Water System Seismic Study and Emergency Response Planning Cascade Water Alliance meeting 06/09/2017

Agenda Background Water systems and planning for seismic events Current State Seismic study Emergency response Establish “service level goals” after a major earthquake Balance goals vs. available funding Looking Forward Plan short-term and long-term infrastructure seismic upgrades as part of Capital Improvements Program

Earthquake Hazards Ground Shaking Fault Rupture

Earthquake Hazards Liquefaction

Earthquake Hazards Landslide Tsunami

Importance of Water Post-EQ Fire fighting Sanitation Consumption Water is an essential lifeline

Some Recent Earthquakes and Water System Impacts Year Magnitude Impacts Loma Prieta, Bay Area 1989 6.9 Northridge, So. Cal 1994 6.7 Kobe, Japan 1995 Christchurch, NZ 2011 6.2 Tohoku, Japan 9.0

Nisqually Earthquake - 2001 Magnitude 6.8, centered near Olympia, 32 miles deep Minimal effect on SPU functionality Approximately $4 million in earthquake related costs Masonry Pool Engineered Fill Failure 12 Pipe breaks and 7 pipe leaks 500 Ft. Long, ½-Inch wide crack in Cascades Dam

Nisqually 2001 (con’t) Tolt East Side Supply Line Junction Valve Station damage SPU Admin Bldg (Dexter Horton) nonstructural damage Eastside Reservoir floor cracks and roof damage Operations and Control Center Damage

SPU History of Seismic Work Working on seismic issues for several decades Various studies Seismic retrofits Incorporation of then-current seismic standards into new facilities

SPU History of Seismic Work Regional collaboration with other water utilities

Better Understanding of Seismic Risks in Puget Sound – 1990 vs. 2015

Better Understanding of Seismic Risks in Puget Sound – 1990 vs. 2015

Emergency Response Response depends on type of emergency Can vary widely Water system redundancies can help with response times Triage based on available data SCADA Rapid post-disaster assessment from SPU crews, engineers Calls from other utilities, customers Other?

Pacific Northwest Earthquake Sources (Washington State Department of Natural Resources and USGS)

SPU Water System Seismic Study Establish post-earthquake water system performance goals Seismic vulnerability assessments of facilities and pipes Balance performance goals against cost of upgrades Develop short-term (20 year) and long-term (50+ year) plans Integrate plans into Capital Improvement Program

Balancing Performance Goals and Seismic Improvement Needs Consultant Recommendations Cost Considerations This approach is typical of other water utilities Post-Earthquake Performance Goals Cost to Achieve Performance Goals

Stakeholder Input is Critical to Developing Performance Goals Public/Direct Service Customers Water System Advisory Committee Customer Review Panel Surveys Wholesale Customers (Operating Board, Cascade Water Alliance) City Leadership Mayor/Council Fire Department SPU Emergency Executive Board SPU Staff

Draft Performance Goals Water supply for fire fighting Water supply for critical facilities like hospitals Water supply for retail customers Water supply for wholesale customers How long should it take to achieve these goals for what % of the water system?

What Kinds of Upgrades Will Be Needed?

Next Steps Proposed mitigation options Review cost of options and see if performance goals need to be changed Study complete in 2017 Use results to develop short-term and long-term seismic recommendations Fold into rest of Capital Improvement Program

Questions/Discussion

Extra Slides to Follow

Loma Prieta (San Francisco) - 1989 M6.9 (epicenter 60 miles south/southeast of San Francisco) Approximately 1000 watermain breaks Water system damage mostly in areas of poor soils Water outage durations usually less than a few days Fire suppression water was an issue in Marina District Marina District 1912

Northridge - 1994 M6.7 (previously unknown fault) Over 1000 watermain breaks Over 100 fires Water system damage mostly in areas of poor soils Outage durations over 8 to 13 plus days

Kobe (Hyogo-Ken Nanbu) – 1995 (M6.9) Over 1700 Pipe Breaks Just in Kobe 109 Kobe Fire Ignitions Immediately After Earthquake (Another 88 in Surrounding Cities) 60 Days Plus for Restoration of Service Earthquake (January 17) “Substantial” Restoration (March 18)

2011 Christchurch Earthquake (M6.2) 1645 Watermain Breaks (February 2011 Earthquake) in Christchurch Limited Number of Fire Ignitions 45 Days Plus for Restoration of Service Most of pipeline system restored (end of March) FEB 22 (Earthquake) Water Treatment Restored (mid April)

Tohoku (East Japan) – 2011 (M9.0) Water Systems of Over 180 Municipalities Affected 345 Fire Ignitions 45 Days Plus for Substantial Restoration of Service Houses Restored “Substantial” Restoration (74,000 Houses Without Water) – May 1 Houses Without Water Earthquake (March 11) Sendai Pipe Breaks (red dots)

SPU Seismic Mitigation Program History Seismic Reliability Study of the Seattle Water Departments Water Supply System (Cygna Energy Services, 1990) Earthquake Loss Modeling of the Seattle Water System (Kennedy Jenks Chilton/USGS, 1990)

SPU Seismic Mitigation Program History (continued) SPU Seismic Upgrade Program (e.g., OCC, Myrtle Elevated Tanks, Barton Standpipe, etc.) Performance of Water Supply Systems in the February 28, 2001 Nisqually Earthquake (system post-earthquake hydraulic modeling, Water Research Foundation, 2008) Picture of SPU upgrade such as myrtle elevated tanks goes here

What’s Changed (since 1990) Active surface faults identified throughout Puget Sound region (e.g., Seattle Fault, South Whidbey Island Fault, Tacoma Fault, etc.) Migration from 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (475 year return interval) design earthquake to 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (2475 year return interval) design earthquake

What’s Changed (since 1990 - continued) Earthquake Experience (e.g., Northridge, Japanese, Chilean and New Zealand events) Potential for mass availability of earthquake- resistant pipe in U.S.

Post-Earthquake Water System Performance Goals Define water availability and water service restoration time after an earthquake Purposes Establish acceptable water system post-earthquake performance Define seismic program objectives Provide others with expected system performance so they know what to expect and prepare for

SFPUC Performance Goals “The basic “Level of Service” criterion shall be to deliver winter day demand (WDD) of 215 million gallons per day (MGD) (February 2030 demand) within 24 hours after a major earthquake. Deliver WDD to at least 70% of SFPUC wholesale customers’ turnouts within each of the three customer groups (Santa Clara/Alameda/South San Mateo County, Northern San Mateo County, and City of San Francisco). Achieve a 90% confidence level of meeting the above goal, given the occurrence of a major earthquake.

EBMUD Performance Goals

Oregon Resiliency Plan Performance Goals