven Dreyer

Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

123 Mission Street, Room H1002

San Francisco, CA 94106

Ms. Laurel Harrington

Seattle Water Department

Dexter Horton Bldg., 9th Floor

710 2nd Avenue

Seattle, WA 98104

Mr. Edwin Jones

American Society of Civil Engineers

345 East 47th Street

New York, NY 10017

Mr. Gerald J. Klaus

Public Service Company of Colorado

2701 West 7th Avenue

Denver, CO 80204

Mr. Jack D. McNorgan

Southern California Gas Co.

M.L. 730C, Box 3249

Los Angeles, CA 90051-1249

Mr. Joseph Pavlus

AMOCO Pipeline

One Mid-America Plaza, Suite 200

Oak Brook Terrace, IL 60181

Dr. William U. Savage

Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

215 Market Street, Room 760

San Francisco, CA 94106

Mr. Richard Shaw

International Safety Systems

16270 Raymer Street

Van Nuys, CA 91406

Mr. George 0. Thomas

Department of Energy

Western Area Power Administration

P.O. Box 3402

Golden, CO 80401

58 5September 1995