1 Natech Disasters: A Review of Practices, Lessons Learned and Future Research Needs Ana Maria Cruz* *Emergency Administration and Planning Program, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, USA; and DRS, Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Kyoto, 611-0011, Japan Abstract: There is heightened awareness of the danger posed by potential conjoint natural and technological (natech) disasters. The inclusion of a session on natechs at the recent World Conference on Disaster Reduction (Kobe, January 2005) serves as an example. However, there is still not sufficient reflection of this in laws of individual countries. For example, country laws generally refer to natech hazards only indirectly as “external” threats, and provisions to prevent or respond to simultaneous disasters from single or multiple sources concurrent with the natural disaster are usually not present. In this paper natech risk management practices in the United States, the state of California, Turkey, Japan and several European countries, as well as at the European Community level are discussed. The paper highlights some natech risk reduction initiatives undertaken by individual countries, as well as gaps in current regulatory requirements. Key words: natural and technological disasters; natechs; risk management, hazardous materials, chemical accidents 1. Introduction It is well known that natural disasters can trigger secondary disasters such as toxic air releases, spill of hazardous materials, and fires or explosions. These secondary technological disasters triggered by a natural disaster event are termed “natechs”. In this paper we are concerned with natechs in the form of hazardous materials releases from their containment vessels (including releases from pipeline) and damage to lifeline systems that are needed to contain these releases. There is heightened concern of the danger posed by these conjoint natural and technological disasters; the inclusion of a session on natechs at the recent United Nations’ World Conference on Disaster Reduction in Kobe, Japan, in January 2005, serves as an example. Nevertheless there is still not sufficient reflection of this in laws of individual countries. For example, country laws generally refer to natech hazards only indirectly as “external” threats, and provisions to prevent or respond to simultaneous disasters from single or multiple sources concurrent with the natural disaster are usually not present. In this paper natech risk management practices in the United States, the state of California, Turkey, Japan and several European countries, as well as at the European Community level are discussed. The paper highlights some natech risk reduction initiatives undertaken by individual countries, as well as gaps in current regulatory requirements. 2. Natech Disasters Research in the last two decades indicates an increase in the number of natech events in the United States. Sengul, Steinberg, and Cruz [1] , based on chemical accident data from the National Response Center and Emergency Response Notification System databases kept by the U. S. Coast Guard and the U. S.