Businesses in Cascadia - CREW

More documents

Recommendations

Info

tenant-businesses to assume greaterresponsibility for the life safety of theirpeople. Other than seeing to the evacuation,owners generally make no plans and set asideno provisions for the occupants and see suchpreparations as the sole responsibility of thetenant/employer.Continuity vs. Liability. While a tenantbusiness’priority is to get back into thebuilding as soon as possible after theearthquake, the owner of the building is morelikely to be motivated by concerns aboutliability. For example, it is not unusual forlease agreements to release the owner fromany obligation to restore the building for useafter a disaster such as an earthquake. Tenantswho seek to develop continuity plans maytherefore find it difficult to coordinate theirobjectives and recovery timelines with thoseof the owner of the building.STRANDED WORKERSThe issue of who is responsible (and to what extent) for the people who are left stranded by theearthquake was one that came up in several contexts. As noted above, it was identified as a pointof potential tension between owners of buildings and their tenants. It is also complicated by thestatus of buildings, many of which may be too damaged to serve as shelters, and in any case,would have to pass inspection before people could reoccupy them.Depending on the time of day, the earthquake could leave thousands of people stranded at theirplaces of work, at universities, or at large public venues. A few businesses have planned for sucha contingency and have set aside provisions to last about three days. Even this, however, may notaddress the problem of providing shelter or be sufficient for the number of people or length oftime involved. Many response and continuity plans assume the business’ building will be usable,that few people will be stranded, and that most will be able to reach home within 72 hours.The discussion in Oregon was particularly concerned about the extent to which publicauthorities, such as city governments, should assume responsibility for stranded people. The roleof the Red Cross and other non-profit aid organizations was also discussed, but the time requiredto fully mobilize these resources may still necessitate that businesses prepare to be withoutassistance for two to three days. Some agencies now recommend that people have enoughemergency provisions to last seven days.6 | CREW Business RoundtablesFigure 6. Damaged Inventory in Christchurch, New Zealand.As this photo demonstrates, an earthquake, such as themagnitude 6.1 earthquake that struck Christchurch inFebruary of 2011, can cause serious damage to a business’inventory and other unsecured nonstructural elements.(Photo: Ross Becker, Photographer, CERA photo gallery)
Figure 7. The Cordonnear the ProvincialCouncil Building inChristchurch, NewZealand. Due to theseriousness of thedamage sustained byChristchurch’s centralbusiness district duringthe M6.1 earthquake onFebruary 21, 2011, alarge part of the districtwas cordoned off whilethe damaged buildingsand debris were clearedaway. (Photo: RossBecker, Photographer,CERA photo gallery)LIMITATIONS ON RESOURCES FOR PLANNING AND MITIGATIONAs they described and compared features of their disaster and continuity plans, the participantsnoted that in general, larger businesses tend to have engaged in more planning and made morepreparations for disasters than smaller businesses. Not only do larger businesses have a greaterability to devote personnel and resources to planning and mitigation, they are more likely to haveexisting offices and facilities in other places—these can serve as backup centers foradministration, data, communications, and other essential functions if an earthquake causesdamage and disruption to the parts of the business that are located here. This resource does notexist for most small businesses, and even some of the larger regional businesses may not havelocated their backup facilities far enough away to escape being damaged in the same earthquakethat damages their main facility. Creating and maintaining such backup facilities is expensive.In addition to lacking backup facilities outside of the area, smaller businesses may also strugglewith the costs involved in purchasing, storing, and maintaining disaster kits, backup generators,and any other equipment that is necessary for continuing their operations. Other options that maybe available to very large businesses, such as the ability to self-insure, retrofit or build facilitiesto a higher standard, and maintain pre-disaster agreements with contractors for post disasterinspections and repairs, may not be feasible for small- to mid-sized businesses.Solutions for smaller businesses include arranging to share out-of-area backup centers andstorage facilities with other businesses in order to defray the costs. The challenge then is to findother businesses with similar needs and a willingness to form these types of partnerships.Community banks have developed a variation on this model: Thanks to partnerships with othersimilar banks, a bank whose building is damaged in an earthquake can continue to serve itscustomers within the impacted area by sharing the undamaged facilities of one of its partners.Those with fewer resources to commit to continuity planning and mitigation also need helpaccessing current research and identifying their risks and priorities.The Business Roundtable Series | 7
Page 1 and 2: Businesses in CascadiaSeeking Ways
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTSContents ..................
Page 5 and 6: CREW’S BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE SERIES
Page 7 and 8: anking and finance sector. At least
Page 9: Businesses that occupy buildings co
Page 13 and 14: INTERDEPENDENCIESAll of the discuss
Page 15 and 16: THE ROUNDTABLE IN PORTLAND, OREGONT
Page 17 and 18: law to restore functions within thr
Page 19 and 20: What about the structural aspects o
Page 21 and 22: with other states for various suppl
Page 23 and 24: timeline for the restoration of pow
Page 25 and 26: THE ROUNDTABLE IN SEATTLE, WASHINGT
Page 27 and 28: The February 2011 earthquake in Chr
Page 29 and 30: Guard will interface with other ent
Page 31 and 32: PLANNING FOR THE RESPONSE: OVERALL
Page 33 and 34: For businesses not involved in the
Page 35 and 36: THE ROUNDTABLE IN VANCOUVER, B.C.Th
Page 37 and 38: INTRODUCTION OF CREWCale Ash provid
Page 39 and 40: the data were drawn from the distri
Page 41 and 42: The three scenario maps presented t
Page 43 and 44: K-12 who have experienced ShakeOut
Page 45 and 46: (Note, for example, California’s

Businesses in Cascadia - CREW

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?