Return to Hazards Center Home Page
Mike Schuller opened the session with introductions of the other panelists. He noted that the focus of this discussion would be on "lessons we still have to learn" in disaster response.
He then presented a brief description of his firm's efforts to evaluate and repair existing structures, particularly those of masonry construction. Older buildings and those of more recent construction may equally deserve consideration if they are of cultural significance to the community. The firm has focused attention on the behavior of masonry during disaster/emergency events to determine optimal repair options. Testing is done using full scale operations as well as computer modelling and simulations.
Schuller noted that it is critical to assess the risk which is associated with existing structures. Further, he commented that longevity (the fact that an old building has been around for a long time) is not a good measure of the adequacy of construction. Many cultural monuments have simple designs and construction errors, including vulnerable unreinforced masonry. Buildings of cultural significance need to be strengthened without materially effecting the exterior walls and/or facade appearance. Schuller described impediments to effective hazard mitigation as lack of public awareness of the magnitude of the risk, and funding limitations due to lack of, or limited, cost-benefit analysis.
Dave Woodham presented a brief description of the earthquake damages in Umbria (in Italy near the town of Assisi). The initial earthquake was approximately 5.5 magnitude on the Richter Scale on 26 September 1997 with significant aftershocks of 4.5 on 3 October and greater than 4.5 on 7 October. These resulted in 11 deaths, hundreds of injuries, and thousands of displaced/homeless persons throughout the region.
Student evaluations after the quakes were initiated to conduct a building inventory with regard to salvage and/or upgrades for seismic safety. Specific forms were developed and used to categorize remaining building stock. The focus of the surveys was masonry construction. Damages and vulnerability were rated and evaluated. The survey enabled the total damage and vulnerability of the areas to be quantified systematically and allowed for recommendations to be made regarding the future use of the structures.
Most older buildings had weak initial construction. In some instances when structures were upgraded and modernized for electricity and water systems, the structural integrity of the building was compromised somewhat, creating potential points of failure. Strengthening of roof systems without regard to how the load stresses would be transferred to the ground caused some problems. Sometimes less expensive and less aesthetic solutions work best to maintain structural integrity.
JoAnne Martinez discussed the involvement of the Library of Congress staff in conjunction with the Colorado State University (CSU) library staff in the aftermath of the July 1997 floods. Over 425,000 volumes were submerged in over eight feet of water, mud, and other debris. Hard choices had to be made regarding conservation of materials by type, including whether to repair, replace, microfilm, or archive. A contractor was hired to retrieve the material which was placed in cold storage pending restoration decisions. The expertise of the Library of Congress staff was helpful in the decision making process. The full recovery process entailed elimination of odors and mold, then squaring the books and re-binding them. At the height of the operation, over 5,000 books per week were being processed for restoration.
There exists a great need to facilitate better planning with FEMA and states on procedures for major library recovery operations. Functional area expertise, authority for decision making, and timeliness of the recovery process all need to be addressed with vigorous leadership. Joint decision making needs to occur between the conservators, curators, and recovery administrators. The time frame for acquisition decisions is dramatically compressed in the aftermath of a disaster. The collection was not readily capable of being appraised accurately by insurance adjusters, but needs to be valued jointly by users, academicians, researchers, insurers, and curators over time.
Larry Wood presented a description of the actual recovery and restoration work on the library collection in the aftermath of the Fort Collins/CSU flood. There appeared to be some deficiencies in plans and organization for the post-disaster recovery operations. Goals and objectives need to be defined prior to an event with realistic planning and training/exercising of those plans. Material evacuation, relocation, prioritization, definitions of "complete loss," and the presence of debris or pesticides all need to be considered in plans.
As materials were recovered/restored, their useful life was shortened, but the items were still saved and usable. The process included physical recovery, cleaning, washing, freezing, freeze-drying, and re-binding the items.
Other areas requiring planning attention include knowing what insurance covers, who is liable to pay for what actions, who is responsible, and who can make decisions. Plans need to be practiced.
After the presentations, the following discussion points and comments were made:
Freeze drying does not correct damage; it only stops the damage from worsening.
The Library of Congress does not have a formal connection for conservation methodologies with Canada nor Great Britain, only an informal networking relationship.
Freeze drying is standard in the U.S., but processes differ in Europe. Freeze drying is very expensive.
The Library of Congress was "mission assigned" by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to assist in Ft. Collins.
Plans may be "compelled" to be written. They need to be very simple and they need to be practiced.
The west wall of the basement area of the CSU library (the area which broke through the wall of the building at the height of the flooding) has been mitigated to a 500 year flood event.
The private firms of Atkinson-Noland and Associates, Inc. and Disaster Recovery Services, Inc. routinely consult with private businesses and government for emergency planning.
Return to Hazards Center Home Page
Return
to Index of 1998 Session Summaries