SHAKY GROUND
A CSOT EXERCISE IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND RECOVERY
HOME |
CSOT & Various Dept Discussion on Building Assessments
Point of Contact: Janet Ward
CSOT Department/Area: CSOT Leadership / Primary Facilitator
From: Ward, Janet
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:16 PM
To: Tindall, Dave; Church, Dave; Kispert, Craig
Cc: Michaels, Cheryl
Subject: FW: This is a Shaky Ground Exercise Message: Message #1DaveT, Dave C and Craig,
You’ll see below Dave Tindall’s question about having Marston lower down on the priority list for review by structural engineers.
DWT: I’ll seriously question a “structural review” of Marston that is that far down the list. If there is damage in Marston that would impact the availability and use of campus communications, technology, or systems – it would seem prudent to make that determination quickly. In the absence of a Facilities review, and the absence of any visual indicators that the bldg is not safe à CIS managers and administrators would most likely be inclined to enter the CIS server room and PBX room to begin a review of resources.
If all campus buildings are impacted and need evaluation by structural engineers, it may mean slower response for getting CIS up and operational. Please take this email as intended --- in a real emergency, we’ll need to be able to communicate within the SPU community (on campus) as well as with external constituents. I believe CIS would not be allowed back into its building until after the structural engineers have approved the building for occupancy --- so certain services may be off-line for longer periods.
Again, the University may want to re-think the prioritization of the buildings if ALL are impacted in a quake. Murray had a similar concern related to Gwinn --- that it should be higher on the list as it could provide shelter, sanitation/restrooms and food service.
FYI to all … for future discussion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Church, Dave
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:44 PM
To: Ward, Janet; Tindall, Dave; Kispert, Craig
Cc: Michaels, Cheryl; Reid, Mark; Morse, Mollie; Lawson, Murray
Subject: RE: This is a Shaky Ground Exercise Message: Message #1FPM’s plan (in the CSOT plan approved and on file) is to have the structural engineers screen Ashton, Emerson, Gwinn, Hill, and Moyer in that order. It may take 2-4 hours for the engineers to arrive depending upon time of the day and their location. Once they arrive we hope that they will find some work that can be done to occupy a couple of housing units. Once they have given us direction we can perform that work while they review Gwinn. These first three buildings will take 2 structural engineers 5-6 hours to assess after they arrive. If the University wants to have any sort of food service and overnight accommodations available within 8 to 10 hours of an event – this will need to be the priority. Until this happens in a 6.9 magnitude quake – everyone will be standing outside no matter what the weather. Finding alternative housing in Seattle, even with advanced warning, for the numbers that will need it from SPU will not be easy to do in any kind of short notice situation.
Food and Shelter must be the highest priority in an emergency of this magnitude.
Marston will likely be screened early on after a quake from the exterior by Facilities staff – as will all 50 buildings - - it will be prioritized based on need and visible damage for screening by the structural engineers. But it will not be cleared for entry until the engineers have examined the building.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ward, Janet
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:16 AM
To: Church, Dave
Cc: Michaels, Cheryl; Reid, Mark; Morse, Mollie; Lawson, Murray; Tindall, Dave; Kispert, Craig
Subjt: RE: This is a Shaky Ground Exercise Message: Message #1
Thanks Dave C.
For this exercise, we will move forward on the assumption plans will be inspected as outlined in the FPM plan. However, I have noted this as an item for future discussion, perhaps at future ECMT meeting, to review the concerns which have emerged during this exercise.
One of the hoped for outcomes of this exercise was to identify potential gaps or points we may want to revisit to determine if we’re all in agreement on what is in the current plan. So I’m glad this item surfaced – so we can review the thinking behind the decisions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Church, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:00 AM
To: Ward, Janet; Michaels, Cheryl
Cc: Reid, Mark
Subject: RE: This is a Shaky Ground Exercise Message: Message #1
The first issue is not what will be screened first and in what order – it’s what will each department do if they have to operate in the field in the aftermath of a major emergency for a few days like several universities have had to do in recent years. (For example: Cal Northridge, Tulane etc.)
FPM priorities will be per our plan, per any redirection received by our VP or President at the time, and also influenced by secondary emergencies that must be addressed before they cause more damage to people and property. Security will be tapping FPM for tertiary search and rescue. FPM resources will be stretched and will need to be highly prioritized which is another example of why departments will need to plan to be self sufficient in the field for a day or two with limited support. It is important for departments’ CSOT plans to be realistically crafted to address likely outcomes from a severe emergency. Although a 6.9 earthquake is not the most severe that has happened in the Seattle area, it is stronger than those that have happened since Seattle became a modern urban center. None of SPU’s buildings have been in an earthquake this strong centered in Seattle. Olympia, which was much closer to the Nisqually quake than Seattle, suffered major damage and several Capitol buildings were closed for some time. We must look at other urban universities such as Cal Northridge to understand what we may face. Our plans are not very useful if we only plan for minor disruptions that depend upon immediate re-occupation of our offices and existing resources.
The second issue is that there are approximately 50-55 buildings (excluding rental houses and smaller apartment buildings) that will take 2-3 hours each for the structural engineers to screen. To work though all of the buildings will take the structural engineers 8 and a half days. It is very possible that after being screened once, work will be identified that must be completed before the buildings can be re-screened for potential occupancy. The length of time that various buildings will be down after a major emergency that impacts campus is unknown at this time. The buildings that will be cleared upon first inspection if any is unknown at this time.
It is also important to note that the City may independently of FPM or other University officials red tag (close) University buildings until a licensed structural engineer in the State of Washington clears them for occupancy.
It will be very hard not to make food and housing the highest priority after a major quake. After Hurricane Katrina, Tulane students that could not depart the region without assistance from the federal government for several days complained on national television that the university did not have a plan to feed and house them.