Preparing for the "Big One" -- Saving Lives Through Earthquake Mitigation in Los Angeles, CA

SCHOOLS

I. Introduction

The seismic safety of schools is essential to protecting both individuals and the community at large. If an earthquake were to strike during school hours, thousands of children would be at risk from falling debris or even structural collapse. In addition, most communities use their school buildings as shelters and relief stations after a natural disaster. The soundness of these buildings thus ensures refuge in familiar surroundings for all neighborhood residents. Finally, serious damage to school buildings and classrooms can force school closures and disrupt the academic schedule. Such interruptions can break the learning process, creating lasting delays in a child's educational development. In short, the value of seismically safe schools extends far beyond protecting people from full-scale structural collapse during an earthquake.

Overall, the schools of Los Angeles withstood the Northridge earthquake remarkably well. Although officials from the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) initially closed its 640 schools, all but 75 reopened the following week.1 Officials currently estimate damage to schools within the Los Angeles District at between $150 million and $200 million.

Although schools suffered a variety of structural damage from the Northridge earthquake, none collapsed and only one school and one major building were so badly damaged that they will have to be demolished and replaced. Several schools experienced cracked foundations that will require extensive rehabilitation. There was also damage to auxiliary elements such as pole-supported walkways, lunch shelters, and portable buildings. No buildings or rooms collapsed.

However, as with hospitals, nonstructural damage within schools was considerable. About 1,500 buildings incurred some degree of damage to suspended lighting and ceiling systems. Although current regulations require more secure lighting, many schools retain systems installed before these regulations were modified. There was also substantial damage due to falling equipment, file cabinets, and other furniture. In addition, sprinklers and other utility pipes in ceilings broke, causing widespread water damage.

If the earthquake had struck during school hours, these nonstructural hazards would have made safe exit impossible for hundreds of children and teachers. The Northridge earthquake thus illuminated the critical importance of mitigating nonstructural weaknesses in schools. All levels of government have a responsibilityand now, a clear opportunity to promote such mitigation.

Picture Excluded

EXHIBIT 5 Nonstructural damage to ceiling fixtures in school classroom.

II. What Needs to Be Done?

Hazard mitigation in California schools must proceed on several fronts. For example, most schools need considerable nonstructural mitigation work to install safer lighting, ceilings, and piping, as well as to secure furniture and hanging items. There is a need to survey all schools to identify these needs systematically. School districts also must establish emergency communications systems and train staff to maintain seismic safety and respond effectively during earthquakes. This section outlines the scope and estimated cost of this work for Californiaand for the Los Angeles Unified School District in particular.

Despite considerable regulation of school construction since 1933, structural retrofit of California school buildings remains a substantial part of necessary mitigation activity. Over half of the approximately 53,000 public school buildings in the State were built more than 30 years ago. State officials estimate that at least 25,000 schools need structural retrofitting. Between 1,000 and 4,000 schools, built before State regulation of school construction became considerably stricter, require priority attention. The California Seismic Safety Commission (SSC) estimates that this work will cost between $2 billion and $5 billion statewide.

Despite the generally adequate performance of Los Angeles' school facilities in the Northridge earthquake, approximately 10 percent of the District's school buildings require structural mitigation. School officials calculate that 33 lift-slab buildings, 572 masonry buildings, and 515 concrete buildingsall constructed before the State made school construction standards more stringent in 1972 require some structural retrofitting. Lift-slab buildings, tilt-up buildings, and nonductile concrete frame buildings have been given the highest priority for retrofitting. The District estimates the cost of this work at approximately $786 million.

Picture Excluded

EXHIBIT 6 Structural wall damage to school building.

However, local and State officials have recently determined that the more pressing need is for nonstructural retrofitting. In 1992 the Seismic Safety Commission had identified this mitigation work as a major priority for schools. The Northridge earthquake affirmed this decision, making it clear that nonstructural hazards currently pose a greater threat to human safety than structural weaknesses. At a special hearing before the Commission in February 1994, local officials unanimously cited these hazards as the most critical targets for mitigation efforts in the Los Angeles schools. Los Angeles school officials estimate that the cost of nonstructural retrofitting for suspended lights and ceilings alone will reach approximately $297 million.

The total cost of retrofitting Los Angeles schools comes to an estimated $1.306 billion, including $851 million for structural mitigation and $455 million for nonstructural work. FEMA's Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs can pay a portion of this cost, but not without considerable matching funds from State and local treasuries. Under the most optimistic scenario, FEMA's programs could pay up to $359 million, or 27.5 percent of the total cost. Even assuming that local and State agencies meet the matching requirements and FEMA provides the maximum possible funding, total unmet need would still exceed $947 million.

Finally, local officials have identified several important mitigation activities beyond retrofitting. Specifically, the Los Angeles Unified School District hopes to put in place an emergency communications system, provide training for school personnel in emergency procedures and maintenance of seismic safety within classrooms, and sponsor programs to integrate nonstructural retrofit measures into routine maintenance by school workers and contractors.

III. What Is Being Done?

Strategies for completing structural and nonstructural mitigation of Los Angeles schools are already in place. Implementation of these strategies has been facilitated by regulatory actions taken by the Federal Government (broadening eligible uses of FEMA programs) and the State of California (setting statewide standards for school buildings). However, the feasibility and impact of much of the planned mitigation activity depends on the ability of State and local governments to raise the monies needed to fund State programs and leverage Federal grants.

Federal Efforts

The Federal Emergency Management Agency provides the bulk of Federal aid to States and localities for both repair and mitigation activities. FEMA's Public Assistance program addresses recovery and repair work for buildings damaged in the disaster. In severely damaged buildings, this program will fund restoration, including structural retrofit to make the site safer. As few school buildings in Los Angeles suffered structural damage during Northridge, the Public Assistance program can cover only a tiny portion of the work necessary to bring schools up to the safest current standards. By the beginning of August, FEMA had awarded the Los Angeles Unified School District approximately $80 million to repair damaged school structures.

FEMA has recently ruled that Public Assistance funds may be used to repair and retrofit pendant lighting and suspended ceilings in buildings where these systems were significantly damaged. However, the nature of the nonstructural retrofitting to be permitted has not yet been settled. This ruling could affect about 300 school buildings in the Los Angeles district.

Under a new, broader policy on funding hazard mitigation through the Public Assistance Program, FEMA will now consider mitigation proposals for any building that was damaged in the earthquake. The items proposed for mitigationsuch as pendant lighting or the anchoring of equipmentdo not need to have been damaged to qualify. Depending on how this policy is implemented, it is possible that as many as one-third of the Los Angeles Unified School District's buildings could be retrofitted with Public Assistance funding. However, even this best-case scenario would still leave millions of dollars in retrofitting projects that would not qualify for Public Assistance funding. For example, the cost of retrofitting pendant lighting and suspended ceilings in the two-thirds of Los Angeles' school buildings that were not damaged by the Northridge earthquake would be about $210 million.

FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program targets undamaged buildings for retrofitting and other efforts to improve their seismic safety. Hazard Mitigation Grants are likely to provide considerable, but still insufficient, funding for both structural and nonstructural mitigation of undamaged schools. Officials from FEMA and the Governor's Office of Emergency Services have indicated that Hazard Mitigation funds will flow primarily to nonstructural retrofitting, particularly suspended ceilings and lights. The distribution of Hazard Mitigation funds, however, will not begin until FEMA has distributed Public Assistance funding and State and Federal officials have agreed upon a state funding strategy.

At this point, it is impossible to know how OES will allocate the estimated $800 million in Hazard Mitigation Grants among the various public agencies that are seeking assistance. Given the natural concern for school safety, schools could qualify for as much as two-thirds of these funds. The amount of these funds allocated to Los Angeles schools will depend on factors such as the location of faults and hazardous soil conditions in different parts of Southern California, the kinds and distribution of conditions that need retrofitting, and historical patterns of earthquake damage.

Despite a relatively modest focus upon ceilings and lights, Los Angeles school officials lack adequate funding to complete this work. To get $100 million in Hazard Mitigation funds, the schools would need to raise $25 million in matching funds. The availability of State matching funds remains in doubt, particularly in light of the voters' rejection of a recent State bond referendum. California Governor Pete Wilson had planned another referendum for November 1994, but this too failed when the State legislature did not vote to place a bond issue on the ballot. In August, the Los Angeles Unified School District convinced the State Allocation Board to transfer $30 million from a new high school academies program to earthquake recovery. Nonetheless, District officials indicate that they will need most of these funds to fulfill Public Assistance matching requirements and thus will be unable to meet the Hazard Mitigation match.

In addition to FEMA, the U.S. Department of Education has provided considerable funding directly to the Los Angeles Unified School District for recovery activities. In June 1994 the Department approved $85.4 million to make up school hours lost during the earthquake. In addition, this grant funded onsite counseling and tutoring for children who missed considerable class hours, restored lost food services revenues, and purchased cellular phones for better emergency communications during future disasters. The Department does not fund any physical retrofitting or other long-term mitigation activities.

The Department of Education also may be able to target funds to Los Angeles from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act passed by Congress in the fall of 1994. Titles XI, XII, and XV of the bill offers funding for modernization of dilapidated buildings in urban school districts across the country. However, the funds do not cover nonstructural or extensive structural retrofitting.

State Efforts

Los Angeles schools were able to withstand the Northridge earthquake so well largely because of over 60 years of State regulation of school construction and operation. After the Long Beach earthquake of 1933, the California legislature passed the Field Act to ensure that all new public school buildings would remain structurally sound during an earthquake. The Division of State Architect enforces the Act by reviewing architectural plans and supervising construction of all new schools in the State.

As engineering technology has advanced, the legislature has amended the Field Act several times to make its seismic building standards more stringent. Currently, legislators are reviewing additional proposed revisions. Specifically, the poor performance of "T-frame" ceilings and steel-frame construction during that earthquake has suggested to some legislators a need to ban these architectural systems from school construction.

In 1984 the California legislature passed the Katz Bill to address earthquake preparedness in public and private schools. This law requires all schools with more than 50 students to put in place an earthquake emergency system. Such systems generally include emergency drills, a staff assignment plan, and some nonstructural retrofitting. Despite the law's strong language, many school districts have not developed emergency systems because the legislature did not appropriate additional funding or establish enforcement mechanisms. Nevertheless, local officials claim that Los Angeles schools are in substantial compliance with this statute.

In addition to these regulatory measures, the State has several programs to fund earthquake repairs and mitigation. The Leroy Greene Lease-Purchase program, commonly known as the State School Building program, gives grants to school districts for the modernization of older buildings. The Hughes Earthquake Relief program provides school districts with grants earmarked for repairing damaged buildings. The State Allocation Board administers both programs, which school districts often use to match FEMA's Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation funds after a disaster. These programs are funded through bond proceeds and thus have very little to offer at this timethe next major bond issue will not be on the ballot until 1995. Until such a referendum succeeds, these programs will remain dormant.

Finally, the Division of State Architect (DSA) started a complete review of the mitigation needs of the State's public and private schools in 1989. Unfortunately, the Division did not have the funding to finish this surveyofficials estimate that approximately $300,000 would be needed to complete the work. This survey would ensure that State and Federal decisionmakers have the information required to allocate resources to the neediest sites.

IV. Conclusion

The seismic safety of public schools is key to protecting the most precious members of any communityits children. Although Los Angeles area public school buildings withstood the Northridge earthquake extremely well and resumed operations quickly, only the fortuitous timing of the quake saved untold numbers of school children from injury or death.

The Northridge earthquake provided a warning that State and local officials had begun to heed long ago. A strong regulatory framework is already in place to govern the construction and operation of school buildings, and further strengthening of State laws is being considered. The effect of these measures is being reinforced through mitigation and preparedness education programs developed at the State level.

Additional research on building types susceptible to damage, as well as a statewide survey of school mitigation needs, would advance important planning efforts. However, nonstructural mitigation has already been identified as the most urgent mitigation need for schools in Los Angeles and elsewhere. Officials of the Los Angeles Unified School District have focused on two of the principal components of nonstructural mitigationretrofitting suspended ceilings and pendant lighting as an immediate priority.

However, as with hospitals, paying for this essential mitigation work has proven to be the most serious stumbling block. Despite recent rulings that should make it easier to use FEMA Public Assistance funds for nonstructural repair and mitigation, hopes for retrofitting lighting and ceilings have been pinned on the school district's ability to successfully compete with other public institutions for a larger share of the limited pool of FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants. However, local effortsas well as existing State programs designed to fund mitigation and match available FEMA monies are predicated on the passage of bond issues.

Footnotes

1. Robert Donald, Deputy Director for Architecture and Engineering, Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, CA, phone interview, summer 1994.

2. Douglas Powdrell, Disaster Assistance Branch, California Office of Emergency Serivces, telephone interview, summer 1994.

3. Roger Rasmussen, Director, Independent Analysis Unit, Los Angeles Unified School District, correspondence, September 29, 1994.

4. Division of State Architect, "Northridge Earthquake: Public School Buildings", Sacramento, CA, May 1994, p. 1.

5. Ibid.

6. Roger Rasmussen, correspondence, September 29, 1994.

7. California Office of Emergency Services, "Unacceptable Risk: Earthquake Hazard Mitigation in One California School District", 1993, p. 8.

8. Seismic Safety Commission, "California at Risk: Reducing Earthquake Hazards 1992-1996", Sacramento, CA, December 31, 1991, p. 18.

9. Roger Rasmussen, telephone interview, summer 1994.

10. Seismic Safety Commission, "California at Risk", pp. 18-19, 26.

11. Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Nonstructural Retrofit for Schools: Statement of Work", 1994, p. 2.

12. Roger Rasmussen, telephone interview, October 10, 1994.

13. Ibid.

14. For an expanded summary of FEMA's Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs, see the first Section of this report.

15. Sarah Nathe, California Office of Emergency Services, telephone interview, summer 1994.

16. Roger Rasmussen, correspondence, September 29, 1994.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Marilyn MacCabe, Earthquake Program Manager, Mitigation Directorate, Implementation Division, FEMA; and Sarah Nathe, Office of Emergency Services, telephone interviews, summer 1994.

20. Roger Rasmussen and Marilyn MacCabe, telephone interviews, summer 1994.

21. Roger Rasmussen, telephone interview, summer 1994.

22. Roger Rasmussen, telephone interview, September 1994.

23. Ibid.

24. Letter from Charles E. Hansen, Director of Impact Aid Programs, U.S. Department of Education, to Sidney A. Thompson, Superintendent, Los Angeles Unified School District, June 10, 1994.

25. Roger Rasmussen, telephone interview, summer 1994.

26. Division of State Architect, "Northridge Earthquake: Public School Buildings", p. 1.

27. Seismic Safety Commission, "Interim Background Report: Performance of Schools", Draft, 1994, p. 1-2.

28. Jack Bruce, Principal Structural Engineer, Division of State Architect, telephone interview, summer 1994.

29. Office of Emergency Services, "Unacceptable Risk", p. 4.

30. Office of Emergency Services, "Unacceptable Risk", pp. 7, 12. Cruz Maranjo, California State Allocation Board, telephone interview, summer 1994

31. Seismic Safety Commission, "California at Risk", p. 18. Dennis Bellet, California Division of State Architect, telephone interview, summer 1994.