[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS
REDUCTION PROGRAM:
PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 8, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-14
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
86-870 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
DANA ROHRABACHER, California JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOE BARTON, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan NICK LAMPSON, Texas
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan MARK UDALL, Colorado
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota DAVID WU, Oregon
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
Washington CHRIS BELL, Texas
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri ZOE LOFGREN, California
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JIM MATHESON, Utah
ROB BISHOP, Utah DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas VACANCY
JO BONNER, Alabama
TOM FEENEY, Florida
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Research
NICK SMITH, Michigan, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota ZOE LOFGREN, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BRAD SHERMAN, California
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania JIM MATHESON, Utah
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia RALPH M. HALL, Texas
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
PETER ROONEY Subcommittee Staff Director
DAN BYERS Professional Staff Member/Designee
JIM WILSON Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELIZABETH GROSSMAN, KARA HAAS Professional Staff Members
JEREMY JOHNSON Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
May 8, 2003
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives.. 10
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Minority
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Witnesses:
Mr. Anthony S. Lowe, Administrator, Federal Insurance Mitigation
Administration; Director, Mitigation Division, Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate (Federal Emergency
Management Agency), Department of Homeland Security
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Biography.................................................... 23
Mr. Robert A. Olson, President, Robert Olson Associates, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 26
Biography.................................................... 31
Financial Disclosure......................................... 31
Dr. Lloyd S. Cluff, Director, Geosciences Department and
Earthquake Risk Management Program, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company
Oral Statement............................................... 32
Written Statement............................................ 35
Biography.................................................... 40
Financial Disclosure......................................... 46
Dr. Thomas D. O'Rourke, President, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute; Thomas R. Briggs Professor of Engineering,
Cornell University
Oral Statement............................................... 46
Written Statement............................................ 49
Biography.................................................... 60
Financial Disclosure......................................... 62
Dr. Lawrence D. Reaveley, Professor and Chair, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Utah
Oral Statement............................................... 65
Written Statement............................................ 67
ATC-57,The Missing Piece: Improving Seismic Design and
Construction Practices by the Applied Technology Council,
2003....................................................... 74
Biography.................................................... 102
Financial Disclosure......................................... 106
Discussion....................................................... 107
Appendix 1: Additional Statements
Dr. Charles G. Groat, Director, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Department of the Interior
Written Statement............................................ 122
Biography.................................................... 129
Dr. Priscilla P. Nelson, Senior Advisor, Directorate for
Engineering, National Science Foundation
Written Statement............................................ 130
Biography.................................................... 136
Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, Chief, Materials and Construction Research
Division, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National
Institute of Standards and Technology
Written Statement............................................ 138
Biography.................................................... 144
Statement of the NEHRP Coalition................................. 146
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)...... 149
Statement of Support for NEHRP Reauthorization, submitted by the
Seismological Society of America............................... 152
Appendix 2: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Anthony S. Lowe, Administrator, Federal Insurance Mitigation
Administration; Director, Mitigation Division, Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate (Federal Emergency
Management Agency), Department of Homeland Security............ 154
Appendix 3: Additional Material for the Record
Building for the Future, NEHRP, 25th Anniversary................. 160
Expanding and Using Knowledge to Reduce Earthquake Losses: The
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, Strategic Plan
2001-2005...................................................... 168
THE NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM: PAST, PRESENT AND
FUTURE
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick Smith
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program:
Past, Present, and Future
thursday, may 8, 2003
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
On Thursday, May 8th, 2003, the Research Subcommittee of the House
Science Committee will hold a hearing to examine the current status of
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) in
preparation for program reauthorization later this year. NEHRP is a
long-term, comprehensive, multi-agency earthquake hazards mitigation
program established by Congress in 1977 to minimize the loss of life
and property from earthquakes. Four agencies participate in this
effort: the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), National Science Foundation (NSF), and National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
2. WITNESSES
(Note: The Subcommittee will also receive written testimony from
USGS, NSF, and NIST.)
Mr. Anthony Lowe is the Administrator of the Federal Insurance
Mitigation Administration (FIMA), a division of the Emergency
Preparedness and Response (EPR, formerly FEMA) Directorate of the
Department of Homeland Security. He will be accompanied by Mr. Craig
Wingo, Director of the FEMA Engineering Science and Technology
Division.
Dr. Lloyd S. Cluff is the Director of Geosciences and Earthquake Risk
Management for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and also Chair of the
USGS Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee. Dr. Cluff's
expertise includes identification of seismic faults and their potential
ground motion, and a member of the National Academy of Engineering.
Dr. Thomas O'Rourke is President of the Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute (EERI), a nonprofit technical society of engineers,
geoscientists, architects, planners, public officials, and social
scientists. He is also a Professor of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at Cornell University, and a member of the National Science
Foundation Engineering Advisory Committee. His research interests
include geotechnical engineering, earthquake engineering, lifeline
systems, underground construction technologies, and geographic
information technologies.
Dr. Robert Olson is President of Robert Olson Associates, where he
consults on areas of earthquake hazards mitigation, emergency
management, disaster operations, recovery assistance, and public policy
development. Previously, Mr. Olson served as Executive Director of the
California Seismic Safety Commission. He has chaired numerous
committees, including the Governor's Task Force on Earthquake
Preparedness and the Advisory Group on Disaster Preparedness to the
California Joint Legislative Committee on Seismic Safety.
Dr. Lawrence D. Reaveley is Professor and Chair of the Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Utah.
3. OVERARCHING QUESTIONS
The hearing will address the following overarching questions:
1. What have been the notable accomplishments and shortcomings
in the first 25 years of NEHRP? What is the current status of
the program, and what is the appropriate level of funding? How
should this funding be prioritized among various research and
mitigation activities?
2. How can Congress improve NEHRP strategic planning and
coordination to foster a more unified effort to reduce
earthquake hazards?
3. How will NEHRP be affected by the recent transition of
FEMA, formerly an independent federal agency, into the
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate of the
Department of Homeland Security?
4. How can NEHRP accelerate the implementation of knowledge
and tools developed from earthquake-related research?
4. OVERVIEW/ISSUES
Damaging earthquakes are inevitable, if infrequent.
Most states face at least some danger from earthquakes, and
total annualized damages in the United States are estimated to
be about $4.4 billion in direct financial losses (repair costs,
inventory loss, and business interruption). The 1994 Northridge
earthquake in California (magnitude 6.7) was the most costly in
U.S. history, causing over $40 billion in damage.
NEHRP was created in 1977 in response to growing
concerns about the threat of damaging earthquakes. The program
was originally focused on research into geotechnical and
structural engineering and earthquake prediction. Over time,
researchers recognized that earthquake prediction was an
unrealistic goal, and its focus was significantly de-emphasized
within NEHRP, while efforts were expanded to include activities
such as seismic retrofitting and rehabilitation, risk
assessment, public education and outreach, and code
development.
NEHRP Agency responsibilities include:
FEMA--Loverall coordination of the program, education
and outreach, and implementation of research results;
USGS--Lbasic and applied earth science and seismic
research;
NSF --Lbasic research in geoscience, engineering,
economic, and social aspects of earthquakes
NIST--Lproblem-focused R&D in earthquake engineering
aimed at improving building design codes and
construction standards.
The program has achieved significant progress since
inception, and is generally considered to be a successful
undertaking. Loss of life and injuries sustained from
earthquakes has decreased substantially, seismic risk
assessment capabilities have significantly improved, and
technological advances in areas such as performance-based
engineering, information technology, and sensing and imaging
have provided valuable knowledge and tools for mitigating
earthquake hazards.
New knowledge and tools, however, have not translated
into decreased overall vulnerability. End-user adoption of
NEHRP innovations has been incremental and slower than
expected. This is in part because current building codes tend
to focus on protecting the lives of the occupants rather than
minimizing non-structural damage and economic losses. Further,
the cost of rehabilitating existing structures to become more
earthquake resistant is often too high, as is the cost of
building new structures to minimize risk. The private sector
has not had adequate incentives, and State and local
governments have generally not had adequate budgets, to take
steps to address these challenges.
This slow implementation of new mitigation
technologies, combined with continued widespread development in
areas of high seismic risk, has resulted in a rapid and steady
increase in societal vulnerability to a major earthquake event.
Potential loss estimates of a future large earthquake in a
major U.S. urban area now approach $200 billion.
5. BACKGROUND OF NEHRP
History
A culmination of efforts, largely in response to the great Alaskan
earthquake of 1964 and San Fernando earthquake of 1971, led to the
creation of NEHRP in the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (P.L.
95-124). The original program called on 10 federal agencies to
implement the objectives of the program, though only the USGS and NSF
were authorized appropriations. Those objectives were to:
-- implement a system for predicting damaging earthquakes;
-- develop feasible design and construction methods for new
and existing buildings and lifelines for earthquake resistance;
-- identify, characterize, and evaluate seismic hazards;
develop model building codes and land-use policy
recommendations;
-- increase use of scientific and engineering knowledge to
mitigate earthquake risks; and
-- educate public officials and the public about earthquake
phenomena.
In 1979, a governmental reorganization initiative created FEMA to
lead government-wide efforts to respond to emergencies. The Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-472) designated FEMA as the lead
agency for NEHRP and authorized funding for both FEMA and the National
Bureau of Standards (now NIST) to become part of NEHRP. While NEHRP has
been reauthorized nine times, the only other substantive changes were
made in 1990 (P.L. 101-614). This act clarified and expanded program
objectives and agency responsibilities, required federal agencies to
adopt seismic safety standards for new and existing buildings, and
attempted to improve program coordination by requiring NEHRP agencies
to complete a strategic plan to be updated every three years, prepare
biennial reports on program progress, and submit a unified NEHRP budget
to OMB each year with their budget request.
Accomplishments and Goals
NEHRP has accomplished a great deal since its inception. Perhaps
most notable is the vast improvement in the ability to design a built
environment that can resist significant earthquake shaking with little
or no damage. NEHRP research and mitigation has also produced valuable
tools for mitigating earthquake hazards, including new national hazard
maps (Figure 1), improved seismic design provisions for new buildings,
guidelines for the rehabilitation of existing buildings, loss
estimation methodologies, performance-based design methodologies, and
real-time shake maps for first responders and other public officials.
Today the goals of NEHRP are to:
-- Develop effective practices and policies for earthquake
loss reduction and accelerate their implementation;
-- Improve techniques to reduce seismic vulnerability of
facilities and systems;
-- Improving seismic hazard identification and risk assessment
methods and their use;
-- Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.
Transition into the Department of Homeland Security
On March 1st, 2003, FEMA officially became part of the Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate for the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). It is unclear how this change will affect the execution
of NEHRP, but it is likely that the new arrangement will present both
challenges and opportunities for the program. While it seems
appropriate that natural disaster mitigation programs should be housed
in the DHS Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, many are
concerned that the Department's primary focus on acts of terrorism
could reduce the attention paid to NEHRP and other natural disaster
efforts. Conversely, though, it is clear that risk reduction efforts
such as strengthening buildings and lifelines and developing
comprehensive building databases would also benefit counter-terror
operations, and may therefore benefit from the Department's primary
mission.
NEHRP Budget
Original funding for NSF and USGS earthquake research activities in
1978 was $67 million (Chart 1). Though program activities have expanded
substantially, today's NEHRP budget is well below its original level in
real dollars. Also, funding for the program has tended to be reactive,
going through periods of gradual decline only to be followed by sharp
increases after significant earthquake events. Expanded program
activities and inconsistent, declining funding, combined with the fact
that the cost of performing research has increased faster than
inflation, have clearly limited the ability of NEHRP to effectively
meet program objectives.
The FY 2004 total funding request for NEHRP is $112.9 million
(Table 1). This level is essentially flat, both in total and across
agencies, compared to the appropriated levels of the last three years
(with the exception of NSF, which has had a gradual decrease due to the
planned completion of the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation, NEES). NEHRP is funded through three different
appropriations bills (VA/HUD, Interior, and Commerce-State-Justice),
none of which include agency lines for NEHRP programs. This factor,
along with the often unclear budget request breakdowns for the program,
have made NEHRP budget and activities difficult to interpret and
analyze.
The Science Committee has been particularly concerned with the lack
of funding for the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), a network
of instruments for monitoring and providing early warning of
earthquakes. ANSS was authorized by the most recent NEHRP
reauthorization law in 2000 (P.L. 106-503) at $170 million over five
years. In each of its first three years, it has been funded at only
about 10 percent of the authorized level.
6. ABOUT EARTHQUAKES
-- When the crust of the earth is subject to tectonic forces,
it bends slightly. But because the crust is rigid, when the
stress or pressure from the tectonic forces exceeds the
strength of the rocks, the crust breaks and snaps into a new
position. This creates vibrations called seismic waves, which
travel both through the earth and along its surface. These
seismic waves cause the ground shaking we call earthquakes.
-- It is estimated that there are 500,000 detectable
earthquakes in the world each year. 100,000 of those can be
felt, and 100 of them cause damage.
-- In the 20th century, more than 100 earthquakes occurred
worldwide that each resulted in losses of more than 1,000
lives. The deadliest earthquake in modern times occurred in
1976 in Tangshan, China, killing more than 250,000 people. In
1990, a major earthquake in Iran killed 40,000 people.
-- Almost 40 states are subject to either moderate or high
seismic risk. Alaska is the most earthquake-prone state and one
of the most seismically active regions in the world. Alaska
experiences a magnitude 7 earthquake almost every year. The
largest recorded earthquake in the United States was a
magnitude 9.2 that struck Prince William Sound, Alaska on March
28, 1964.
-- Southern California experiences 10,000 earthquakes a year.
Only about 15-20 of these are above magnitude 4.0. On the other
side of the spectrum, there were four states that did not have
any earthquakes from 1975-1995: Florida, Iowa, North Dakota,
and Wisconsin.
-- While most earthquakes in the United States occur on the
West Coast and in Alaska, a major fault line also exists in the
Central United States. Known as the New Madrid Fault, a series
of major earthquakes occurred on this fault line in 1811 and
1812. The effects of shaking from these magnitude 8+
earthquakes reportedly caused church bells to ring in Boston
and moved furniture in the White House.
8. WITNESS QUESTIONS
The witnesses were asked to address the following questions in
their testimony:
Question for all witnesses
What factors have limited the success of NEHRP, and what policy
changes would you recommend to remove these limitations? How can the
NEHRP participating agencies improve planning, coordination, and
general administration of NEHRP to better meet the vision for the
program set forth by Congress?
Questions for Dr. Lloyd Cluff
Discuss how geology and earth sciences research
related to earthquake processes has improved our understanding
of seismic hazards. How have these advancements contributed to
our ability to protect from the loss of lives and property due
to earthquakes? How has the focus of NEHRP earth sciences
research evolved since the inception of NEHRP?
How would a major earthquake potentially affect the
operations of critical lifelines such as utilities, hospitals,
and communications centers? How does Pacific Gas and Electric
utilize NEHRP research and activities to protect against such
disasters?
In your capacity as Chairman of the USGS Earthquake
Studies Advisory Committee, discuss the findings and
recommendations of your Committee with regard to the U.S.
Geological Survey's role in NEHRP.
How would you prioritize limited federal funds among
specific NEHRP research and mitigation activities (earthquake
monitoring, hazard assessment, performance-based engineering,
lifeline reinforcement, code development and adoption,
education and outreach, post-earthquake response and
investigation, etc.)?
How will the transfer of FEMA into the Department of
Homeland Security affect the success of NEHRP? How do NEHRP
research and mitigation activities benefit other efforts to
increase our preparedness for all types of hazards, such as
hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, and terrorist events?
Questions for Mr. Anthony Lowe
Discuss the significant achievements of the NEHRP
program during its first 25 years. What factors have been most
important in contributing to this success? In what areas may
the program not be realizing its full potential? How does the
NEHRP of 2003 differ from the program that was originally
established in 1977?
Provide an overview of FEMA's NEHRP activities,
including information on efforts related to: (1) planning and
coordination of the program with participating agencies; (2)
promoting the implementation of earthquake hazard reduction
measures by Federal, State, and local governments, as well as
private entities; (3) accelerating the application of research
advances into practice; (4) combining measures for earthquake
hazards reduction with measures for reduction of other natural
hazards; and (5) harnessing the potential of information
technology in meeting NEHRP goals.
How will the transfer of FEMA into the Department of
Homeland Security affect the success of NEHRP, and how will
FEMA ensure that the program receives adequate support within
the expanded layers of government in the DHS structure? How do
NEHRP research and mitigation activities benefit other efforts
to increase our preparedness for all types of hazards, such as
hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, and terrorist events?
Please provide with your testimony a detailed
budgetary breakdown of each participating agency's NEHRP
activities, as well as a status report and estimated timetable
for the completion of the strategic plan required by Public Law
101-614.
Questions for Mr. Robert Olson
Discuss the evolution of federal earthquake
mitigation efforts over the last 40 years, from initial
interest in the 1960's, through establishment of NEHRP in 1977,
to where we are today. What notable successes have these
efforts produced? What significant events and developments have
impacted the program, both negatively and positively?
How can the resources and expertise of non-NEHRP
emergency preparedness activities (hurricane, flood, tornado
mitigation) and agencies (i.e., NASA, NOAA) best partner with
NEHRP to further the goals of the program?
How will the transfer of FEMA into the Department of
Homeland Security affect the success of NEHRP? How do NEHRP
research and mitigation activities benefit other efforts to
increase our preparedness for all types of hazards, such as
hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, and terrorist events?
Questions for Dr. Thomas O'Rourke
Discuss how research in structural, geotechnical, and
other engineering disciplines has improved our ability to
protect lives and property from earthquake hazards? How has the
focus of NEHRP engineering research evolved since the inception
of NEHRP?
Discuss the findings and recommendations of the
comprehensive EERI report ``Securing Society Against
Catastrophic Earthquake Loss: A Research and Outreach Plan in
Earthquake Engineering.'' How should policy-makers prioritize
limited federal funds among and within the five program areas
discussed in the report (Understanding Seismic Hazards,
Assessing Earthquake Impacts, Reducing Earthquake Impacts,
Enhancing Community Resilience, and Expanding Education and
Public Outreach)?
Discuss the potential of information technology to
contribute to earthquake mitigation. To date, has NEHRP
effectively harnessed this potential?
How will the transfer of FEMA into the Department of
Homeland Security affect the success of NEHRP? How do NEHRP
research and mitigation activities benefit other efforts to
increase our preparedness for all types of hazards, such as
hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, and terrorist events?
Questions for Dr. Lawrence Reaveley
Discuss how research in structural engineering has
improved our ability to protect lives and property from
earthquake hazards? How has the focus of NEHRP structural
engineering research evolved since the inception of NEHRP?
How would you prioritize limited federal funds among
specific NEHRP research and mitigation activities (earthquake
monitoring, hazard assessment, performance-based engineering,
lifeline reinforcement, seismic rehabilitation, code
development and adoption, education and outreach, post-
earthquake response and investigation, etc.)?
What are the major impediments to improving the
overall seismic performance of buildings, both new and
existing? Is the pace and extensiveness of code development and
adoption improving? Is there anything the Federal Government
can do to facilitate increased adoption of seismic codes in
areas of high seismic risk? Is seismic rehabilitation an
economical use of earthquake mitigation funds?
Chairman Smith. The Subcommittee on Research will be in
order. I thank all of the witnesses for being here today, and I
apologize for holding up the starting at the beginning of this
committee session on the important topic of reauthorizing NEHRP
and how do we best protect ourselves from earthquakes in this
country and help with our advice and technology around the
world. You know, NEHRP was established in 1977, created as the
Federal Government's response to several large earthquakes in
the United States and around the world that served, probably,
as a wake up call to the significant threats that earthquakes
posed to the people and infrastructure of many of our heavy
populated metropolitan areas.
And I think it is important that we stress that this just
isn't a West Coast problem. It is certainly the best known
location for earthquake risks lately, but it is not the only
part of the country vulnerable to earthquake hazards. Alaska is
even more seismically active than California, in fact. The--a
massive 7.9 magnitude earthquake underneath the Trans-Alaskan
Oil Pipeline struck just last November and we will hear from
witnesses of this quake that went unnoticed, largely thanks to
some of our witnesses today and the foresight and funding to
mitigate the hazard when the pipeline was being constructed.
The Eastern United States is not immune, either. A very
large fault centered in eastern Missouri was the site of one of
the largest earthquakes in American history, which had
consequences all the way to James Madison's White House and the
bells in Boston. More recently, two smaller but noticeable
quakes, one last week in Alabama and one on Monday near
Charlottesville, Virginia, I think, surface to remind us that
the threat is constant and far reaching and indeed deserves the
attention and the funding of taxpayers from all over the
Nation.
I look back at the progress from the first 25 years of
NEHRP and it shows that the program has contributed
significantly to our ability to protect against earthquake
hazards. Our understanding of fault lines and seismic risks has
improved dramatically, and we know much more about how to build
structures that perform well even during severe earthquakes.
And the question I think and the challenge before us is how do
we implement these precautions that we know how to construct at
the moment.
And without objection, the rest of my statement will be
going into the record, and I would call on the Ranking Member.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Nick Smith
Good afternoon and welcome to the first Research Subcommittee
meeting of the 108th Congress. Today we meet to review the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, NEHRP, in preparation for
reauthorization later this year.
Established in 1977, NEHRP was created as the Federal Government's
response to several large earthquakes in the United States and around
the world that served as a wake-up call to the significant threats that
earthquakes posed to the people and infrastructure in many of our
heavily populated metropolitan areas.
While the West Coast--and California in particular--is certainly
the best-known location for earthquake risks, it is not the only part
of the country vulnerable to earthquake hazards. Alaska is even more
seismically active than California--in fact a massive 7.9 magnitude
earthquake underneath the trans-Alaskan oil pipeline struck just last
November. As we will hear from our witnesses this quake went unnoticed,
largely thanks to the foresight and funding to mitigate this hazard
when the pipeline was being constructed.
The Eastern United States is not immune either. A very large fault
centered in Eastern Missouri was the site of one of the largest
earthquakes in American history--which in 1812 famously rang church
bells in Boston and moved furniture in James Madison's White House. And
more recently, two smaller but noticeable earthquakes--one last week in
Alabama and one on Monday near Charlottesville, Virginia--serve to
remind us that the threat is constant and far reaching. Indeed,
earthquakes are clearly not just a state or regional problem, but a
nationwide problem, demanding nationwide mitigation.
A look back at the progress from the first 25 years of NEHRP shows
that the program has contributed significantly to our ability to
protect against earthquake hazards. Our understanding of fault lines
and seismic risks has improved dramatically. We know much more about
how to build structures that perform well during even the largest of
earthquakes. And we now have technologies available for seismic
monitoring that provide real-time earthquake information to public
officials and emergency responders.
Despite these advances, our vulnerability to earthquakes has
continuously increased. Widespread development still occurs unabated in
areas of high seismic risk. Development, adoption, and enforcement of
pertinent building codes have been incremental and slower than
expected. And now we see funding for available mitigation technologies
at all levels of government has steadily declined in real terms. The
only exceptions are two brief increases following the 1989 and 1994
Loma Prieta and Northridge earthquakes, respectively. While the
reactive nature of Congressional support for programs like NEHRP is a
political reality, disasters should not be the only time we acknowledge
the importance of earthquake mitigation.
It is clear that NEHRP needs to be strengthened. In addition to
funding challenges, several aspects of program leadership and
coordination continue to be an ongoing problem. The low visibility of
the program has also limited its success. Knowledge and awareness of
these needs within the Office of Management and Budget, relevant
appropriators, and even to some degree NEHRP agencies--has been too
low. Many outside of this committee and a small outside community of
earthquake interests--are unaware that this coordinated effort even
exists. These factors need to be addressed as we reauthorize the
program.
Finally, I want to note my disappointment with the continued under-
funding of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), the real-time
seismic monitoring system for which we authorized funds for
construction and operation as part of the last NEHRP authorization bill
over three years ago. The earthquake community is in almost unanimous
agreement that funding ANSS should be a top priority--the NEHRP
Strategic Plan, the EERI Research and Outreach Plan, and the USGS
Advisory Committee recommendations all cite ANSS as the top priority--
but this has not translated to funding requests anywhere near the
levels this committee authorized. We need to find a way to fund ANSS.
We may not be able to do this with all new funding, but rather have to
find some trade-offs elsewhere in NEHRP, but we have to follow up our
recognition of its importance with funding.
Certainly we know that earthquakes cannot be prevented. But we can
mitigate their impact. That is why the NEHRP exists, and that is why we
are here today to discuss how we can improve the program.
We have a very esteemed panel of witnesses before us today that
will present some innovative ideas and opinions on how to best bring
about meaningful improvements to NEHRP. I thank them for appearing here
today, and look forward to a productive discussion.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank you
for calling this hearing, and I am pleased to join you in
welcoming our witnesses today for this initial hearing on the
National Earthquake Hazardous--Hazards Reduction Program. This
hearing will begin to lay the groundwork necessary for the
Research Subcommittee to develop authorizing legislation for
this interagency program. NEHRP was established 25 years ago to
address the serious seismic hazard in the United States. It has
the major goal of determining how to lower the risks to people
and to the built environment.
Today, 75 million Americans and 39 states are directly
vulnerable to a serious earthquake. The potential economic
losses in a large metropolitan area due to a major earthquake
could be over $100 billion. These facts make the justification
for NEHRP self-evident and its relevance even after 25 years
continues.
The Subcommittee's attention will be directed to other
questions about the program. These include: how well is it
being run, is it focused on the highest priority issues, and is
it adequately funded to meet the goals? The witnesses today,
hopefully, will describe the accomplishments of NEHRP, and
there have been many, but as we approach the reauthorization of
this program, it is important to consider the areas where more
needs to be done. On such--one such area is the technology
transfer that will bring into practice what has been learned
from the research activities--most effective and economically
ways for enhancing the seismic safety of the built environment.
Also, attention must be directed to deficiencies in the
planning and administration of the program.
In 1993, the former Chairman of the Science Committee, Mr.
George Brown, wrote the President to express his concerns about
NEHRP. He cited the lack of strategic planning, insufficient
coordination and implementation of research results, and a lack
of emphasis on mitigation. Unfortunately, most of these
concerns are still valid.
I am particularly disappointed with the performance of FEMA
in its role as the lead agency for NEHRP. The strategic plan
FEMA is statutorily mandated to develop and submit to Congress
has been in limbo for a very long while and has only now
surfaced, just in time for today's hearing, but about 10 years
overdue. In the last NEHRP reauthorization in 2000, Congress
directed FEMA to work jointly with the other NEHRP agencies to
prepare a detailed implementation plan and budget for the
program for submittal to OMB during the budget formulation
process. I doubt that this has been done for any budget year
since the requirement was put into place.
FEMA was not able to provide a breakout of the various
agencies' NEHRP budgets on the day the President's fiscal year
2004 budget was released. Developing a NEHRP authorization
bill, the Subcommittee must reassess the current structure of
the program, including the roles and responsibilities of
participating agencies. We must determine whether FEMA, in its
new status as a component of the Department of Homeland
Security, is willing and able to provide the leadership needed
to ensure a well coordinated, carefully planned, and
effectively executed NEHRP.
Another major issue I look forward to exploring in this
hearing is the adequacy of the resources available for NEHRP. I
invite the witnesses to comment on whether the current funding
is allocated in optimum ways and to identify what they consider
the most serious deficiencies of the program. If NEHRP were to
receive an infusion of funding, what are the priorities that
deserve attention? I would also welcome suggestions on how
NEHRP could help accelerate the transfer of research findings
to practical mitigation practices.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling the hearing.
And I might have to leave since I am working with another
Committee, but I do--I would like the answers. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming our witnesses
today to this initial hearing on the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program. This hearing will begin to lay the groundwork
necessary for the Research Subcommittee to develop authorizing
legislation for this interagency program.
NEHRP was established 25 years ago to address the serious seismic
hazard in the United States. It has the major goal of determining how
to lower the risk to people and to the built environment. Today, 75
million Americans in 39 states are directly vulnerable to a serious
earthquake. The potential economic losses in a large metropolitan area
due to a major earthquake could be over $100 billion.
These facts make the justification for NEHRP self evident, and its
relevance, even after 25 years, continues. The Subcommittee's attention
will be directed to other questions about the program. These include:
how well is it being run, is it focused on the highest priority issues,
and is it adequately funded to meet its goals?
The witnesses today will describe the accomplishments of NEHRP, and
there have been many. But, as we approach the reauthorization of the
program, it is important to consider the areas where more needs to be
done. One such area is the technology transfer that will bring into
practice what has been learned from the research activities about the
most effective and economical ways for enhancing the seismic safety of
the built environment. Also, attention must be directed at deficiencies
in the planning and administration of the program.
In 1993, the former Chairman of the Science Committee, George
Brown, wrote the President to express his concerns about NEHRP. He
cited the lack of strategic planning, insufficient coordination and
implementation of research results, and a lack of emphasis on
mitigation. Unfortunately most of these concerns are still valid.
I am particularly disappointed with the performance of FEMA in its
role as the lead agency for NEHRP. The strategic plan FEMA is
statutorily mandated to develop and submit to Congress has been in
limbo for a long while and has only now surfaced, just in time for
today's hearing, but 10 years overdue.
In the last NEHRP reauthorization in 2000, Congress directed FEMA
to work jointly with the other NEHRP agencies to prepare a detailed
implementation plan and budget for the program for submittal to OMB
during the budget formulation process. I doubt that this has been done
for any budget year since the requirement was put in place. FEMA was
not able to provide a breakout of the various agencies' NEHRP budgets
on the day the President's FY 2004 budget was released.
Mr. Chairman, in developing the NEHRP authorization bill, the
Subcommittee must reassess the current structure of the program,
including the roles and responsibilities of the participating agencies.
We must determine whether FEMA, in its new status as a component of the
Department of Homeland Security, is willing and able to provide the
leadership needed to ensure a well coordinated, carefully planned, and
effectively executed NEHRP.
Another major issue I look forward to exploring in this hearing is
the adequacy of the resources available for NEHRP. I invite the
witnesses to comment on whether the current funding is allocated in
optimum ways and to identify what they consider are the most serious
deficiencies of the program. If NEHRP were to receive an infusion of
funding, what are the priorities that deserve attention? I would also
welcome suggestions on how NEHRP could help accelerate the transfer of
research findings to practical mitigation measures.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing and
thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today. I look
forward to our discussion.
Chairman Smith. The Chair would like to align himself with
your comments, Congresswoman Johnson, particularly your
suggestion to FEMA that better late than never, but better on
time than being late. And so with that, if there is no
objection, all additional opening statements by the
Subcommittee Members would be added to the record. And without
objection, so ordered.
At this time, I would like to introduce our panelists. Mr.
Anthony Lowe is the Administrator of the Federal Insurance
Mitigation Administration for FEMA. Mr. Robert Olson is
President of the Robert Olson Associates, Incorporated. Mr.
Lloyd Cluff is Director of Geosciences and Earthquake Risk
Management at Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Chair of the
USGS Federal Advisory Committee for NEHRP. And Dr. Tom O'Rourke
is the President of the Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute at Cornell University and civil and environmental
engineering professor. And Dr. Lawrence Reaveley is Professor
of Civil Engineering, but will be more completely introduced by
Mr. Matheson.
Mr. Matheson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking
Member Johnson. I appreciate having the opportunity to
introduce my constituent, Dr. Lawrence Reaveley. And very
briefly, he has 40 years of experience in structural
engineering, earthquake code development, and earthquake risk
mitigation, and he also assessed damaged concrete buildings
following the 1999 earthquake that devastated Turkey as part of
an Advanced Technology Council Survey Team. Currently, Dr.
Reaveley is Professor and Chair of the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the University of Utah. He also
serves as the President of the Structural Engineering
Association of Utah. He was just telling me he was involved in
the seismic retrofit of the Federal building in downtown Salt
Lake City for which he--GSA [General Services Administration]
recognized that effort with an award.
Thanks to the Utah Legislature, I no longer have that
building in part of my district, so my office is no longer in
that building, but we were there for the construction. Dr.
Reaveley, it is really a pleasure to have you here today, and I
want to thank you for your participation in this hearing and
look forward to your comments.
Chairman Smith. Thank you. And we no longer formally
administer the oath, but you are, in effect, under oath
testifying before a panel of the United States Congress. And
Mr. Lowe, as best you can, limit to about five minutes, but
thereabouts we would be comfortable with. Mr. Lowe.
STATEMENT OF MR. ANTHONY S. LOWE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
INSURANCE MITIGATION ADMINISTRATION; DIRECTOR, MITIGATION
DIVISION, EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE DIRECTORATE
(FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY), DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. Lowe. Thank you. Thank you so much. Chairman Smith,
Ranking Member Johnson, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Anthony S. Lowe, Federal Insurance Administrator and Director
of the Mitigation Division of FEMA in the Department of
Homeland Security. On behalf of the National Earthquake
Hazard----
Chairman Smith. Mr. Lowe, just a second. Sorry for the
interruption. What is happening now? It is--they are calling a
vote, which sometimes disrupts the proceedings, but we will go
along with at least your testimony and then we will recess for
five minutes to make the vote. So excuse the interruption.
Mr. Lowe. Thank you so much. I am used to being over on the
Senate side where the buzzer is a little different, and you
have got the clock with the lights on it. So I was looking
around the room, but I didn't see one. Okay. I guess we need
lights over there. You are a little more sophisticated on this
side, I think.
Nevertheless, as I said, on behalf of the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, NEHRP, we appreciate the
invitation to appear today before the Subcommittee on Research.
The Committee has asked me, and so I am joined by Craig Wingo,
head of our Engineering Science and Technology Program.
Congress assigned the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
FEMA, the core of the Department of Homeland Security's
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, to serve as
the lead agency for NEHRP. Our role, in reality, is leadership
among equals. And that also includes the United States
Geological Survey, USGS, the National Science Foundation, NSF,
and the National Institute of Standards, NIST.
This past year, as you know, marks the 25th year since
Congress first authorized NEHRP, and I am pleased to report
that it is sound. In our role as lead federal agency, we are
implementing a number of results-oriented management
initiatives so that we can build upon the program's past
successes and current strengths. We will accomplish this while
maintaining strong partnerships with other NEHRP agencies and
stakeholders. These partnerships have been vital to our success
over the past 25 years, and they are also key to our future
success.
As you may be aware, we recently co-sponsored a forum with
the other NEHRP agencies and the National Academy of Sciences
to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the program and its many
successes. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to
present a brochure from that forum that illustrates just ten of
the programs accomplished over the past 25 years.
[Note: The information referred to is located in Appendix
3: Additional Material for the Record.]
Thank you so much. Two other more notable accomplishments
are we now have a nationally applicable seismic building
standard that serves as a basis for the Nation's modeling--
model building codes, and many states are adopting those
provisions in their own codes. Also, we have made significant
progress in providing seismic design guides for the Nation's
lifelines, such as power, water, transmission, and the critical
infrastructure such as bridges and hospitals.
Fundamental to NEHRP's mission is that our earthquake loss
reduction efforts are built upon a solid foundation of basic as
well as applied research. To further that goal, FEMA, in
concert with other NEHRP agencies, has completed the
development of the NEHRP strategic plan, which has been
referred to by the Committee.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would also like to
submit another copy, for the record, of the strategic plan.
[Note: The information referred is located in Appendix 3:
Additional Material for the Record.]
As you know, this plan represents considerable coordination
among our NEHRP----
Chairman Smith. Is that a different----
Mr. Lowe. No, it is the same.
Chairman Smith [continuing]. Plan from the first?
Mr. Lowe. No. This plan represents considerable
coordination among our NEHRP partner agencies and stakeholders
to arrive at a national consensus document, and we all are
pleased with the results. Now, however, that the strategic plan
is in place, I have consulted with my counterparts from the
other NEHRP agencies, which is called the Policy Coordination
Council, PCC, to begin to develop a management plan.
I am going to just divert from my remarks a little bit and
say a couple of words in reference to what has been said so far
by both you, Mr. Chairman, as well as the Ranking Member. At
the 25th anniversary celebration, what we were able to do is
certainly celebrate the 25 years of accomplishments, but we did
so without the strategic plan, which of course, really was the
guiding document for the work that had been begun even before
its passage and now really sets the stage. But with the
strategic plan, my objective there and now was to
operationalize that strategic plan. And the first part of that
was to call for the first meeting of the PCC, the political
heads, as well as the executive policy heads of the four NEHRP
agencies, because in order for us to thoroughly carry out the
strategic vision that the strategic plan calls for, it needs
the commitment, both monetarily as well as staff-wise and
expertise-wise, and also, if you will, the commitment of the
synergy of our missions to really achieve the results that we
are looking for. And so sitting with the four principals, we
all decided that what we really needed was a management plan.
And the purpose of that management plan, of course, is to
provide monetary and control, both the systems to monitor as
well as the process to, if you will, begin to implement the
strategic plan.
In addition, I called for, at that time, an annual plan,
which would be really the operation and the program of work by
which the ICC, which are Craig and the other program level
folks who, if you will, take care of the day-to-day operations,
would lead their work by, that way we all could look at what we
are asking them to do that is coming from the strategic plan
and then be able to monitor that against a set of performance
metrics, which the management plan would call for and would be
monitored.
We also, of course, during that process, want to be able to
continually evaluate programming, budgeting, planning,
execution. We want to begin to be able to do that at the
management level. And so I think this process allows us to do
that.
[Slide.]
The next slide, very quickly, shows the many advisory
groups that have been involved in this strategic planning
process up to this point. The last thing I would say about the
management plan is the purpose here in part is to carry out the
full spirit of Section 206, which I--which really has to be
done at the highest level of all of the agencies.
That concludes my testimony. I look forward to any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anthony S. Lowe
Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the
Subcommittee,
I am Anthony S. Lowe, Federal Insurance Administrator, and Director
of the Mitigation Division of the Emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate in the Department of Homeland Security. On behalf of the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, or NEHRP, we welcome and
appreciate the invitation to appear today before the Subcommittee on
Research. I am joined by Craig S. Wingo, head of our Engineering
Science and Technology Unit.
I would like to do three things today: first, share with the
Subcommittee what we
have accomplished under NEHRP during the past two years; second,
review for the Members our roles and responsibilities as lead agency of
NEHRP; and finally, look to what lies ahead for NEHRP, especially in
the post-9/11 environment.
Congress assigned the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
now the core of the Department of Homeland Security's Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate, to serve as the lead federal
agency for NEHRP. Our lead role is in reality a leadership among equals
that also include the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the
National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST).
This past year marked 25 years since Congress first authorized
NEHRP. We are pleased to report that the state of NEHRP is sound, and,
in our role as lead federal agency, we are implementing a number of
results-oriented management initiatives so that we can build upon the
program's past successes and current strengths. Further, we will
accomplish this while maintaining strong partnerships with the other
NEHRP agencies, State and local governments, academia, the research
community, code enforcement officials, design professionals, and the
remainder of the private sector. These partnerships have been vital to
the success of NEHRP during the past 25 years, and they will be key to
our continued success in what lies ahead to reduce the exposure of our
people, our economy, and our overall security as a nation to the
threats of earthquakes and other related hazards.
Specifically, we are responsible for the overall coordination of
the NEHRP, both within the Federal Government and with external
constituencies. By Congressional mandate, we prepare a consolidated
multi-year plan and periodic reports to Congress. We also translate the
results of research and technology into effective earthquake loss
reduction methodologies, and we administer a program of grants and
technical assistance to States and multi-state consortia. These
activities heighten public awareness of the earthquake hazard and
foster plans to reduce seismic vulnerability.
We also support the development and dissemination of improved
seismic design and construction criteria for new buildings and retrofit
guidance for existing buildings. This material is made available to
design professionals, and Federal, State and local entities for
voluntary use through model building codes and standards.
NEHRP is a key component in the Department's mission to secure and
protect this nation because earthquakes represent the largest single
potential for casualties, damage, and economic disruption from any
natural hazard facing this country. All but 11 States and territories
are at some level of earthquake risk.
The National Security Council (NSC) in 1982 underscored the threat
of earthquakes to the United States and estimated that a large
magnitude earthquake in urban areas could cause thousands of
casualties, and losses approaching $200 billion. The NSC issued a
report identifying the need for FEMA to develop a federal interagency
response plan for the life-saving and life-protecting phases of a
disaster operation to assist States and localities since States and
localities would, in many cases, be overwhelmed in the first days after
a catastrophic earthquake. In the 20 years since this report was
completed, our improved knowledge of the earthquake hazard has only
served to buttress the Council's findings.
Recent findings from the USGS show a significantly increased
potential for damaging earthquakes in both southern and northern
California. Studies also show higher potential of earthquakes for the
Pacific Northwest, the New Madrid fault zone in the central U.S., and
coastal South Carolina. This exposure is in addition to other areas of
earthquake risk, such as New England and the Wasatch front in Utah. We
know that while earthquakes may be inevitable, earthquake disasters are
not.
Furthermore, earthquakes in critical locations can have national
economic consequences. For example, a major earthquake in the central
United States on the New Madrid fault might well disrupt oil and gas
distribution to the Northeast, gridlock barge traffic on the
Mississippi River, and disrupt travel and communications hubs that
serve national and international markets.
The good news is that we can reduce the earthquake risk that our
nation faces through a shared responsibility under the NEHRP. In the
face of this threat, NEHRP is working and succeeding.
Since we last appeared before you, our country has experienced
several large-scale events, most notably the Nisqually earthquake
outside of the Seattle area in February 2001. The Nisqually event was
roughly the same magnitude as our largest recent earthquake disaster,
the January 1994 Northridge earthquake. That latter event, located on
the fringe of a major metropolitan area, caused over $30 billion in
damage. However, the epicenter of the Nisqually earthquake was fairly
deep in the earth, and this depth served to significantly reduce
surface ground motions and resultant damages. Nonetheless, we need to
recognize the City of Seattle for their significant mitigation
activities and the effective building code which helped further reduce
the impact of the event. By comparison, the Kobe, Japan earthquake
demonstrated the impact of an event of similar size located directly
under a major metropolitan area. The result was over $100 billion in
damages and approximately 5,500 fatalities in Kobe, a city strikingly
similar to Oakland, California in its proximity to the sea with
resultant poor soil conditions, and the fault which runs through the
middle of the city.
The depth of the Nisqually earthquake, which served to reduce its
effects at the surface by at least a full point of magnitude, and the
timing of both the Northridge earthquake, which occurred at four in the
morning on a holiday, and the Loma Prieta earthquake, which shook the
San Francisco Bay area on a day when many had left work early to watch
the World Series game, all worked to lessen the impact of these events.
Thus, thankfully, we avoided the types of losses that Kobe suffered,
but we cannot ignore their warning signs.
Many of NEHRP's activities include taking what research has
discovered and what technology has developed and translating those
findings into practical seismic risk reduction measures as well as
training, education, and advocacy for earthquake hazard mitigation
measures. In these activities the NEHRP agencies work together, work
with other Federal and State agencies, universities, and private,
regional, voluntary and professional organizations. The end results are
safer buildings, safer infrastructures, more aware citizens, and more
proactive State and local governments.
As you may be aware, we were pleased to have recently co-sponsored
a forum with the other NEHRP agencies and the National Academy of
Sciences celebrating the 25th anniversary of the program and its many
successes. Mr. Chairman, I have a brochure from that forum that
illustrates just 10 examples of the program's successes over the past
25 years. With the Committee's permission, I would like the brochure to
be included in the record. A number of representatives of the
stakeholder community who have been so instrumental in the success of
the NEHRP provided input for this brochure, and I am pleased to see
some of them here today.
In addition to the 10 examples listed in the 25th anniversary
brochure before you, there have been many more successes. Among them
are the following:
At the program's inception 25 years ago, the geologic
theory of plate tectonics was less than 10 years old, and we
really did not understand how earthquakes worked. We now have
significantly more knowledge of the faults located throughout
our country and how they work. This may allow us eventually to
forecast, if not actually predict, future activity.
When Congress first authorized NEHRP in 1977, the
only State with an adequate seismic building code was
California, and that code was not applicable outside of the
State. We now have a nationally applicable seismic building
standard. It serves as the basis for the seismic requirements
in the Nation's model building codes, and many States are
adopting those provisions in their own codes.
We now have earthquake engineering research centers
throughout the country funded through NSF that are continuing
to add to the body of knowledge about earthquakes and their
effects. Soon we will have a national high-speed Internet
system in place that will allow researchers to access and
participate in research work from anywhere in the country.
We now have design guidance in place that addresses
the risk from existing buildings, and we have facilitated the
introduction of this material into the Nation's building codes
and standards.
We have begun the process of providing seismic design
guidance for the Nation's lifelines, such as buried pipelines
and water systems, and other critical infrastructure.
We now have seismic expertise at the State and local
level throughout the country that has done much to implement
the program and reduce future losses.
While the Program has been a success by all measures, it is not
without its challenges.
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (Act) designated FEMA
as the lead agency of a program consisting of four federal agencies
with different cultures and different charters, each with its own
budget. The Act did not, however, authorize us to direct resources to
where the Program may have the greatest need. In spite of this
challenge, the NEHRP has accomplished what it has through collaboration
and cooperation.
That spirit of cooperation must continue. Toward that end, I assure
this subcommittee that the Interagency Coordinating Committee,
consisting of the four agencies' program managers, will continue to
meet on a bimonthly basis to improve communication with respect to our
program activities. In addition, I recently held a meeting of the
Policy Coordination Committee, with my three counterparts from the
other NEHRP agencies, and I plan to hold these meetings three times a
year.
But fundamental to NEHRP's mission is that the Nation's earthquake
loss reduction efforts are built upon a solid foundation of basic and
applied research. To further that goal, FEMA, in concert with the other
NEHRP agencies, has completed the development of the NEHRP Strategic
Plan, Using Knowledge to Reduce Earthquake Losses. Mr. Chairman, with
your permission, I would like to submit this strategic plan for the
record.
All four agencies worked closely throughout this process, and we
believe this Plan and the way it was developed have been responsive to
the March 1997 letter co-signed by then-Chairman Sensenbrenner and
Ranking Member Brown. That letter raised the concerns that the NEHRP
was not sufficiently focused on actions to reduce future earthquake
losses and specifically requested the development of a strategic plan
for the program. This Plan is the product of a considerable amount of
coordination among our NEHRP partner agencies as well as all of our
outside partners, and we are all pleased with the results.
This process required more time than we anticipated, but the Plan
before you has the approval of the NEHRP agencies and its stakeholders.
While the production of the Plan itself may have been delayed, let me
assure you that the material contained in the Plan, the four goals and
all that they represent to the Program, have been in use by the four
agencies and many of our partners for quite some time.
The NEHRP Strategic Plan cites the following mission for NEHRP to
provide effective, timely guidance as we work to improve seismic safety
in this country:
``The mission of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program is to develop and promote knowledge and mitigation
practices and policies that reduce fatalities, injuries, and
economic and other expected losses from earthquakes.''
To achieve this mission, the Strategic Plan spells out four goals:
A. Develop effective practices and policies for earthquake
loss-reduction and accelerate their implementation;
B. Improve techniques to reduce seismic vulnerability of
facilities and systems;
C. Improve seismic hazard identification and risk-assessment
methods and their use; and
D. Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.
The goals are deliberately ordered, beginning with the most
important, that is, reducing losses, followed by successive goals, each
of which provides a basis for the previous one, ending with a solid
foundation of basic and applied research.
With the completion of the NEHRP Strategic Plan, the next challenge
is the coordination of program research within that framework.
While research alone increases our knowledge of earthquakes, it
must be coordinated and applied to reduce future losses to be
effective. Dr. Dan Abrams of the Mid America Earthquake Center recently
wrote an excellent article detailing this need for improved
coordination of research.
To this end, I have directed the formation of a subcommittee of the
FEMA-chaired Interagency Coordination Committee to specifically address
research coordination issues. The National Science Foundation has
volunteered to chair the initial term. This Research Coordination
Subcommittee is charged with developing a Research Coordination Plan of
Work, which will be an operational component of the overall NEHRP
Strategic Plan. This Subcommittee will be chaired on a rotating basis
by each of the three NEHRP agencies that conducts research.
While research will always be an integral component of NEHRP, we
believe that NEHRP will need to shift the program's emphasis from
primarily one of research to the application of research results to
reduce losses. Our knowledge has now reached the point where we have to
effectively implement the results of this work to reduce earthquake
losses. I have directed the Research Subcommittee to address this issue
in its work. I have also directed this group to reassess the NEHRP
role, particularly the USGS, in producing cost-effective earthquake
prediction technology, as called for in the 1977 legislation. This is a
key complementary component to enhance the existing seismic monitoring
program within the USGS.
I will make certain that the work of this subcommittee is closely
coordinated with my colleagues. I intend to coordinate this
subcommittee's work with the new Department of Homeland Security
Science and Technology Directorate to leverage efforts in both areas in
an all-hazards framework which will benefit both NEHRP and the Science
and Technology Directorate.
Building upon the NEHRP Strategic Plan and my goal of a
performance-driven, results-oriented Program, I would like to present
our vision for the future of the Program. For NEHRP to remain relevant
in the 21st century, it is no longer enough to study the earthquake
problem; we must also develop and implement effective mitigation
solutions. This means that the Program agencies must continue to
evaluate our priorities and focus our activities in ways that will
emphasize implementation of the Program. The Program must be able to
provide not only the tools needed to reduce future losses, but also the
incentives to encourage their use.
NEHRP has been extremely successful in developing an impressive
array of mitigation technologies that have been used very effectively
by engineers, architects and building regulators when they have been
given the resources to address the hazard. The problem, however, is
that there has been little incentive or public demand to provide the
resources necessary to reduce the risk.
This is partially due to a lack of understanding or knowledge of
the actual seismic threat which exists in any given area. It is also
due to the faulty assumptions that designing and building to the
building codes currently in place in many communities will result in a
completely damage-free structure and that when there is damage, the
Federal Government will invariably fund the necessary repairs through
disaster assistance to make the building whole again. Both assumptions
are false.
Building codes in general only provide the minimum level necessary
to protect lives, and do little to prevent damage. In addition, as you
know, federal disaster assistance was never meant to replace insurance.
Changing perceptions is key to serving the basic mission of NEHRP.
Just as the American consumer has come to consider the safety of a
vehicle to be a significant factor when buying a car, we envision a
future where one of the key criteria in buying a house or building will
be its safety from all hazards--how well was the building designed and
constructed and whether it is certified to meet or even exceed a
certain level of code performance and an associated level of safety.
Unfortunately, one of the major weaknesses of the NEHRP is our lack
of leverage for local and State levels of government to implement
earthquake risk-reduction measures. So we must look for and find ways
to provide this leverage with incentives and rewards for communities at
risk that adopt and enforce adequate mitigation standards.
The current public policy emphasis on pre-disaster mitigation and
on improving the preparedness of local emergency management offers new
avenues that we need to pursue in order to get our earthquake disaster-
resistance message into the hands of those who can best use this
information. Our hope is that pre-disaster mitigation activities will
serve both as the catalyst and the foundation for future risk-reduction
activities by public and private sector interests.
Ultimately, the Program will need to explore possible incentives
that will encourage the use of our technology by the American public.
Several years ago a study done by the Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, with NEHRP funding from FEMA and the State of California,
provided some possible incentives. The findings of this study need to
be pursued. I have directed the FEMA earthquake program staff to
explore possible incentives and develop recommendations that would
allow us to promote their use.
However, all of this will require a careful review to ensure the
best use of the resources of all of the parties--public and private.
This means that we need to emphasize those aspects of our program that
offer the greatest promise of helping communities and individuals
acknowledge their risk, accept responsibility for reducing that risk,
and take appropriate actions to become more disaster-resistant. It is
the intention of the Program to use this strategic planning process to
focus more heavily on this facet of our responsibilities.
As I have indicated, a key to the success of NEHRP has been, and
will continue to be, an effective translation of research to practice.
A major element of this translation is a strong approach to
communicating risk to different audiences in different parts of the
country. The perception of the earthquake threat in California, where
earthquake loss reduction is viable and risk perceived as probable, is
far different than in other areas of the country, such as the New
Madrid region with its high loss and low probability of occurrence,
where the perception of risk is minimal. The general population of New
England and other areas on the east coast represent an even greater
contrast in that there is little perception of earthquake risk. A risk
communications strategy will need to acknowledge these differences.
The NEHRP agencies need to shift some of the focus of their
research efforts to put a greater emphasis on behavior to understand
how to influence perceptions, how to effectively communicate
information in a way that helps those affected to not only understand
their risk but begin to manage it as well.
We have already started this shift in emphasis. This Subcommittee
tasked FEMA with determining how effective the Program is in addressing
the needs of at-risk populations, such as the elderly, people with
disabilities, non-English-speaking families, single-parent households,
and the poor. We found that there were a number of documents and
delivery mechanisms directed at some of these audiences. The results,
however, were mixed.
It is apparent from the conclusions of the report, The National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and At-Risk Populations, which I
have previously submitted under separate cover, that there are
strategic opportunities that can increase the effectiveness of NEHRP
agencies in addressing at-risk populations. Specifically, we found that
there are five broad-based areas of opportunity:
1. Leadership: Increase emphasis at the national and regional
levels.
2. Research: Encourage the development of a research agenda
that integrates the vulnerabilities of the at-risk populations
with earthquake science, risk communication, risk mitigation,
and disaster management.
3. Communications/Educational Outreach: Develop risk-reduction
outreach that is relevant to at-risk populations.
4. Technology: Promote the application of research,
informational tool development, and building and social science
technology issues to the at-risk populations.
5. Policy: Reflect commitment through new and renewed policy
approaches.
One area of opportunity that our report cites is the schools. They
provide the best immediate mechanism for affecting a positive change
and disseminating information to at-risk populations on hazards and how
to reduce or avoid them. In addition, working through the schools
offers a number of possibilities for working with other federal
partners, such as the Department of Education and Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, which are not directly involved in the NEHRP
but have an extensive involvement with various aspects of education
policy and procedures. By taking advantage of these opportunities in a
collaborative, inclusive manner, the Program will further achieve its
defined mission and reduce losses among the most socially vulnerable
populations.
With the Program's new emphasis on risk communication, we will
bring a systematic approach to taking our understanding of people in
their environment and apply it to the way in which we disseminate
technically based information. Included in this systematic approach
will be the development of metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of our
communications in raising awareness and motivating risk-reduction
activities at the individual and community levels.
One of FEMA's roles as lead agency under NEHRP is to present this
subcommittee with a report covering our activities for fiscal years
2001 and 2002. I have previously provided the completed NEHRP Biennial
Report under separate cover.
The Biennial Report outlines many activities of the agencies and
highlights State and local efforts to reduce earthquake risk. It
illustrates how the Strategic Plan is already being used as a guide by
the earthquake community in their efforts to meet the four program
goals. The report gives you an idea of just how much is being
accomplished from this relatively small program.
The final NEHRP lead agency responsibility I want to mention is our
reporting on the NEHRP budget. The actual Program budget numbers for
the last two fiscal years have already been sent to Committee staff
under separate cover. We have already reported on the other three NEHRP
agencies' budgets for FY 2003. FEMA's FY 2003 NEHRP budget,
approximately $19 million, represents level funding from FY 2002, less
a Congressional rescission of 0.65 percent, applied to all programs.
The FY 2004 budget request will be at the FY 2003 level. However,
approximately $4.4 million will be transferred from the Emergency
Management Performance Grant program to the Office of Domestic
Preparedness.
The breakout among the agencies continues to be approximately 48
percent for the USGS; 35 percent for NSF; 15 percent for FEMA; and a
little over 2 percent for NIST. Over and above those figures are: The
USGS Global Seismic Network at approximately $3.5 million; and NSF's
George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(NEES) at $24.4 million last year and $13.5 million this year.
One of the best examples I can offer of how we are effectively
using our resources is the updating of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions
for New Buildings. This document serves as the basis for the Nation's
seismic code language and is updated for us every three years by the
National Institute of Building Sciences' Building Seismic Safety
Council to maintain its consensus backing. This updating relies heavily
on the efforts of volunteers, and it has been estimated that we get
eight dollars of work for every dollar we spend.
I would also like to share with the Subcommittee the role of NEHRP
as FEMA has become an integral part of the Department of Homeland
Security.
This consolidation of agencies into DHS focuses greater resources
on protecting people and property from all hazards--natural and man-
made. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security offers us the
opportunity to share our successes and the lessons learned from NEHRP
and our other natural hazard mitigation programs and leverage them to
address other perils.
That does not mean that there is any reduction in focus or
commitment to serve the underlying mission of the NEHRP; however, since
earthquakes do not happen with sufficient regularity to remain in the
collective memory, it often appears that there has been a diminished
earthquake presence in the NEHRP agencies. The earthquake threat is
still very real, and it is this hazard that still holds the greatest
potential of all natural hazards to cause death and destruction in a
single moment. Several faults in this country have the potential to
create the most catastrophic disaster we have ever faced. The
earthquake hazard is a critical part of our all-hazards work.
NEHRP is one of the only federal programs that has experience in
preparing for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the
future effects of large-scale disasters. This experience can be
transferred to the Nation's work and mission to protect our nation from
the threats of terrorism.
Some examples where this experience can support the Nation's risk
of terrorism include the following:
Seismic design criteria developed under the NEHRP
have been proven to provide a significant level of resistance
to other outside loads, such as blast, and has proven to
prevent progressive collapse such as that which occurred in the
Oklahoma City bombing.
The NEHRP has already developed and is currently
implementing a plan to improve the protection of lifelines and
critical infrastructure. The current American Lifelines
Alliance, supported by FEMA's NEHRP funds and based on a plan
developed by NIST, has already accomplished much to address the
protection of this vital link, and we are expanding this
program to improve protection from man-made hazards.
The NEHRP has made significant investments in
improving post-event reconnaissance and the collection and
analysis of damage data, and these investments have already had
direct benefits after 9/11. The ability to rapidly examine
buildings after a damaging event and tag them based on their
level of damage and habitability is critical after a large
disaster. The NEHRP funded an existing system known as ``ATC-
20,'' that was quickly modified by New York engineers and used
after the WTC attacks to evaluate surrounding buildings. Such a
resource will be needed after future damaging events, no matter
what the cause, and we are working with ATC to expand this
program to other hazards.
The ability to design a new building or an upgrade to
an existing building to achieve a defined level of performance
to mitigate a specific hazard is critical to reducing future
losses economically. FEMA, through the NEHRP, has already
funded the first two phases of a project to develop
Performance-Based Design Guidance to meet this capability. We
have already taken steps to expand this program beyond seismic
hazards to include fire and blast as well.
The ability to screen, evaluate, and upgrade existing
buildings to improve their resistance to external forces is an
important process in reducing the risk from structures built
prior to current building codes. Current FEMA-NEHRP
publications provide guidance on how to visually screen
existing buildings to identify those that are potentially
hazardous, how to perform more detailed evaluations on those
potentially hazardous buildings, and how to upgrade those
buildings to satisfy minimum safety criteria. Such a system of
guidance publications has considerable applicability in
addressing man-made hazards, and we are working to adapt these
publications to reflect this.
The urban seismic networks that the USGS is trying to
develop under the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) would
be capable of detecting, locating, and timing explosive blasts
in urban areas. The WTC impacts and collapses, the Pentagon
impact, and the Oklahoma City bombing were all recorded on
seismographs.
NEHRP assets were used in the development of our
current Urban Search and Rescue Program, and helped fund the
development of some recent technologies such as robots for
search, rescue and recovery following earthquakes and other
natural hazard events. It was this same Urban Search and Rescue
Program that was so visible immediately after the 9/11 attacks.
NEHRP investments in earthquake disaster risk
assessment such as the development of Hazards US, or HAZUS,
have been extended to include multi-hazard risks from
hurricane, wind and coastal flooding, and to develop integrated
risk assessment methodologies to manage social and
infrastructural vulnerability.
NEHRP investments in testing equipment and cyber
infrastructure, including the NSF's George E. Brown, Jr.
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, are used to
investigate and mitigate earthquake vulnerability in critical
infrastructure systems. These facilities are also used for
study of infrastructure performance and damage under any kind
of hazard.
Building on previous work under the NEHRP, NIST is
already working with the private sector to develop needed tools
and guidance for improving overall structural integrity by
mitigating progressive collapse.
Through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which is
authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, FEMA has funded several projects that
have improved earthquake resistance, even though the availability of
funding was triggered by a different event. As a result of the WTC
attacks, FEMA and the State of New York have funded the seismic upgrade
of two major transportation facilities: the George Washington Bridge
and the Port Authority Bus Terminal for a total of $61 million. This is
an excellent example of how the NEHRP has helped to shape decisions at
the State and local level, and has influenced their priorities.
In conclusion, in spite of its many challenges, the NEHRP has been
a success and has done a great deal to improve this nation's ability to
prepare for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate future earthquakes.
It is beneficial to look back and celebrate our successes over the
last 25 years, and we have many to be proud of. It is also meaningful
to look forward and plan where we are heading in the next 25 years. As
part of the Department of Homeland Security, I can assure you that we
will continue to lead the NEHRP to protect the American people from the
earthquake hazard.
I want to express my appreciation for the consistent support and
counsel of this subcommittee and look forward to our continuing
association in addressing the challenges before us.
Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions that the
Subcommittee may pose.
Biography for Anthony S. Lowe
Anthony S. Lowe was appointed director of the mitigation division
of the Emergency Preparedness & Response Directorate/FEMA, in the newly
created Department of Homeland Security, in March 2003. He continues to
serve as the Federal Insurance Administrator, a role to which he was
nominated by President Bush in March 2002. Mr. Lowe is responsible for
providing leadership for some of the Nation's leading multi-hazard risk
reduction programs, which seek to secure the homeland from hazards both
natural or manmade. His areas of oversight include the National Flood
Insurance Program, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program,
the National Dam Safety Program and the National Hurricane Program. In
his position, Mr. Lowe works closely with public and private risk
managers, as well as leaders in government, industry, research and
academia.
Before assuming this post, Mr. Lowe was the senior legislative
counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust,
Competition and Business Rights and on the staff of the Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Technology and Government Information. Previously, he was
the deputy prosecutor with the King Country Prosecutor's Office. He
also was a commissioner on the city of Redmond's planning commission.
Earlier in his career, Mr. Lowe was associate director at the
International Center for Economic Growth and International Center for
Self-Governance programs of the Institute of Contemporary Studies, in
Washington, D.C. Mr. Lowe also served as legal counsel to the
Washington State Senate majority office and as legislative assistant to
U.S. Senator Slade Gorton of Washington.
A native of King County, Wash., Mr. Lowe holds a Bachelor of
Science degree in international political science from University of
Washington, a law degree from the University of Santa Clara and a
Master of Divinity degree from Virginia Union University.
Chairman Smith. We have about seven minutes to get to our
vote, so excuse us, but the bad news is there are four votes.
So we will have one 15-minute vote and four 5-minute votes, but
we go over about two minutes on each of the time limits. I
would ask staff, in our period of recess, with your permission,
I would ask staff to maybe discuss with you some of the
questions that we have put together that we would like to know
if you would get some of those more detailed answers, and we
will try to return in the next, I am guessing, 20 minutes. With
that, the Subcommittee is in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Smith. The Subcommittee on Research has
reconvened, and we would turn to Mr. Olson for his statement.
STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT A. OLSON, PRESIDENT, ROBERT OLSON
ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be
here. I will very quickly summarize my written testimony.
I wish I had the time, we had the time today, actually, to
close our eyes, close all of our eyes for four minutes, and try
to imagine the non-stop violent shaking, the noise associated
with buildings coming apart, the unsteadiness of large blocks
of earth as they slip away beneath us, and hearing the
occupants' and victims' screams of terror. This is what
happened in Alaska, 1964. And that particular earthquake is
what got people thinking about the threat to other metropolitan
areas where earthquakes have occurred and could be expected.
I won't go into details on that, but we can trace the
origin of that program, of the current program, to that event
in 1964. Your action here in Congress represented a public
policy decision to look at the earthquake risk nationally, one,
as you noted, that is shared by at least 39 states. The act of
1977 was a political action that took many years to achieve,
actually. And three key Members of Congress, including the
Science Committee's former Chairman, Representative Mosher from
Ohio played a key role in this along with Congressman George
Brown and Senator Alan Cranston.
On February 20, I had a challenging request to attend the
forum that has been referred to and to summarize what I heard
that day. And I thought I would just take my time to hit the
high points of what I heard people talk about in the context of
the earthquake program. There is a concern, and it has been
reflected already, about the budget stagnation and erosion. In
terms of real dollars, the earthquake program's purchasing
power has declined steadily to the level where essential
program activities are being sacrificed, because the actual
appropriations have not kept pace with at least inflation.
There is a concern in the community about program
leadership, particularly as the new Department of Homeland
Security comes on line, a very large agency. And FEMA, of
course, didn't exist in 1977, but was given the leadership role
in 1980. And how this leadership responsibility will be
continued or performed within the new, and frankly, huge
Department of Homeland Security, this is some concern to us in
the earthquake community.
You have touched on the strategic plans. Well, there are
two or three out there, new programs and strategic plans now
exist on which we might be able to base long-term modifications
to the act. Much like the years leading to the original act's
passage, there now exists several of these plans that could
provide a new foundation for amending the earthquake
legislation to set the program's direction for, well, the next
decade or two.
There are a lot of agencies who have significant roles to
play in the earthquake program, and we must find better ways to
involve and support these participating agencies that are
involved heavily in construction and in financing construction
and others. Patience is needed, also. Knowledge is cumulative,
and sometimes it is slow in coming. And a great deal of our
effort in the last two decades has been spent on research,
and--as it must. And that has helped develop knowledge as well
as a large pool of human resources: better educated students,
more practicing earthquake engineers, and others. We must keep
that benefit in mind, as well.
But there is a need to balance the investments in research
with the program's commitments to improving practice and
governments as well. You have touched on it already. We must
speed up the rate of applying knowledge. This is a real
challenge. And while new research leads to improved knowledge,
there exists a gap in applying what is known and what is
accepted already, the results of previous investments in
research. We have got to find better ways to accelerate the
application of knowledge.
Earthquake risk is increasing. This worrisome condition is
due partly to growing populations and to little or no attention
being given to the hazard in areas that we believe are subject
to the risk. During its existence in the last 25 years, the
program has fostered the development of intellectual and
organizational capabilities to the earthquake program that
simply didn't exist before.
I would like, also, to make note that understanding the
context is critical to achieving earthquake risk reduction.
Risk reduction decisions are made in a social context by
individuals, by companies, by governments at all levels. And
their abilities to address this kind of a risk varies greatly
depending on their location, their priorities, the knowledge of
the risk, and other values, and we must be able to intervene in
those processes to affect future decisions.
The agencies, and you have heard about them, work in very
complex and competitive contexts and environments. While the
earthquake program is just one program, these agencies house--
have activities--other activities, missions, priorities, levels
of funding, and so on that make these settings for the agency
people very, very complicated.
Earthquake prediction was a popular item at the time of the
original passage, and it may be time to revisit it with the
advent of new technologies and theories. I don't know. I am not
an earth scientist, but it might be worth putting back on the
list to see if we might get there this time. Certainly the
investment in earthquake prediction in those days led to much
stronger and better forecasting abilities, which have had a
major impact.
So let me conclude with one recommendation that this
committee as the full Science Committee to convene a truly
independent panel to look at the charter legislation after 25
years and to see how it might be modified to help reduce
earthquake risk over the next 25 years for across the United
States.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert A. Olson
INTRODUCTION
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program--``NEHRP'' as it
is commonly called--is governed by a ``sunset'' provision requiring the
Science Committee to review and to reauthorize the program every two
years. This hearing is particularly appropriate because the Science
Committee was the program's committee of origin, and 2002 was the
NEHRP's 25th birthday. Such sunset provisions provide a regular means
for Congress to review the status, progress, and needs of important
programs beyond the normal annual appropriations processes.
In response to your invitation, my comments address several
subjects: (1) the key role of this committee and the origins of the
program beginning in about 1964 following the occurrence of two
significant earthquakes in Alaska and Niigata, Japan; (2) some
observations I offered recently at a National Academy of Sciences'
forum on the earthquake program's 25th anniversary, and (3) some
reminders based on my practitioner's observations during the last 22
years as an emergency management consultant.
I have been involved in emergency management, disaster assistance,
and hazard mitigation issues since joining a FEMA predecessor agency in
1964 in Washington, DC and then moving to a regional office where I
became involved in earthquake mitigation activities, including serving
as a volunteer advisor to a California legislative committee. I left
federal service in 1972 to help establish the San Francisco Bay Area's
Metropolitan Transportation Commission while I continued my volunteer
service to the legislature. Governor Ronald Reagan and the legislature
agreed on the need to establish a state Seismic Safety Commission to
address the continuing earthquake threat in California. I was selected
as the Commission's first Executive Director, a post I held for seven
years. During the last 22 years I have been providing consulting and
research services to federal agencies, State and local governments, and
private clients. I was educated in Political Science, with an emphasis
on American Government.
NEHRP: AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
If we had the time, I would ask everyone here to close their eyes
for four minutes and try to imagine non-stop violent shaking, noise
associated with buildings coming apart, unsteadiness as large blocks of
land give way under us, and hearing the occupants' and victims' screams
of terror. Soon after, the coastal areas would be devastated by a
tsunami. This happened in Alaska on Good Friday, 1964.
The Great Alaska earthquake, one of the most powerful ever
recorded, affected about 50,000 square miles and triggered many
research and applications activities that were based on a simple fear:
What would be the consequences of an event like this one somewhere in
the ``lower 48'' in an area that was known to have earthquake risk: the
Wasatch Front in Utah, Northern California (a repeat of 1906), the
Mississippi Valley (a repeat of the 1811-12 events), Southern
California (a repeat of the 1857 earthquake), the Puget Sound area of
Washington, or other locations with a significant but less well known
hazard?
The act establishing the program represented a national public
policy decision to reduce earthquake risk, one that is shared to
varying degrees by at least 39 states. The Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Act (EHRA, Public Law 95-124) of 1977 was a political action that took
many years to achieve by an ``advocacy coalition'' composed of three
key members of Congress including the Science Committee's former
chairman, Representative Mosher from Ohio, who had a particular
interest in science and technology associated with earthquake
prediction research, and Senator Alan Cranston and Representative
George Brown. They were supported by influential members of the
``earthquake community'' from outside and inside the Federal
Government. Moreover, the Carter Administration was ``receptive'' to
the proposal, sending a clear signal to Congress that it should proceed
with the legislation.
Years before its enactment, however, the NEHRP's foundation was
laid by a series of program and budget oriented studies and reports
that taken together defined the program as we know it today. The
President's Science Advisor recommended a 10-year program of earthquake
prediction research in May 1965. This was followed in June 1967 by a
Federal Council on Science and Technology (FCST) 10-year recommended
earthquake hazards reduction program, which was later updated in
October 1968. Three more expert reports were issued in 1969: the
National Academy of Engineering's (NAE) report on earthquake
engineering research and applications needs, the National Academy of
Science's (NAS) report on the status of seismological research and its
needs, and the NAS' multiple volume report on the Alaskan earthquake.
In 1970 the Office of Science and Technology issued a proposed an
updated 10-year program of earthquake hazard reduction.
Several other studies and reports contributed to eventually framing
the NEHRP during those years. These included a report on the status of
state and local disaster preparedness (1972), studies of other damaging
earthquakes and even possibly successful predictions here and abroad
(e.g., China, Nicaragua, Romania, Guatemala, Italy), a technology
assessment of earthquake prediction technology (1975), and another
examining the social and public policy implications of earthquake
prediction (1975).
This collection of needs assessments, state of knowledge reviews,
and recommended programs and budgets provided a ``critical mass'' on
which to base a national earthquake hazards reduction program. It all
came together in what we refer to as the ``Newmark-Stever Report'' that
was titled Earthquake Prediction and Hazard Mitigation: Options for
USGS and NSF Programs. This carefully crafted and skillfully negotiated
program and budget document provided the administration and the
Congress with a scope of work, agency responsibilities, and three
recommended funding levels.
The proverbial ``window of opportunity'' that set the stage for
NEHRP's enactment was the February 9, 1971 San Fernando, California
earthquake ``on the fringe of a densely populated metropolitan area,''
according to an early post-earthquake report by a panel of the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS). Close to the heart of Los Angeles and only a
moderate (6.3 Richter magnitude) event, it caused 65 deaths (most in a
federally-owned building), but this earthquake again raised the
question about the vulnerability of our heavily populated metropolitan
areas.
Three bills were introduced in the Senate in 1972; four in the
House and three in the Senate in 1973; ten bills in the House and one
in the Senate in 1974; and one each in the House and the Senate in
1977. The resulting legislation, H.R. 6683 and on the Senate side, S.
126, passed in October 1977 and became the Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Act. Understandably, the new legislation had a strong research
orientation. We had to know more about the earthquake hazard (and if we
could predict them) and how we could prevent future disaster losses.
Thus, the new act focused mostly on strengthening the earth science
programs of the Geological Survey (USGS) and the earthquake engineering
research program of the National Science Foundation (NSF). The National
Bureau of Standards, now the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) also was included.
In short, according to a FEMA-funded study, To Save Lives and
Protect Property: A Policy Assessment of Federal Earthquake Activities,
1964-1987 (Robert Olson Associates, 1988):
Events leading to the EHRA's enactment and its implementation
up to 1987 have spanned the terms of five presidents (Johnson,
Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan) and thirteen sessions of
Congress.
A few general observations may be helpful. First, many
attempts were made to enact a national earthquake program prior
to 1977. However, several factors converged in the 1975-76
period to create a climate for successful passage of the Act
and its signing into law. They included a ``killer year'' for
earthquakes (1976), the euphoria over potential earthquake
prediction, the presence of legislative and executive leaders
in key places, and the completion of an expert report
containing the proposed content and budget for legislation
(Newmark-Stever, 1976).
. . .prior to the 1971 San Fernando, California earthquake
experts who were designing the scope of the future program had
based their ideas largely on the lessons learned from the 1964
Alaska earthquake. San Fernando post-earthquake studies
produced large quantities of data that significantly added to
the understanding of earthquake effects on relatively modern
urban areas. (9)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) did not yet exist.
It was created in May, 1979, and it was given the NEHRP leadership role
in 1980 by an amendment to the act. FEMA, more of a mission-oriented
than a research-oriented agency, thus had two responsibilities: promote
earthquake hazard mitigation and disaster preparedness measures by
working primarily with local and state governments and ``carry the
NEHRP flag'' as the program's designated leader.
A QUARTER CENTURY RETROSPECTIVE
On February 20 I had the welcome opportunity to participate in a
National Academy of Sciences' forum on the status of the NEHRP. The
day's speakers collectively spoke to a number of points central to the
continued effectiveness of the NEHRP and the challenges it is facing.
Some of my summary observations included:
Budget stagnation and erosion. In terms of real
dollars, NEHRP's ``purchasing power'' has declined steadily to
the level where essential program activities are being
sacrificed because appropriations have not kept pace with at
least inflation. Additionally, the community has identified
other important needs that will speed risk reduction if funding
can be provided.
Program leadership and the new Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). The EHRA was passed in 1977, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was formed in 1979, and FEMA
was assigned to lead the NEHRP in 1980. In about 1983 a program
review panel, in a ``management letter'' to the then FEMA
director, pointed out that the agency, unlike the other three
involved (NSF, USGS, and NBS [now NIST]) had two duties: (1)
internal mitigation and preparedness program operations and (2)
multi-agency leadership. How the leadership responsibility will
be performed within the new and huge DHS is of some concern to
the earthquake community.
New program and strategic plans exist on which to
base program modifications. Much like the years leading to the
EHRA's passage, there now exists several documents that could
provide a ``new'' foundation for amending the NEHRP legislation
to set the program's direction for the next decade or two. For
example, the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI)
has released one focusing on research, and the interagency
strategic planning process has been reinvigorated with the
FEMA-led NEHRP strategic plan soon to be released.
Ways must be found to better involve and support the
``participating agencies.'' Over the decades, really only three
agencies (FEMA, NSF, USGS) and NIST (to a much lesser extent)
have benefited from funds appropriated to the NEHRP. Yet, many
other federal agencies, such as DOD, DVA, and GSA, are directly
involved in construction and others greatly influence
construction financing and lending. While the NEHRP
acknowledges these participating agencies, stronger mechanisms
are needed to integrate their risk reduction activities more
fully because the results of their activities and decisions
directly effect the safety of the built environment.
Patience is needed: knowledge is cumulative and
sometimes slow in coming. The core of the NEHRP has been the
support of research: knowledge and human resources development.
This objective is fundamental to the program and has
contributed mightily to new information, better practices, and
more capable practitioners. Research, experimentation,
instrumentation and testing continues to be an important
program need. It must be understood, however, that knowledge
most often accumulates relatively slowly and incrementally as
theories and data are developed, tested, and finally accepted.
Thus, there remains a need to balance NEHRP's investments in
research with its commitments to improving practice and
governance.
We must speed up the rate of applying knowledge.
While new research leads to improved knowledge, there exists a
gap in applying what is known and accepted already--the results
of previous research investments. There is a growing literature
about the barriers and facilitators that affect the adoption
and implementation of earthquake risk reduction measures, most
of which are attributable to risk communication and acceptance
and governmental and private institutional factors. Nationally,
and especially in the lower risk areas, we need to give
attention to processes and methods for overcoming these
obstacles to public safety. In the final analysis, applying
knowledge has real effects on our people, buildings, and
infrastructure.
Earthquake risk is increasing. This worrisome
condition is due partly to growing populations and little or no
attention being given to managing the risk in many vulnerable
areas. This is a very complex issue consisting of what to do
about the existing built and future built environments, and
there is a need to better understand decision-making processes
to see how risk reduction measures can be included in such
processes effectively. Central to this challenge is to find
better ways of communicating earthquake risk information
repeatedly through multiple channels in ways that compete
successfully for attention and lead to decisions and the
commitment of resources to increase safety.
During its existence the NEHRP has fostered the
development of intellectual and organizational capabilities.
Not only have NEHRP-funded activities increased knowledge, they
have helped develop new practitioners and researchers who are
influencing professional practices, such as through the three
earthquake research centers and other programs. Emphasis on
this intergenerational mentoring should be continued so that
the knowledge pool is widespread, locally influential, and
knitted together by such organizations as EERI.
Understanding the context is critical to achieving
earthquake risk reduction. Information is received and
decisions are made in societal contexts (e.g., individuals,
families, small businesses, large companies, public agencies,
charitable groups). Their abilities to address items important
to them varies greatly depending on their location, priorities
(agendas), wealth, values, and others. Applying risk reduction
measures must be understood and promoted in specific relevant
contexts, and improved techniques are needed to define and
influence the controlling contexts.
The NEHRP agency representatives work in very complex
and competitive contexts and environments. While the NEHRP is
just one program, the agencies housing its activities have
other missions, priorities, and levels of funding. Some of
these are legislatively, administratively, technically, or
politically determined. Any changes to the NEHRP, if they are
to be successful, must be sensitive to these environments and
address the organizational, administrative, regulatory, and
financial capabilities needed to implement them successfully.
Earthquake prediction may deserve to be revisited.
The earlier euphoria associated with earthquake prediction
contributed significantly to theory development, measurement
technologies, international observations, socio-economic impact
studies, and other advances. It definitely has led to vastly
improved ``earthquake forecasting'' abilities--defining the
risk and probabilities of occurrence in ways that were
impossible when I first became involved in the mid-1960s. While
predicting earthquakes with precision (i.e., date, time,
magnitude, etc.) remains elusive, new technologies and theories
and accumulated knowledge and other earth science-related
programs may advance our abilities if we try again. Only if we
had a season like hurricanes or rains or snow melt to watch for
flooding!
REMINDER: LOSS PREVENTION/MITIGATION REFLECTS AMERICAN FEDERALISM
The Constitution of the United States of America defines the
authority relationships between the national government and the states.
Individual state constitutions define similar relationships between
state and local governments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines mitigation
``as any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk
to human life and property from a hazard event.'' Sometimes known as
``disaster prevention'' in some cultures, mitigation's objective is to
reduce the direct and indirect losses in ways that protect life,
physical assets, and national wealth.
Mitigation programs must be understood within this context of
``shared governance.'' Thus, some mitigation programs are administered
by the national government (e.g., nuclear power plant safety) while
others provide incentives and penalties to encourage state and local
participation (e.g., planning grants). Some state programs are enacted
and administered directly by state governments (e.g., public school
construction in California), enacted by the state but administered
directly by local governments (e.g., Safety Elements of General Land
Use Plans in California), others contain shared administrative
responsibilities (e.g., California's Special Studies Zones Act), and in
many areas some mitigation programs are enacted and administered
directly by local governments (e.g., zoning regulations and building
codes).
REMINDER: MITIGATION OCCURS IN TWO PRINCIPAL TIME FRAMES
Hazard mitigation occurs within two temporal contexts: (1)
prospective and (2) retroactive. In general, programs that address the
future (``prospective'') are easier to adopt and implement than are
programs to correct past (``retroactive'') deficiencies.
Incremental changes to building codes that apply to new buildings
can be incorporated into new designs relatively easily and
inexpensively, but laws or codes that require the strengthening or
replacement of existing buildings are difficult to enact, controversial
to implement, and costly in terms of construction and social costs
(e.g., dislocation of tenants, loss of rental income). For these
reasons, most mitigation programs are prospective, and if enacted at
all, retroactive requirements follow decades later.
REMINDER: MANY FACTORS AFFECT DECISIONS TO REDUCE FUTURE LOSSES
While disasters often create ``windows of opportunity'' to
introduce new mitigation efforts, they are not in and of themselves
sufficient conditions. Moreover, differing mitigation decision-making
situations exist: (1) regulatory (i.e., government enacts laws
demanding compliance), (2) voluntary (i.e., a company strengthens
buildings it owns to protect its assets), or (3) mixed (i.e.,
government provides incentives for those taking voluntary private
action).
Some factors that affect decisions to mitigate against disaster
losses include: (1) the perception and understanding of risk to support
decision-making, (2) organizational ``champions'' to advocate the
adoption and implementation of mitigation measures, (3) successfully
competing with other items on decision-making agendas, (4) sufficient
wealth to pay for the desired mitigation measure, (5) the possibility
of achieving multiple benefits from investing in mitigation, (6)
achieving other organizational goals as part of mitigation programs,
and (7) convincing those that pay for mitigation now will accrue
benefits in the future.
CONCLUSION
Hazard mitigation as a concept is simple to understand: act now to
prevent future disaster losses. It often takes a long time for the
benefits of mitigation to be achieved, however. We have a very short
recorded earthquake history, but when we examine the geologic and
seismologic evidence we are reminded that earthquakes remain a national
problem potentially affecting 39 states. Some have paid attention to
their risk, but many have not. Regardless, a major to great earthquake
near or in any of our major urban areas will have devastating and eye-
opening effects.
Laws, policies, and programs must be thought through carefully to
achieve their desired results, and they must be modified periodically
to reflect current conditions. While ideas and knowledge about
successful mitigation programs can be transferred easily, their
adoption and implementation must be acceptable in particular social,
economic, cultural, and political environments.
Does the legislation governing the NEHRP need to be changed? My
biased answer is ``yes'' because conditions, knowledge, technology,
contexts, research and applications needs and other factors have
changed over the past 25 years. It is important that laws, regulations,
procedures, organizations, duties and responsibilities, and budgets be
reviewed and changed to assure or enhance the NEHRP's future
effectiveness.
Perhaps a new ``advocacy coalition'' needs to be mobilized so, like
the one that existed from about 1964 to 1977, it can influence the
political agenda and engage the process to amend the Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Act. The program's associated implementation and
administrative processes then will need to be modified so the program
will continue to lessen the Nation's earthquake risk.
Thus, I have one simple recommendation: this subcommittee ask the
full Science Committee to use NEHRP's 25th anniversary to convene a
truly independent panel to advise the Committee on the future of the
NEHRP--via another long range program plan with priorities and a
recommended funded level similar to what as done in 1976 (the
``Newmark-Stever Report''). The ingredients are there on which to
proceed. As former California State Senator George Moscone said to us
in 1970, ``Bring this legislative committee your best recommendations,
and we will take care of the politics.''
I look forward to continuing a partnership with the House's Science
Committee, especially this subcommittee, as we progress steadily toward
reducing our nation's earthquake risk and to contributing to lessening
the risks from other hazards including, sadly, human-caused
emergencies, where I am spending an increasing amount of my time
working with state and local governments and private firms.
Biography for Robert A. Olson
Robert Olson is President of Robert Olson Associates, Inc., where
he consults on areas of earthquake hazards mitigation, emergency
management, disaster operations, recovery assistance, and public policy
development. Previously, he served as the first executive director of
the California Seismic Safety Commission. He has chaired numerous
committees including the Advisory Committee to the National Information
Service of Earthquake Engineering, the Governor's Task Force on
Earthquake Preparedness, and the Advisory Group on Disaster
Preparedness to the California's Joint Legislative Committee on Seismic
Safety. Mr. Olson also held a variety of research positions in various
times at the Center for Environmental Design Research, the Institute of
Governmental Studies, the Mid-America Earthquake Center, and the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. As part of the CUREE
Kajima research program, Mr. Olson has had affiliations with PEER,
Stanford University, Caltech, and the University of Southern
California. He received his Bachelor's degree in political science from
the University of California at Berkeley and his Master's degree from
the University of Oregon.
Chairman Smith. Thank you. We wrote that down plus being in
the record.
Dr. Cluff, thank you all for being here, of course. And
thank you, Dr. Cluff, for your foresight in determining where
we should protect our Alaska Pipeline. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. LLOYD S. CLUFF, DIRECTOR, GEOSCIENCES
DEPARTMENT AND EARTHQUAKE RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, PACIFIC GAS
AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
Dr. Cluff. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Committee Members.
I am honored to be here today. And I have a few slides to
enhance my oral presentation.
I come from the perspective of a user of NEHRP products. I
was involved from the beginning. I was on the Newmark-Stever
Panel that created--helped create this program, and I have been
on several other advisory committees.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Cluff, I am going to interrupt you. Do
we have the where with all to keep the disks and reproduce the
slides for the other Members? We do. Thank you. Proceed, Dr.
Cluff.
Dr. Cluff. And I have color handouts that have been given
for all of the Members of my presentation. Thank you.
So let me move through.
[Slide.]
From the geosciences point of view, we have learned a lot
from earthquakes. We are really developing products on national
hazard maps, surface falls rupture characteristics, ground
motions, regional hazard assessments, and earthquake forecasts
to build on Bob Olson's comments about prediction. These are
really the elements in the next slide.
[Slide.]
This is a slide of the San Francisco Bay area. You see San
Francisco and the bay and the faults that have potential for
very damaging earthquakes with forecasts of the likelihood of
large, destructive earthquakes in the next 20 years, 70 percent
aggregated for the whole region. PG&E's service territory, this
is the heart of it. And Pacific Gas and Electric is the large--
one of the largest investor-owned utilities in the United
States with millions of customers, hundreds of thousands of
transmission gas and electric lines at the heart of the sixth
largest economy in the world. We have 70 percent of the San
Andreas faults traversing our service territory.
The earthquake risk management policy that we developed in
conjunction with the Seismic Safety Commission where I was
Chairman of the Commission right after the Loma Prieta
earthquake, a program to understand the hazards and our system
vulnerabilities, a plan to implement the risk management
options dedicated staff, dedicated budget, and accountability.
We have developed and are involved in NEHRP public/private
partnerships. One of the good ones across the Nation is the
American's Lifelines Alliance, sponsored by FEMA, ALA, USGS,
PG&E, the National Bureau of Standards, and others shown on
this list, are all involved to improve the performance of
particularly utilities and transportation systems across the
U.S. Other partnerships, the Lifelines User Driven Research
Program at the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center at
Berkley, a consortium of academic institutions, PG&E, Caltrans,
and the California Energy Commission, and other stakeholders,
the USGS, FEMA, and the California Earthquake Center. I came up
in 1996 with some money out of PG&E's funds, and I said I am
tired of not being able to use research results from the
academic community. They are good--it is good research, but we
can't implement it. We wanted to create a user-driven research
program. We put money into it so that we set the research
agenda and then the researchers learned from us what was
important. And then once results were reached, we could
implement them immediately. Out of that, working with these
other partners that are on this program, we have leveraged $13
million in user-driven research for a NEHRP program.
[Slide.]
Here is another partnership that we have with the U.S.
Geological Survey. The lines on this map are the active faults,
the heart of PG&E's territory. This program is one to help do
applied research for the need for PG&E and our customers.
[Slide.]
Let me show a series of maps, same faults. This is our gas
transmission pipelines, our electric system. You can see, all
of these are traversed by these faults. Our electric
substations, about 100 of these are critical to keep the lights
on, and then our major service centers and buildings in the
heart of our service territory.
[Slide.]
And here are all of the PG&E facilities. On one map is the
Internet GIS map within PG&E that every decision maker can have
access to at any time.
[Slide.]
And then here is a new--the NEHRP project from the USGS
shake map. When an earthquake like this occurs, within two or
three minutes, we have this downloaded on to our Internet--our
decision-makers to deploy people to go to the field and know
exactly where to go. We have our performance improvement for
our major customers. We have been guiding Caltrans, East Bay
MUD, the major water system in East Bay, the Bay Area Rapid
Transit District, and the San Francisco Water Department. Since
Loma Prieta, these combined expenditures for those customers
only, including PG&E, is $15 billion.
Let me tell the story about the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. I
was involved and invited by the oil companies to do the
earthquake and fault displacement study. The Denali Fault does
cross the pipeline route. I, with a team of earthquake
engineers, delineated the zone, how much displacement the fault
could take, and then we constructed the pipeline above ground.
We put in these--the designers put in the supports with Teflon
with shoes under the pipeline that also had Teflon that would
allow the pipeline to freely let the ground move beneath it.
The fault ruptured on November 3 of last year. It crossed the
pipeline.
[Slide.]
And here is the design drawing from my report to the Alaska
folks, the pipeline crossing. We designed the pipeline to
accommodate faulting within a 1,900-foot wide zone. The--a
yellow zone is where we expected the rupture to take place. The
November '02 earthquake was 7.9, 18 feet of displacement
horizontal, 2.5 feet with minor compression. The red zone is
where it actually displaced. We got it right, and the pipeline
performed without spilling one drop of oil. This is a NEHRP-
type study that we need. Newmark and I brought this into the
NEHRP hearings to show what things could be done.
[Slide.]
Here is the pipeline as the ground moved beneath it, not
disrupting the pipeline. The left side photo is before. The
right side is after. The only thing you can see is that one
straight segment of it is now bowed because of two meters of
compression. The pipeline was designed to accommodate that.
So let me conclude that unless seismic safety is afforded
priority that is now lacking throughout 39 states with
significant earthquake exposure, the Nation will experience
unacceptable, but avoidable, deaths and economic losses from
earthquakes. There is an urgent need to fully implement the
USGS advanced national seismic system through appropriations
that are consistent with Congressional authorizations.
I recommend the Subcommittee endorse the report that will
be talked about in the next speaker, securing society against
catastrophic earthquake losses from EERI. Dr. O'Rourke will
present that. And I recommend we seize the opportunity of
FEMA's new position in the Department of Homeland Security to
recognize the synergy between addressing earthquake threats and
terrorist threats.
Last week, I was in Puerto Rico, and Anthony Lowe was there
awarding 75 million to the electric utility there. The papers
got it wrong. It should be for all hazards, to protect from
earthquakes and terrorists, not only hurricanes.
Chairman Smith. You mean FEMA put more money down there
than our total United States earthquake NEHRP program?
Dr. Cluff. 79 million--75 million. But I think the papers
got it right, because Anthony Lowe knows that all hazards are
important.
My last recommendation is----
Chairman Smith. Mr. Cluff, I am going to have to interrupt
you.
Dr. Cluff. All right.
Chairman Smith. I have four minutes to make this vote. I am
guessing we should be back in about 12 minutes. My first
question after we finish the testimony is going to be what is
more important to what effect in terms of developing new and
better technology and how much of our emphasis should be on
implementing that technology? And second, how do we get the
private sector more involved in doing things that is going to
protect their lives and their property?
And with that, recess at the call of the Chair.
[Recess.]
Chairman Smith. The Subcommittee is in order. It doesn't
seem to work. It is not his fault. Are we capable of taking
testimony and recording it without the speaker?
Mr. Weirich. It is very minimal. I really wouldn't like to
do it.
Chairman Smith. I think we will ask you to record the last
20 words of Dr. Cluff. You just had--so good. Dr. Cluff, you
were concluding.
Dr. Cluff. Thank you very much. My last conclusion and
recommendation was we need an independent oversight panel,
similar to what Mr. Olson mentioned, to guide and report to
Congress annually.
And I want to end with a quote that is up on the board:
``Where there is no vision, the people will perish.'' We have
got to have vision to prevent the people from perishing.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cluff follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lloyd S. Cluff
I was invited to prepare the following testimony for the
Subcommittee on Basic Research's hearing entitled The National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: Past, Present, and Future. My
purpose in preparing this testimony is to guide the Committee on
Science as they prepare to reauthorize the program during the 108th
Congress.
Having been involved since the inception of the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), I have been asked to discuss my
perspectives based on my experience with the program throughout its
lifetime. I was a member of the Advisory Group on Earthquake Prediction
and Hazard Mitigation, known as the ``Newmark-Stever Panel,'' convened
at the request of the President's Science Advisor in 1976. Our report,
``Earthquake Prediction and Hazard Mitigation Options for the USGS and
NSF Programs,'' dated September 15, 1976, formed the basis for the
Congressional enactment of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Act of 1977.
I have served on various NEHRP expert review committees over the
past 25 years to give guidance on ways to improve the program to reduce
earthquake risks. I have also had the opportunity to present testimony
during past Congressional NEHRP reauthorization hearings, most recently
on March 1, 1990 to the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and
Technology. At that time, my testimony was from the perspective of
Chairman of the California Seismic Safety Commission, where I served
California as a Seismic Safety Commissioner for almost 15 years.
For my testimony today, I have been asked to speak from the
perspective of Director of the Geosciences Department for Pacific Gas
and Electric Company in San Francisco, one of the Nation's largest-
investor owned gas and electric utilities, as well as from the
perspective of Chairman of the Congressionally mandated Scientific
Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC). The SESAC was appointed
by the Secretary of the Interior to advise on the NEHRP activities of
the U.S. Geological Survey. The first SESAC report to Congress, dated
September 21,2002, is appended to my testimony. I have been asked to
include specific comments on current NEHRP activities, as well as to
recommend how federal earthquake mitigation efforts can be
strengthened.
NEHRP After 25 Years
During the 25 years since the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program was established, the NEHRP has provided insightful scientific
and engineering leadership toward reducing earthquake risks. This
leadership has resulted in major advances in identifying and
characterizing active faults (earthquake sources) and understanding the
destructive effects of earthquakes that will eventually be released by
slip on these faults. Twenty-five years ago, there was hope that short-
term earthquake predictions would have been realized by now. Although
that capability has not been realized, reliable estimations of the
locations of future major earthquakes, their size, their likelihood of
occurrence, and the character and extent of their effects are now
possible.
Additionally, a wealth of information has been developed to enhance
our knowledge of the vulnerabilities of the built environment to
earthquakes. We now better understand the factors that influence good
as well as poor earthquake performance of utilities and transportation
systems, as well as specific types of structures and buildings. This
improved knowledge has resulted in useful tools that, if applied, have
the potential to bring unacceptable risks under control.
However, the risk is growing faster than our ability to provide
effective mitigation. In spite of the increased knowledge and the good
work that has been done, particularly in regions of high seismic
exposure, earthquake risk continues to grow nationwide. This is largely
due to (1) uncontrolled growth in earthquake-prone areas, (2) the lack
of effective land-use planning in the hazardous areas, (3) the lack of
implementation and enforcement of appropriate building standards, and
(4) the high cost of strengthening the existing built environment. This
trend has positioned the Nation in an unacceptable situation, one that
will eventually result in catastrophic losses. Studies such as the
1999, National Research Council publication, The Impacts of Natural
Disasters: A Framework For Loss Estimation, show the per-event costs
could reach thousands to tens of thousands dead, hundreds of thousands
injured and homeless, and direct and indirect economic losses that
could exceed $200 billion. This trend will not be reversed until the
earthquake-prone communities in all 39 vulnerable states understand the
threat and take action to mitigate unacceptable risks.
Value of NEHRP to Private Industry
In addition to its concern for employee and customer safety during
earthquakes, Pacific Gas and Electric Company has a strong economic
interest in ``keeping the lights on.'' PG&E has vast resources in dams
and power plants, transmission and distribution systems, and
administrative buildings. Although protecting these resources from
earthquake damage is important, equally important is functionality
following an earthquake. The ability to continue to provide utility
service to customers will assist emergency response efforts and reduce
recovery time, as well as assure a continuing income stream during a
particularly challenging time. Functionality also affects the
communities PG&E serves, as businesses having gas and electricity can
remain open, lessening the overall economic impact to the community.
PG&E has been able to leverage their efforts to improve earthquake
safety and reliability of their gas and electric systems through the
development of user-driven, public/private research partnerships,
funded in part by NEHRP programs. Three examples are presented below.
PG&E/U.S. Geological Survey--The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake provided
an opportunity and motivation for PG&E to focus on better understanding
the nature and character of earthquake hazards in Central and Northern
California, PG&E's service territory. After extensive discussions with
the USGS Menlo Park office in 1992, PG&E entered into a non-financial
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the USGS.
We agreed to cooperate on research on earthquake hazards throughout the
greater San Francisco Bay Area. Based on the success of this effort, in
1996 the agreement was modified into a financial CRADA. Over the next
few years PG&E provided $4.4 million in funding for projects with USGS
scientists that would focus on PG&E's needs for system safety and
reliability improvements. Generally, the projects include studies to
better understand the location and characteristics of specific active
faults, the effects of strong ground shaking, local site effects known
to influence the degree of damage at particular locations, and the
nature of ground failure mechanisms (landslides and liquefaction). Many
projects have been completed, and the results are being used to help
reduce earthquake risks not only to PG&E facilities, but also to PG&E's
industrial customers, private homeowners, and the public at large.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center--The research results
from the PG&E/USGS cooperative program feeds directly into another
user-driven, applied research, public/private partnership, the PEER
Lifelines Research Program. Program partners include PG&E, Caltrans,
and the California Energy Commission (CEC), under the auspices of the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), at the
University of California at Berkeley.
In 1996, PG&E and the University of California entered into an
agreement to focus applied research efforts toward improving the
earthquake performance (safety and reliability) of gas and electric
systems in California. The concept of the users driving the research
agenda, in collaboration with the best earthquake researchers, was the
focus of this initial partnership. PG&E engineers are intimately
involved in selecting research topics, as well as guiding the research.
This collaboration provides a mechanism for research results to be
immediately implemented to improve system performance during
earthquakes.
The initial funding from PG&E was $3.5 million, however, the user-
driven concept interested Caltrans for their earthquake safety and
reliability research program for bridges and highways, and a matching
funding arrangement was established. The combined leveraged funding
from PG&E, Caltrans, and the CEC to support the PEER Lifelines Research
Program is now at $13 million, through 2004. We are seeking additional
partners to participate in the benefits of the research and to join in
future funding of user-focused applied research. Additional matching
funding from NEHRP funding agencies would provide opportunities to
enhance the user-driver research.
American Lifelines Alliance--The formation in 1997 of the American
Lifelines Alliance (ALA) initially by FEMA and the American Society of
Civil Engineers (now with the Multi-hazard Mitigation Council within
the National Institute of Building Sciences, NIBS) is in direct
response to needs for improved lifeline performance that were
identified more than ten years ago, and was specifically required in
the 1990 reauthorization of the NEHRP. Leaders from lifeline
organizations strongly endorsed the need for developing and adopting
seismic design guidance for lifelines in a 1997 Lifeline Policy-makers'
Workshop.
The ALA's objective is to facilitate the creation, adoption, and
implementation of design and retrofit guidelines and other national
consensus documents that, when implemented by lifeline owners and
operators, will systematically improve the performance of lifelines
during natural hazard and human threat events. The current participants
in the partnership include FEMA, NIBS, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, PG&E, Rohn Industries, Pima County, Arizona, and
various private sector consultants.
Although the formation of the ALA was closely tied to concerns
regarding earthquake threats, the consideration of multiple hazards was
determined necessary by the ALA to facilitate decisions on design and
retrofit measures to achieve improvements in reliability on a national
scale, where the level of risk from various natural hazards is highly
variable. The initial focus of ALA guidance development was on all
natural hazards, including earthquakes, floods, windstorms (including
hurricanes and tornadoes), icing, and ground displacements (including
landslides, frost heave, and settlement). However, following the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, FEMA directed the ALA to address
hazards posed by human threats, including blast, chemical, biological,
radiological, and cyber threats. The utility and transportation systems
appropriate for the ALA process include electric power transmission and
distribution, natural gas transmission and distribution, potable water
conveyance and distribution, waste water transportation and processing,
oil and liquid fuel handling, transport, and storage, highways,
railroads, ports and inland waterways, air transportation, and
telecommunications.
The ALA is working closely with the Lifelines Subcommittee of the
Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction, which is
charged with assisting federal departments and agencies to develop and
incorporate earthquake hazard reduction measures in their ongoing
construction programs. The ALA's efforts to develop national consensus
guidance documents are aligned with many of the objectives of the
Lifelines Subcommittee. ALA products will provide appropriately
qualified seismic guidance, and the Lifelines Subcommittee can help in
the preparation and adoption of such guidance by federal agencies. The
ALA has developed matrices that define the current status of natural
and manmade hazards guidance available in the United States for
lifeline system operators and other interested parties.
ALA guidelines published in the last two years include Seismic
Fragility Formulations for Water Systems, Guidelines for the Design of
Buried Steel Pipe, Seismic Design and Retrofit of Piping Systems,
Extreme Ice Loads from Freezing Rain, and Guidelines to Define Natural
Hazards Performance Objectives for Water Systems. Guidelines currently
in preparation include those to evaluate the performance of electric
power, oil and natural gas pipelines, and waste water systems during
natural hazard and terrorist threat events.
Misplaced Complacency
Many public policy-makers know that earthquakes are infrequent and
assume they can be safely ignored in favor of more pressing issues; but
they can be assured that if a catastrophic earthquake occurs on their
watch, the truth will be revealed. Public perception, it could be said,
might be that the United States is not that vulnerable to earthquakes,
because the number of lives lost has been exceptionally low compared
with that in other countries. The fact is, it has been a matter of luck
that earthquake deaths have not been higher in the United States.
Thirty-nine states have an earthquake threat, and it is just a matter
of time before disaster strikes. We cannot afford to rely on good
fortune to minimize earthquake loss of life. Let's look at a few
examples.
1971 San Fernando, California Magnitude 6.7 Earthquake--The San
Fernando earthquake was a direct hit beneath the San Fernando Valley, a
few miles north of downtown Los Angeles. The earthquake occurred at
6:00 A.M., when most people were safe at home. The Lower San Fernando
Dam was severely damaged and would have experienced massive failure,
except the reservoir had been drawn down for maintenance a few days
before the earthquake. We were lucky that the duration of the shaking
was short. Had the earthquake lasted a few more seconds, the dam would
have massively failed, releasing the water in the reservoir onto the
80,000 people living directly downstream. The first floor of the
outpatient facility at the new Olive View Hospital massively collapsed,
but it was unoccupied because of the early morning hour of the
earthquake; later in the day, the facility would have had hundreds of
patients.
1989 Loma Prieta, California Magnitude 7.1 Earthquake--In spite of the
fact that a major earthquake struck the San Francisco Bay Area on
October 17, 1989, losses were minimal; there were only 63 deaths. We
take credit for the fact that we had an aggressive program of seismic
safety improvements throughout the Bay Area, and that helped limit the
losses. However, we were lucky. The center of the energy release along
the San Andreas fault was in the Santa Cruz Mountains, 30 to 50 miles
from the major cities. Had the earthquake been closer, damage,
particularly to the older building stock that had not been seismically
upgraded, would have been disastrous. It occurred at 5:04 P.M., commute
time, the worst time of day for an earthquake according to earthquake
scenarios, because the streets are filled with people and the freeways
are jammed with traffic. An upper section of the Bay Bridge dropped
onto the lower deck, and the Cyprus double-decker freeway in Oakland
massively collapsed. These two structural failures could have been the
source of hundreds of deaths. But we were lucky. The World Series
Earthquake, as it has been called, occurred at the beginning of the
third game of the World Series between the two Bay Area teams, the San
Francisco Giants and the Oakland Athletics. The freeways and bridges
were eerily empty while people were inside, watching the game. It was
also fortunate that, because of the game, we had media coverage of the
earthquake that lasted more than two weeks, helping to raise awareness
of the earthquake threat.
1994 Northridge, California Magnitude 6.7 Earthquake--The Northridge
earthquake also occurred during the early morning hours, 4:31 A.M., on
Martin Luther King Day. Had the earthquake occurred only a few hours
later on the national holiday, the near-massive collapse of the
Bullocks Department Store in Northridge would have resulted in more
deaths in that one building than all the deaths (57) in the entire
region affected by the earthquake. Thousands of commercial buildings
were badly damaged and many collapsed, and many freeway bridges
collapsed, but they were all virtually empty at the time of the
earthquake.
2001 Nesqually, Washington Magnitude 6.8 Earthquake--The February 28,
2001 earthquake that struck the Nesqually district of Seattle,
Washington resulted in only minor casualties and localized damage. The
lack of significant damage and casualties were due to two important
factors: the focal depth of the earthquake of was two to three times
deeper (55 km) than most damaging earthquakes, and for the past few
decades the Seattle region has adopted an aggressive seismic safety
improvement program, particularly with support from FEMA's Project
Impact during the 1990s. However, just prior to the earthquake, due to
Mardi gras-related riots in Pioneer Square and the Sodo District, the
police had barricaded the area to public access. We were lucky because
in this old part of the city, unreinforced masonry walls fell into the
streets when the earthquake struck, and would have resulted in many
casualties had people been allowed normal access.
2002 Denali Fault, Alaska Magnitude 7.9 Earthquake--The second largest
earthquake ever to strike the United States, the magnitude 7.9
earthquake on November 3, 2002 on the Denali fault, was a media non-
event. This was partly because the earthquake struck a very remote
region of Alaska. We were lucky this large earthquake was released on a
fault in Alaska, rather than along one of the many faults close to
major population centers in California. A similar earthquake along any
of the faults associated with the San Andreas fault would have resulted
in thousands of deaths and direct and indirect economic losses that
could have easily exceeded $200 billion.
But it was also a media non-event because the only significant
structure situated in the path of this potentially devastating
earthquake did not fail. It was not a matter of luck that the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline performed so well. It was exceptional scientific
assessment of the earthquake hazards and innovative engineering design
that prevented an oil spill. The Denali fault experienced 18 feet of
horizontal and 2.5 feet of vertical displacement at the pipeline
crossing of the fault. Thirty years ago, state-of-the-art NEHRP-type
scientific evaluations of the hazards and innovative engineering design
were applied to assure the pipeline was well prepared to accommodate
the earthquake.
Seventeen percent of U.S. crude oil flows through the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline. The State of Alaska depends on the pipeline for eighty
percent of its revenue. If damaged, the pipeline could have been
disabled for many months, causing gas prices to soar. It is possible
that if the pipeline had broken, the resulting environmental disaster
would cause the pipeline never to be restored.
Recommendations
Earthquake Monitoring--Most of the earthquake monitoring
instrumentation that has been installed and maintained over the past 50
or more years is focused on identifying the source of earthquakes and
understanding the overall physics of the earth. Although these seismic
networks have provided important data contributing to the development
of seismic hazard maps, they do not provide engineers and emergency
responders the strong-motion information needed to maximize our
understanding of how essential lifelines, system components, and
specific buildings were affected during damaging earthquakes. There is
an urgent need to fully implement the Advanced National Seismic System
(ANSS), designed to expand, and at some locations, replace current
earthquake monitoring systems to provide critically needed information
for the benefit of the earthquake engineering and emergency response
communities.
The ANSS was authorized by Congress in 2000, but is not yet fully
appropriated. Strong-motion information is critical to making the next
breakthrough in understanding how to economically halt the growth of
earthquake risk and reduce it to acceptable levels. The next major
destructive earthquake is overdue in a wide variety of locations across
the country. The ANSS is the most important new program needed by the
NEHRP. Installing this instrumentation after the next destructive
earthquake will be too late; we need the data that can be recorded
during that earthquake.
Leadership--Leadership has been an issue since the inception of NEHRP.
The Program has experienced fragmentation, frustrating the attempts to
achieve the Act's goal of a coordinated hazard reduction effort. A few
examples of the fragmentation will highlight the problem. The budget
process is divided among four agencies, four different budget examiners
at the Office of Management and Budget, and three subcommittees of the
House Appropriations Committee. There is no single line item in the
President's budget for the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, even
though there is statutory authority for the program.
The Act provides broad, multiple goals, all of which are important
elements of a comprehensive earthquake hazard reduction program. The
existence of multiple goals, tight fiscal constraints, and no strong,
centralized mechanism to guide and coordinate agency efforts and
expenditures results in the available resources being spread too thin.
The NEHRP 5-year strategic plan (Expanding and Using Knowledge to
Reduce Earthquake Losses: The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program Strategic Plan 2001-2005,'' March 2003) should be a guiding
document, and each agency's budget should be in step with it, but they
are not. At present, there is no provision for meaningful
accountability. Without an incentive to carry out priorities,
participating agencies need not follow the plan. As a result, multiple
approaches to the same problem, imbalances between user needs and
federal services and products, competition among agencies, and lack of
cooperation make the program less effective.
Earthquake programs and hazard-reduction priorities are too
important to risk being lost among competing demands and priorities. In
California, important earthquake programs were but a small portion of
the overall responsibilities of departments responsible for emergency
response, geologic hazards, and structural engineering. The State
responded by establishing a Seismic Safety Commission as an independent
and single-minded body charged with making certain that earthquake
safety is never overlooked. A similar independent, permanent oversight
advisory body should be established to direct the NEHRP.
I propose that a NEHRP advisory committee be established to advise
the four participating agencies (FEMA, USGS, NSF, and NIST). The
committee would be composed of non-Federal Government experts from
State and local government and the private sector who are involved in
reducing earthquake risks. The advisory committee would help the NEHRP
agencies set goals and priorities and see that they are being met,
provide coordination, and assure that a consistent, focused national
program is followed. This body would be independent of the member
agencies, and would report to Congress annually. It would provide
overall direction, stature, and visibility to the program.
I recommend the Subcommittee consider amendments to assure the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and its component parts
are managed in an integrated manner. The Act should be amended to
provide for strong coordination and accountability.
The Future
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program is at a
crossroads, and this reauthorization provides a meaningful opportunity
for an overall look at the program. We should seize the opportunity of
FEMA's new position within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
and recognize the synergies between addressing earthquake threats and
terrorist threats.
I was at the annual meeting of the Seismological Society of
American in San Juan, Puerto Rico last week, and read in the morning
paper (San Juan Star, May 2, 2003) that Anthony Lowe, head of FEMA's
Mitigation Division, was in town to give $75 million to the Puerto Rico
Electric Power Authority to protect the metropolitan area's electric
system against hurricane-strength winds. The FEMA could have leveraged
the value of this funding if it had been realized that putting electric
grids underground would also make them less vulnerable to earthquakes
and terrorism. The American Lifelines Alliance, mentioned earlier, has
realized that you get more bang for the buck if you have an all-hazards
perspective. I believe FEMA's new situation within DHS gives NEHRP an
exciting opportunity to be part of a much larger effort to protect the
Nation against not only other natural hazards, but human threats, as
well.
Even greater strides could be made if other federal agencies that
have responsibilities in seismic safety were included in national
planning for earthquake hazards reduction. The Department of Energy,
Department of Defense, Department of Transportation, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, General Services Administration,
Veterans' Administration, Corps of Engineers, NASA, and the Bureau of
Reclamation all have (or should have) programs that address
earthquakes. The NEHRP should consider and give guidance to the efforts
of these agencies.
The NEHRP needs to continue under an improved organizational
structure and proceed along the lines of the overdue, but recently
published, NEHRP Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan outlines a course
of action for the best use of existing funding and prioritizes
opportunities for accelerating the program as additional funding
becomes available. It outlines a balanced and accelerated approach that
calls for Federal-level leadership and incentives focused on the
adoption of proper public policy and expanded funding for the
activities needed to develop new design techniques aimed at making
mitigation affordable.
A strong, viable NEHRP must include proactive implementation
through increased funding, incentives for risk reduction, new public
policy, and inspired leadership. As pointed out in the recent
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute report, Securing Society
Against Catastrophic Earthquake Losses (Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Oakland, California, 2003), at current funding levels, it
will likely take 100-plus years to secure the Nation against
unacceptable earthquake risks. Based on EERI's research and outreach
plan, implementing an expanded program that has three times the funding
and includes full appropriations for ANSS and NEES, will provide the
needed earthquake risk reduction results in the next 20 to 30 years.
The next major earthquake will demonstrate that 100 years is much too
long to wait.
Unless seismic safety is afforded a priority that is now lacking
throughout the 39 states that have significant earthquake exposure, the
United States will experience unacceptable and avoidable deaths and
economic losses from future earthquakes. We have been lucky, we cannot
afford to base our earthquake public policy on dumb luck.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee.
Biography for Lloyd S. Cluff
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California, 1985-
Present
Manager, Geosciences Department
Responsible for assessments of PG&E facilities with
respect to earthquake and geologic hazards, soil and rock
foundation conditions, and groundwater contamination
Program Manager of the Diablo Canyon Long-Term
Seismic Program
--Responsible for technical and administrative
management of the program
--Directed studies in seismic geology, geophysics,
seismology, earthquake engineering, and probabilistic
risk assessment, which were required by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the comprehensive re-
evaluation of the seismic safety of the Diablo Canyon
Nuclear Power Plant
--Manager of PG&E's Earthquake Risk Management Program
California Seismic Safety Commission, Sacramento, 1985-1999
LCommissioner
Vice Chairman, 1986-1988; Chairman, 1988-1990 and 1995-1997;
Chairman of Research Committee, 1988-1999; Cellular
Telecommunication Seismic Risk Task Group, 1991-1992; Chairman
of Committee on Acceptable Earthquake Risk Policy for State
Buildings, 1990-1991
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, California, 1960-1985
Vice President, Principal, and Director
Responsible for technical and administrative
functions related to geologic, seismologic,
geophysical, and earthquake engineering investigations
and evaluations
Projects included siting and design studies
for critical facilities worldwide
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, 1967-1973
Associate Professor of Geology and Geophysics (Visiting)
Lottridge, Thomas and Associates, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1960
Geologist
El Paso Natural Gas Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1957-1959
Junior Geologist
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1958-1960
Teaching Assistant
EDUCATION
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 1951-1954
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, B.S., Geology, 1960
REGISTRATIONS
Geologist: California No. 1725
Certified Engineering Geologist: California No. EG567
AFFILIATIONS
Association of Engineering Geologists--Board of Directors, 1966-1970;
Vice President, 1967-1968; President, 1968-1969
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute--Board of Directors, 1976-
1980 and 1991-1995; President-Elect, 1992-93; President, 1993-
1995; Past President, 1995-1996; Learning from Earthquakes
Committee, 1985-1997
California Earthquake Safety Foundation--Board Member, 1989-1997; Vice
President, 1991-1997
Geological Society of America International Association of Engineering
Geology--Vice President, 1970-1974; Chairman, Commission on
Seismicity, 1970-1976
Seismological Society of America--Board of Directors, 1980-1986; Vice
President, 1981-1982; President, 1982-1983
Structural Engineers Association of Northern California
HONORS
U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey; John Wesley Powell
Award, 2000
California Earthquake Safety Foundation; Alfred E. Alquist Medal, 1998
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; elected Honorary Member,
1996
California Academy of Sciences; elected Fellow, 1992
Structural Engineers Association of Northern California; Degenkolb
Award, 1992
Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Excellence Award, 1992
Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Excellence Award, 1991
Woodward-Clyde Consultants; Woodward Lecturer Award, 1979
National Academy of Engineering; elected Member, 1978
International Atomic Energy Agency; Distinguished Lecturer Award, 1975
American Society for Testing and Measurements; Hogentagler Award, 1968
Listed in Engineers of Distinction, Who's Who in Science, and Who's Who
in America
RELATED EXPERIENCE
Post-Earthquake Field Studies
Post-earthquake field studies of many destructive earthquakes
throughout the world including Hebgen Lake, Montana 1959;
Alaska 1964; Parkfield, California 1966; Caracas, Venezuela
1967; Dasht-E Bayaz, Iran 1968; Santa Rosa, California 1969;
Peru 1970; San Fernando, California 1971; Managua, Nicaragua
1972; Oroville, California 1975; Guatemala 1976; Romania 1977;
Tabas, Iran 1978; Livermore, California 1980; Algeria 1980;
Egypt 1981; Mexico City 1985; Soviet Armenia 1988; Loma Prieta,
California 1989; Manjil, Iran 1991; Cape Mendocino, California
1992; Landers-Big Bear, California 1992; Northridge, California
1994; Kobe, Japan 1995; and Lijiang, Yunnan, China 1996;
Kocaeli, Turkey, 1999; Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999; and Duzce, Turkey
1999.
Active Fault Field Studies
Studies of the relationship of tectonics, seismic geology, and
seismicity of many active fault zones throughout the world
including those in New Zealand, Australia, Chile, Argentina,
Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Costa Rica,
Nicaragua, Honduras, E1 Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Japan,
Taiwan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey,
Armenia, Georgia, Russia, Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Israel,
Lebanon, Jordan, Romania, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy,
western United States, British Columbia, and Alaska. Served as
an advisor to the governments of many of these countries
regarding the evaluation of earthquake and geologic hazards and
risk and the formulation of seismic safety guidelines and
public policy, especially in the siting, design, and
construction of critical facilities.
Publications
Authored and co-authored more than 180 technical papers on subjects
relating to seismic geology, paleoseismicity, regional seismicity,
earthquake hazards and risk, earthquake engineering, and seismic safety
of critical facilities. These papers have been published in the
proceedings and journals of national and international scientific and
engineering associations and societies.
Lectures
Invited lecturer and keynote speaker on seismic geology,
seismicity, paleoseismicity, earthquake hazards, engineering geology,
and seismic safety at numerous national and international symposia,
conferences, universities, associations, and societies.
Research, Consulting, and Professional Activities
2002-present--Alyeska Pipeline Service Company; member, Senior
Earthquake Advisory Panel to advise on seismic safety issues
following November 3, 2002 Denali Fault Earthquake.
2002-present--Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee;
Chairman of committee that advises on National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program activities of the U.S. Geological
Survey.
2000--National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, National
Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine; member of
U.S./IRAN Interacademies Cooperative Initiative, a delegation
to the Islamic Republic of Iran to normalize relations between
the U.S. and Iran.
1999-2002--World Bank and People's Republic of China; member of Dam
Safety Review Panel for Baise Dam Project, southwestern China.
1999-2001--Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant, City of San Francisco
Hetch-Hetchy Water System; advise on seismic issues of proposed
construction near Calaveras fault.
1998-2000--Federal Emergency Management Agency; member of National Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Program Advisory Panel.
1997-1999--National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council;
member of Committee on Assessing the Costs of Natural
Disasters.
1997-1999--Institute for Business and Home Safety, the Subcommittee on
Natural Disaster Reduction, and the President's Office of
Science and Technology Policy; member of organizing committee
for Public-Private Partnership, PPP-2000, Forums on Public
Policy Issues in Natural Disaster Reduction.
1997-1999--Government of Portugal; Empresa de Desenvolvimento a Infra-
estruturas do Alqueva, S.A.; evaluated seismic hazards and
risks for the proposed Alqueva Dam. The dam will create the
largest reservoir in Europe; reservoir-triggered seismicity is
a concern for the environment.
1996-2001--Southern California Earthquake Center; member of Advisory
Board.
1996-1999--National Academy of Sciences; member of Board On Natural
Disasters to advise Congress, the President's Office of Science
and Technology Policy, and government agencies with regard to
reducing losses from natural disasters.
1994-2002--Greater Vancouver Water District; member of Seismic Review
Board evaluating and providing advice on the seismic safety of
the district's major dams.
1993-present--Israel Electric Corporation; Chairman of Seismic Review
Board providing advice on the seismic safety of siting and
constructing a commercial nuclear power plant in Israel.
1993-1996--U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, and Electric Power Research Institute; member of
Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee to develop state-of-
the-art implementation guidelines and methods for the
performance of probabilistic seismic hazard analyses for the
seismic regulation of nuclear power plants and other critical
facilities.
1990-1994--Los Angeles Harbor Department; member of 2020 Program
Technical Review Committee to evaluate and provide advice on
seismic hazards affecting proposed harbor development scheduled
for completion in the year 2020.
1991-1993--B.C. Hydro; member of Provincial Seismic Review Panel to
evaluate and provide advice on the seismic hazards to British
Columbia's hydroelectric facilities and power systems.
1991--National Academy of Sciences; member of Project Site Evaluation
Review Committee, Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave
Observation (LIGO), at the California Institute of Technology.
1990-1992--Yukon Pacific Corporation; member of Earthquake Consulting
Board advising on the feasibility of design and construction of
a Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal near Valdez, Alaska.
1989-1990--National Academy of Sciences; member of U.S. National
Committee for the Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction.
1986-1990--The National Earthquake Prediction Council; member of
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, which
published two reports (1988 and 1990) on the probabilities of
large earthquakes on the San Andreas and associated fault
systems.
1986-1989--National Academy of Sciences; member of Committee Advisory
to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), advising the Director of
the USGS and Chief Geologist on the broad spectrum of
activities within the USGS.
1987-1988--National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of
Engineering; member of Super-Conducting Supercollider Site
Selection Committee to review fifty proposed sites and select
seven for consideration by the Department of Energy.
1988--Department of Energy Defense Program; member of New Production
Reactors Seismic Design Criteria Team to develop site-specific
earthquake design criteria for Savannah River and Idaho nuclear
facilities.
1987--National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program; member of Expert
Review Committee to review NEHRP program, identify critical
issues, and provide recommendations to assist in revising the
Five-Year Hazards Reduction Plan and proposed budget.
1984-1987--National Academy of Sciences; member of subcommittee to
evaluate earthquake programs of the U.S. Geological Survey.
1982-1986--High and Aswan Dam Authority, Ministry of Irrigation,
Government of Egypt, and U.S. Agency for International
Development; director of a comprehensive program to evaluate
earthquake activity and dam stability. There was concern for
reservoir-induced seismicity and the potential for large
earthquakes to affect the Aswan High Dam and the safety of
Egypt.
1982--U.S. Agency for International Development and National Science
Foundation; Chairman of Aswan High Dam Seismic Safety Review
Panel formed at the request of the Government of Egypt
following the occurrence of a damaging earthquake beneath the
reservoir of the High Dam in 1981.
1969-1986--Commission Federal Energia Atomica and Commission Federal de
Electricidad, Mexico; advised on siting nuclear power plants in
Mexico.
1982-1985--National Academy of Sciences; member of Panel on Active
Tectonics.
1972-1985--Interconnection Electrica, S.A.; directed studies of
seismicity and seismic hazards for the feasibility of siting
large dams, reservoirs, and related hydroelectric facilities
throughout Colombia, including Ituango, Canafisto, Alto Sinu,
Rio Negro, San Carlos, Penderisco, and Troneras.
1974-1985--Israel Electric Corporation; provided advice on earthquake
hazard evaluations regarding the technical feasibility of
siting a commercial nuclear power plant.
1970-1985--Government of Venezuela; directed geologic and seismic
studies regarding the siting of major dams, reservoirs, and
related hydroelectric facilities including Yacambu, Uribante-
Caparo, La Honda, La Vueltosa, and Borde Seco.
1969-1985--International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna; Nuclear Power
Plant Siting Missions. On behalf of the agency and according to
the IAEA siting criteria, evaluated the siting of nuclear power
plants in Mexico, Chile, Portugal, and Venezuela. These
assignments included site visits, fieldwork, evaluating the
likelihood of successful licensing, meetings with the
applicant, and writing reports on behalf of the IAEA.
1981-1984--National Academy of Sciences; member of Geological Sciences
Board.
1978-1984--National Science Foundation and U.S. Geological Survey;
member of Earthquake Hazards Mitigation Advisory Panel.
1972-1984--Washington Public Power Supply System: Hanford Nuclear
Siting Studies; responsible for geologic and seismologic
investigations to select sites of proposed nuclear power plants
Satsop Nuclear Power Plant; responsible for geologic and
seismologic investigations that resulted in the licensing of
the Satsop site in Washington.
1973-1983--Ente Nazionale Per L'Energia Elettrica (Italian Electric
Utility, ENEL); directed detailed seismic studies toward the
licensing of Italian nuclear power plants. Proposed sites
included Tarquina, Montalto di Castro, Torrente Saccione, and
Gargano.
1981-1982--INECEL, Ecuador; directed feasibility studies for dams and
hydroelectric facilities in Ecuador, including regional fault
and earthquake activity studies to assess the earthquake
potential of the Salado and Coca river regions.
1979-1982--Southern California Edison Company; San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station licensing studies. Responsible for
evaluations of geologic, seismologic, and earthquake
engineering factors to develop a strategy for licensing, taking
into account U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission criteria, and
the seismic issues of intervenors.
1978-1982--Atomic Energy Commission of Portugal; identified acceptable
regions for nuclear power plant sites, after a capable fault
was found to traverse Portugal's first proposed site north of
Lisbon, resulting in the site being abandoned. All Portugal was
studied to identify regions where nuclear power plant sites
would have a high likelihood of being licensed, based on IAEA
seismic siting criteria.
1977-1982--Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System Studies, Northwest
Pipeline Company and Fluor Engineers and Constructors;
responsible for assessing potential seismic hazards along the
pipeline corridor, and their significance to pipeline design.
1977-1982--Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power
Plant Studies; (In 1977, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
suspended the plant's operating license until adequate studies
were completed to address seismic issues.) Directed detailed
geologic and seismic investigations to answer specific issues
raised by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding the
potential for surface faulting at the site and the basis for
defining the vibratory ground motions.
1981--Western States Seismic Policy Council; member of Panel on
Regional Tectonics and Seismic Safety.
1981--National Science Foundation; member of committee evaluating
National Program for Strong-Motion Earthquake Instrument
Arrays.
1980-1981--California Public Utilities Commission; chairman of Seismic
Safety Review Panel for proposed Liquefied Natural Gas Facility
at Point Conception, California. Previously unknown active
faults traversing the proposed site caused a technical and
political controversy and a loss of confidence in the safety of
the site. At the conclusion of the Panel's evaluation and
report, and after extensive hearings, all seismic safety issues
were satisfactorily resolved and the site was approved for
facility design and construction.
1970-1981--Comitato Nazionale Per L'Energia Nucleare, (Italian Atomic
Energy Commission, CNEN); responsible for studies regarding
seismicity and geologic conditions at nuclear power facility
sites in Italy, including Brasimone, Latina, Tarquinia,
Montalto di Castro, and Busalla.
1979-1980--National Academy of Sciences, U.S. National Committee for
Rock Mechanics; member of Panel on Rock Mechanics Research
Requirements.
1977-1980--National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences;
member of Panel on Earthquake Research for the Safer Siting of
Critical Facilities.
1972-1980--President's Office of Science and Technology Policy; advised
on earthquake hazards and risk evaluations for the San
Francisco Bay Area, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, and the
Salt Lake City Area.
1979--UNESCO; member of Panel on Earthquake Risk and Insurance,
Cocoyoc, Mexico.
1979--National Science Foundation; member of Joint U.S./Japan
Symposium, Earthquake Safety Through Urban Design, Tokyo,
Japan.
1976-1979--National Academy of Sciences; member of Seismology
Committee.
1975-1979--President's Office of Science and Technology Policy; member
of Newmark-Stever Panel to develop a national program for
earthquake prediction and hazard mitigation for the U.S.
Geological Survey and the National Science Foundation.
1978--International Association for Earthquake Engineering, UNESCO, and
the National Science Foundation; member of International
Workshop on Strong-Motion Earthquake Instrument Arrays.
1977-1978--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Melones Dam regional and
site studies, California; directed evaluations of faults as
sources of future earthquake activity, the potential for
surface faulting, and the potential for reservoir-induced
seismicity at the site of the New Melones Dam on the Stanislaus
River.
1976-1977--U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Auburn Dam regional and site
studies, California; directed detailed fault and earthquake
investigations to assess the earthquake and faulting potential
at the proposed dam site, characterize the earthquake ground
motions, and evaluate the potential for reservoir-induced
seismicity.
1975-1978--Secretary of the Interior; member of Earthquake Advisory
Panel to evaluate earthquake programs of the U.S. Geological
Survey.
1975-1977--California Seismic Safety Commission; member of Task
Committee on Seismic Hazards and State-Owned Structures.
1974-1977--Pacific Gas and Electric Company; directed Regional Inland
California Nuclear Power Plant Siting Studies, extensive and
comprehensive regional geologic, seismologic, microearthquake,
earthquake engineering, and groundwater hydrology studies, as
part of PG&E's evaluation of potential sites for nuclear power
plants in the inland areas of central and northern California.
1972-1977--Atomic Energy Office of Iran; directed national nuclear
power plant siting studies of seismicity and earthquake faults
to select power plant sites within the Zagros Mountains and the
Persian Gulf Coast regions of Iran.
1970-1976--UNESCO; member of International Panel of Experts on Seismic
Phenomena Associated With Large Reservoirs.
1972-1974--Ministry of Planning, Managua, Nicaragua; directed post-
earthquake studies and earthquake hazards evaluations to assist
the people of Nicaragua in rebuilding following the devastating
1972 earthquake. Studies resulted in a comprehensive seismic
safety plan to rebuild Managua.
1972-1974--Alyeska Pipeline Service Company; directed Trans-Alaska
Pipeline Siting Study, a comprehensive program that identified
and evaluated geologic and seismic factors to be considered in
the siting and design of the pipeline. Where the proposed
pipeline crossed active faults, developed design values for
surface fault displacements.
1970-1974--California Legislature's Joint Committee on Seismic Safety;
member of Advisory Group on Land-Use Planning.
1970-1974--California Governor's Earthquake Council; member
1972-1974--International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna; provided advice
regarding seismic and geologic criteria for the siting of
nuclear power plants.
1969-1973--U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, provided advice regarding
seismic and geologic criteria for the siting and design of
nuclear power plants.
1968-1973--San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission;
charter member of the Earthquake Engineering Criteria Review
Board.
1970-1972--Atomic Energy Commission of Chile; provided advice regarding
seismic review and siting of nuclear power plants in Chile.
1967-1972--President of Venezuela's Earthquake Safety Commission;
provided advice regarding seismic safety in Venezuela and
recommended the establishment of FUNVISES, the National agency
charged to monitor seismic safety.
1966-1970--State of Utah and the Utah Geological and Mineralogical
Survey; member of Governor's Earthquake Council regarding
earthquake and geologic hazards in Utah.
1969--Office of the President and Secretary of the Interior; member of
Santa Barbara Channel Oil Spill Panel to evaluate the 1969
Santa Barbara Channel oil well blow-out and recommend measures
to minimize future impact.
1968-1969--Commission Federal de Electricidad, Mexico; provided advice
regarding seismic review and feasibility of the proposed
Sumidero Canyon hydroelectric project.
Chairman Smith. Dr. O'Rourke.
STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS D. O'ROURKE, PRESIDENT, EARTHQUAKE
ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE; THOMAS R. BRIGGS PROFESSOR OF
ENGINEERING, CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Dr. O'Rourke. Chairman Smith and Members of the
Subcommittee, it is, indeed, an honor to be here to be able to
testify on behalf of the Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute.
This is an organization of about 2,500 people. They come
from the geosciences, the engineering, and social science
communities, so it is a very integrated group of people. We are
dedicated to seismic risk reduction in the United States.
I have a Power Point presentation that I am looking for in
the projection here.
[Slide.]
This--I think we need to recognize that the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program has been a highly
successful program. It has got a number of notable
accomplishments that are very important for the United States
and also set a model for the rest of the world. We have been
able to develop very good earthquake hazard maps, seismic
design provisions for new buildings, rehabilitation guidelines
for existing buildings, and loss estimation methodologies,
which, as I mentioned before, are a model for the rest of the
world. And FEMA has been an implementer of these particular
provisions but has worked very closely with other NEHRP
agencies that have developed the research bases for these
accomplishments.
In terms of recommendations, we believe, that is the
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, that we need to
maintain a strong, viable NEHRP. So we urge that Congress do
that. We think that there are some recommendations that could
be followed for improved leadership and agency integration. We
urge you to support the Advanced National Seismic System and
the George E. Brown network for earthquake engineering
simulation. We also believe that NEHRP, during its
reauthorization, should be done so with a thought for increased
funding reflecting the--our research and outreach plan.
As you know, the Advanced National Seismic System will be
putting in 6,000 new stations. These are critically important
for monitoring seismic events in the United States. There is a
concentration on urban centers where our risk is the highest.
And the ANSS also produces shake maps, which provide almost in
real time an estimation of what the magnitude and severity of
earthquake ground motion, which is used by emergency
responders. And this is a very important aspect of this, very
important aspect of information technology application.
The George E. Brown network for earthquake engineering
simulation purports to put together a laboratory, which
involves the entire United States. Currently there are 15 sites
at different universities across the United States that are
accessible by the entire earthquake and--earthquake engineering
and other communities. It will be establishing, through high-
performance Internet, the capability of doing research and
testing at very high and sophisticated levels in a way that can
be done at a number of different locations contemporaneously
and represents a marvelous advancement in the application of
practical information technologies and a great boost for the
education system.
Some of the leadership improvements that we envision for
NEHRP involve that NEHRP should have a visible place and
designated staff within each NEHRP agency, especially
Department of Homeland Security. We also recommend that some
consideration be given that OMB assign, perhaps, one of the
participating examiners to coordinate the budgeting within the
four agencies so that the funds are invested--that are invested
will be balanced and prioritized in a programmatic way. We
recommend that Congress ask the President to create an
independent committee of external experts responsible for
oversight of NEHRP. This oversight committee would report to
Congress no less than biannually, and we note that similar
recommendations have been made by experts previously convened
to provide advice on NEHRP.
NEHRP funding has been subjected to eroding levels of
support. This is really quite serious, because we are not able
to accomplish what we need to and what we are able to do. NEHRP
funding has declined by 40 percent in real dollars since 1978.
And this has been hurtful. We must recognize that this type of
funding situation is serious and has consequences that none of
us wish to have. Perhaps in the future, funding levels could be
indexed at a computer--through the consumer price index to at
least provide some protection against inflation.
And then we also urge you to consider the EERI Research and
Outreach Plan. That plan is called ``Securing society against
catastrophic earthquake losses.'' This is a consensus document.
It has been thoroughly reviewed by--reviewed and approved by
the community. It provides a comprehensive 20-year plan. Part
of that plan is focused on increasing current allocations by
over three-fold to about $360 million a year for the first five
years. And there is an explicit game plan given for how that
money would be allocated and spent in important areas that
contribute to our seismic safety. This recognizes still 20
times less than annualized losses from earthquakes in the
United States.
These are the five components of the program. In the
written testimony, there is a demonstration of the proportion
of funding for the first 5-year period of time, where that
money would be spent. The five different programs here, you
will notice one is education and outreach. This is public
education outreach. But in each of the other programs, at least
35 to 50 percent of the funding is focused on implementation.
Now what we mean by outreach is implementation, technology
transfer, and education.
Now I want to point out that there are tremendous
contributions of earthquake engineering to our U.S. national
technological infrastructure. Earthquake engineering advances
are leveraged beyond earthquakes. They are leveraged to other
natural disasters. They are leveraged to civil infrastructure
improvements. They are leveraged to applied information
technology, and they are leveraged to homeland security. There
are examples in the written testimony that spell some of these
examples out, which I think are very important to consider.
They involve active and passive controls developed in
earthquake applications, which are now applied for wind control
that are being considered for blast protection, advanced
geographical information systems, particularly with respect to
lifeline networks, the kinds of gas and electrical and water
supplies that Dr. Cluff was talking about. There are the ATC 20
inspection procedures and a number of others.
And I would just like to illustrate the importance of this
by looking at the Applied Technology Council 20 protocols,
which were developed under NEHRP for rapid investigation and
decision making with respect to earthquake damage to buildings.
This was an off-the-shelf protocol coming from NEHRP that was
available after the World Trade Center disaster, and it was
used to examine explicitly and in detail 460 buildings that
surrounded the World Trade Center site. And as you remember
during that event, it was critically important to restore these
facilities so that we had financial market security. Most of
those buildings surrounding the World Trade Center site were
buildings that were the housings of--for financial institutes,
for banks, and so forth that needed to be operational so that
the markets could start the following week.
This technology was available because of NEHRP. So our--
excuse me, our final recommendations again are to have a
strong, viable NEHRP, to consider a leadership situation in
which we have an external board of experts that can help to
plan and provide oversight for the activities of NEHRP, and
then finally to remember us in terms of the funding needs and
the value that this particular program supplies. It is
leveraged in ways that are very, very important for a whole
variety of different technologies, and especially homeland
security. We like to look at earthquakes as an example of
extreme events. And some of the things that we do are
applicable to other extreme events.
So I will end with a plea and with asking your
consideration for assistance with, sort of, stemming the tide
of this eroding funding situation and thinking very seriously
about the model that has been proposed by the Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute for increased support for this
very valuable program.
Thank you very much, Chairman Smith.
[The prepared statement of Dr. O'Rourke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas D. O'Rourke
On behalf of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI),
I am pleased to testify before the Subcommittee on Basic Research of
the House of Representatives Committee on Science, and thank the
members of the House for providing this opportunity. My testimony has
been prepared in coordination with past president Chris Poland and the
other members of the Board of Directors of the Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, and I thank them for their insights and assistance.
Benefits of NEHRP
For the past 25 years, The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction
Program (NEHRP) has been the backbone for protecting U.S. citizens from
the deadly and economically disruptive effects of earthquakes and for
seismic risk reduction throughout our nation. Unfortunately, over 75
million Americans in 39 states are directly vulnerable to serious
earthquakes, all Americans are vulnerable to the economic and social
upheaval that earthquakes incur, and despite the remarkable advances
that have been made over the past 25 years, the earthquake risk to the
U.S. remains unacceptably high. Direct economic losses from the 1994
Northridge earthquake in the Los Angeles area were in excess of $40
billion.\1\ One year later, a severe earthquake struck Kobe, Japan,
causing over $100 billion2 in direct damage to buildings and
facilities. There were more than 5500 deaths\2\ as a result of the Kobe
earthquake in a country that, like the U.S., is among the most
technologically advanced in the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Eguchi, R.T., J.D. Goltz, C.E. Taylor, S.E. Chang, P.J. Flores,
L.A. Johnson, H.A. Seligson, and N.C. Blais (1996), ``The Northridge
Earthquake as an Economic Event: Direct Capital Losses, Analyzing
Economic Impacts and Recovery from Urban Earthquake: Issue for Policy
Makers,'' EERI Conference, Pasadena, CA, October 10-11, pp. 1-28.
\2\ United Nations Center for Regional Development (1995),
``Comprehensive Study of the Great Hanshin Earthquake, Nagoya, Japan:
UNCRD.'' The damage cost was estimated at 9.916 trillion yen by the
Hyogo prefectural government, which, at an average exchange rate of 100
yen = one U.S. dollar, converts to U.S. $99.2 billion (p. 194). This
does not include indirect costs following the earthquake (for example,
loss of port revenue and disruption to other business activities). The
fatality total was 5,502 (p. 42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We face inevitable earthquakes that will affect our urban centers
nationwide. The cost could reach $100 to 200 billion dollars each, with
the potential loss of thousands of lives. At a time when our country is
faced with threats of every kind, we need a strong and enhanced NEHRP.
The problem is two-fold, involving the lack of implementation of
appropriate building standards and the high cost of strengthening the
existing built environment. We need to expand the protection and
technologies that NEHRP is providing to reduce cost to affordable
levels and encourage the mitigation activities that will provide the
needed protection.
NEHRP not only contributes to improved seismic performance, but
contributes markedly to improved performance and reliability under both
normal operation and extreme events associated with other natural
hazards (e.g., hurricanes, floods, strong wind, etc.), severe
accidents, and terrorist activities. As will be demonstrated later in
this testimony, NEHRP investments are leveraged into improved safety
and reliability of all components of the Nation's civil infrastructure,
including buildings, transportation systems, water supplies, gas and
liquid fuel networks, electric power, telecommunications, and waste
disposal facilities.
Much has been accomplished under NEHRP, and earthquake engineering
and planning have made substantial advances because of its support.
Major NEHRP products include national earthquake hazard maps developed
by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), seismic design provisions for new
buildings developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
guidelines for the rehabilitation of existing buildings and bridges
developed by FEMA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), loss
estimation methodologies developed by FEMA and FHWA, and performance-
based design procedures developed by FEMA and FHWA. Many of these
products are derived from fundamental research sponsored by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) with supplemental investigations and
testing by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).
Because of the multitude of products and the need to compress
information into a focused testimony, it is only possible to illustrate
with a few select examples how research under NEHRP has improved our
ability to protect lives and property from earthquake hazards. Through
geoscience research, for example, national seismic hazard maps have
been developed and adopted by the International Building Code in 37
states. The maps affect billions of dollars of new construction, and
are used in seismic retrofits, earthquake insurance, community
planning, and the design of schools, hospitals, bridges, dams, and
power systems. Through geotechnical engineering research, for example,
the effects of site response and local soil conditions on strong
shaking have been quantified. Provisions for characterizing the
amplifying effects of different ground conditions have been introduced
into building codes where they are used to design public works,
housing, and critical facilities.
Geotechnical engineering research has also made enormous progress
in characterizing and stabilizing soils subject to liquefaction. During
liquefaction, strong ground shaking generates high water pressures in
saturated sandy soil that, in turn, converts solid ground into a liquid
that loses its capacity to support structures and moves laterally,
rupturing underground pipelines and damaging building foundations and
waterfront facilities. Research in geotechnical engineering has
produced effective design procedures for liquefaction, developed
equipment and maps for identifying liquefiable soils, and advanced
ground stabilization technologies to remove or substantially reduce the
risk of liquefaction.
The current reconstruction of the Nation's transportation networks
under the ICE TEA and TEA-21 programs has significantly benefited from
NEHRP-sponsored research, including the USGS mapping program. The
newest design guidelines and codes for bridge design being utilized in
many parts of the country include advanced seismic design provisions
and proper characterization of the seismic potential. The hundreds of
billions of dollars our nation is investing in infrastructure
reconstruction are better protected from significant earthquake effects
because of the NEHRP program.
Structural engineering research under NEHRP has resulted in
profound improvements in the ways we analyze and design buildings for
earthquake shaking, the methods we use to rehabilitate existing
structures to perform safely in future earthquakes, and the advanced
technologies we apply to isolate or control buildings from the damaging
effects of seismic motion. A good example of applied structural
research is the SAC project\3\,\4\,\5\ in which
university and industry participants combined to resolve problems
related to welded steel moment frame buildings. Over 200 buildings of
this structural type suffered brittle fractures at welded connections
during the 1994 Northridge earthquake, and 10 percent of similar steel
frame buildings in Kobe collapsed during the 1995 Kobe
earthquake.3 The SAC Joint Venture was formed with FEMA
sponsorship in mid-1994 to respond to this crisis. The structural
research, which was produced under fast track conditions, resulted in
practical and cost-effective standards of practice for the repair and
upgrading of damaged steel frame buildings, the design of new steel
buildings, and the identification and rehabilitation of at-risk steel
buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000), ``Recommended
Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment Frame Building,'' FEMA-
350, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
\4\ Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000), ``Recommended
Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade for Steel Moment Frame Building,'' FEMA-
351, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
\5\ Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000), ``Recommended
Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade for Steel Moment Frame Building,'' FEMA-
352, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of structural, geotechnical, and earth science research
come together in seismic design provisions, guidelines for
rehabilitation of buildings, and loss estimation methodologies that
have been distributed throughout the Nation and adopted by building
codes and communities in virtually every state of the union. The engine
that drives earthquake-resistant practices and seismic risk reduction
is the research made possible by NEHRP. U.S. research and engineering
practices for earthquakes are models for the rest of the world, and are
emulated globally. Not only does the research supported by NEHRP
protect lives and property from earthquake hazards, it distinguishes
the U.S. as being at the forefront of globally important and life-
saving technology. Our nation gains leverage from earthquake
engineering research through worldwide improvements in safety,
protection of life, and the exportation of our technology and
engineering services overseas.
Evolution of NEHRP
Over the past 25 years, NEHRP agencies have developed a wide
variety of products to improve significantly the practice of earthquake
engineering. During this period the agencies have evolved and adopted
their own roles and specific practices within NEHRP.
FEMA, which has oversight responsibility for NEHRP, has taken on
the role of sponsoring the development of guidelines and standards for
the seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of existing buildings and for
the design of new structures. Before FEMA involvement, there was little
coordinated work in this area. The effort consists of developing
consensus guidelines, code provisions, and background materials, all of
which have fostered significant improvements in design worldwide,
encouraged the adoption of appropriate codes in earthquake-prone
communities, and have allowed billions of dollars to be spent better on
appropriate seismic mitigation and hardening. FEMA's role for new
buildings began in 1982 when the agency assumed responsibility for
developing and updating seismic code provisions, which have become the
basis for all national seismic codes and standards. FEMA's role for
existing buildings began with a planning workshop in 1984 that set the
course for what products were needed. Over the subsequent 18 years, the
work plan, twice updated, has been implemented and professional
practice greatly enriched.
The NEHRP agencies in their latest Strategic Plan,\6\ provide an
objective look at what now needs to be accomplished to advance the
state of practice to the next level. Many EERI members were
participants in the development of this plan, and we endorse the
balance it calls for between research and outreach activities.
Unfortunately, this plan, while completed in 2000, has never been
published nor implemented. Without the guidance of such a plan,
integrated and effective mitigation programs are hampered. With
continued FEMA support, we look forward to the implementation of
strategic planning and the development of mature tools, techniques, and
policies to reduce seismic vulnerability in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ NEHRP Agencies (2003), ``Expanding and Using Knowledge to
Reduce Earthquake Losses: The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program Strategic Plan 2001-2005,'' FEMA, NIST, NSF, and USGS, March.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the key policies needed to stimulate implementation involves
financial incentives. Unlike other national programs, such as the
National Flood Insurance Program, the current NEHRP legislation
contains no explicit provision and no authorized funding for
encouraging communities to mitigate the adverse effects of earthquake
hazards. We believe that a more concerted effort to encourage
mitigation is needed and recommend that a flexible program of
incentives, tailored to the specific needs and resources of localities,
be developed. EERI published a report, entitled Incentives and
Impediments to Improving the Seismic Performance of Buildings,\7\ which
outlines the opportunities. We recommend that FEMA undertake a
concerted study to identify incentives, both tangible and intangible,
that have motivated seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, and
design an incentive program that is applicable to both local public and
private buildings. To support such a study, as much as five percent of
the increased funding recommended for FEMA under the forthcoming
section, entitled EERI Research and Outreach Plan, could be allocated
to design and implement this incentive program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (1998), ``Incentives
and Impediments to Improving the Seismic Performance of Buildings,''
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, June.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USGS has successfully developed a procedure for translating
earth science into the information needed for seismic design. This
process has grown from individual efforts by USGS researchers to a
collaborative program that regularly produces hazard maps for use by
design professionals. They have developed a hazard mapping office in
Golden, CO that works closely with various guideline and standards
organizations to assure that the information is immediately useful.
This collaboration has allowed the design community to assess seismic
hazards on a site-by-site basis with increasing detail and reliability.
The information produced by USGS affects hundreds of billions of
dollars of construction each year. USGS is currently building the
Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) that will modernize and expand
the earthquake monitoring system in the U.S., with concentrations in
urban environments and the collection of data pertaining to actual
building response. If we are to arrest the growth of earthquake risk in
the United States, the USGS must continue to refine our understanding
of the seismic potential throughout the country so that we can better
pin-point the areas that need concentrated mitigation activities. This
problem is so large and expensive that we can not afford to rely solely
on the current information to guide our policy decisions.
NSF research started as a program that primarily involved
individual researchers in the early days of NEHRP. Although curiosity-
driven, individual researcher support is still a vigorous component of
the NSF plan, a significant part of its earthquake engineering research
has evolved into a collaborative effort involving engineering research
centers (ERCs). There are currently three earthquake ERCs and an
additional center focused on the earth science aspects of earthquakes,
each of which involve a large number of universities, enlist the
support of industry, and engage in active outreach programs and K-12
education. The Centers are geographically distributed, with
headquarters in California, Illinois, and New York. They work on
problems that are both regional and national in scope, and they
collaborate in areas of common expertise and interest. NSF also
sponsors collaborative programs with researchers in other countries
that have a significant commitment to earthquake engineering, such as
Japan, Taiwan, and Turkey. NSF is currently building the George E.
Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), which
will consist of state-of-the-art experimental facilities distributed
across the U.S. working in unison through advanced telecommunications
and high performance Internet. If we are to arrest the growth of
earthquake risk in the U.S., we must discover new techniques for
understanding the vulnerability of structures and more cost efficient
methods for reducing the vulnerabilities to acceptable levels. This
requires NSF sponsored basic research, coordinated research, and
development, all of which include simulation and testing with the NEES
equipment sites.
As the Nation's standards agency, NIST has been the leader in the
development of seismic evaluation, rehabilitation, and design standards
for federally owned, leased or funded facilities. It serves as the
secretariat agency of the Interagency Council for Seismic Safety in
Construction (ICSSC). NIST has assisted in the development of new
structural systems that have advanced the state of practice in
earthquake engineering. Most recently, NIST made significant
contributions to the development of a hybrid, pre-cast, reinforced
concrete structural system that achieves significant construction
efficiencies and cost saving without sacrificing seismic performance.
This innovation, which is known as the Pre-cast Hybrid Moment Frame
(PHMRF) System, has been implemented successfully in the construction
of the Paramount, a 39-story apartment tower in San Francisco.
Unfortunately, NIST's work over the life of NEHRP has been
constrained due to a lack of funding. The capabilities of NIST need to
be expanded and leveraged to support the development of codes and
standards. NIST needs to be authorized to provide the applied research
that is needed to speed the translation of basic research into
practice. NIST is in the process of publishing a report\8\ on this
``missing link'' that clearly identifies the work that needs to be
done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Applied Technology Council (2003), ``The Missing Piece: An
Initiative to Improve Seismic Design and Construction Practices,'' ATC-
57, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, in press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also recommend that the Federal Government deal immediately and
in a proactive manner with its own inventory of buildings. Federal
leadership, in terms of design requirements for federal buildings,
rehabilitation standards and programs for existing buildings, minimum
seismic standards for leased buildings and federally funded projects
are a key to stimulating nationwide interest in seismic safety. We not
only need the Federal Government to lead by example, we also need to
protect the millions of federal employees and guests that occupy
federal buildings that do not meet the governments own standards for
earthquake safety.
EERI Research and Outreach Plan
EERI is a national, nonprofit technical society of engineers,
geoscientists, architects, planners, public officials, and social
scientists. The 2,500 members of EERI include researchers, practicing
professionals, educators, government officials, and building code
regulators. The objective of EERI is to reduce earthquake risk by
advancing the science and practice of earthquake engineering, improving
the understanding of the impact of earthquakes on the physical, social,
economic, political and cultural environment, and by advocating
comprehensive and realistic measures for reducing the harmful effects
of earthquakes.
EERI convened a panel, representing a broad and multidisciplinary
cross-section of its membership, to develop a Research and Outreach
Plan.\9\ The plan includes both practical and basic research, and
contains an outreach component that addresses implementation,
education, and technology transfer. This plan began with the careful
deliberations of the panel, and has been prepared with the counsel of
the NEHRP agencies. It has undergone careful and intense scrutiny by
our members as well as experts outside our membership. It represents
the first comprehensive, consensus document from the entire earthquake
engineering community about what needs to be done from earth science,
through structural engineering and architecture, to social science and
public policy. This plan is currently in publication and is receiving
the endorsement of most of the significant stakeholders, users, and
researchers who have dedicated their careers to achieving an acceptable
level of earthquake safety. As of the preparation of this testimony,
the organizations endorsing the EERI Research and Outreach Plan include
Applied Technology Council, California Seismic Safety Commission
(CSSC), Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup (CREW), Central United
States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC), Consortium of Universities for
Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE), Council of American
Structural Engineers, Mid-America Earthquake Center, Multidisciplinary
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), National Fire
Protection Association, Natural Hazards Center, Oregon Department of
Geology and Mineral Industries, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center (PEER), Public Entity Risk Institute, Seismological Society of
America (SSA), and Structural Engineers Association of California
(SEAOC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (2003), ``Securing
Society Against Catastrophic Earthquake Losses,'' Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, March.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At current funding levels, we believe that it will take over 100
years to secure the Nation against unacceptable earthquake risks. Based
on the recently released Research and Outreach Plan, Securing Society
Against Catastrophic Earthquake Losses,9 we believe that if
program funding is augmented 3 times the current level, we will achieve
the needed results in the next 20 years. The cost is estimated to be on
average $330 million per year for the 20-year duration of the plan,
which is less than one twentieth of the annual projected losses from
earthquakes in the U.S.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ HAZUS 99, ``Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the
United States,'' (2000), FEMA-366, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that this Research and Outreach Plan provides the
essential basis for seismic risk reduction by providing tools that will
be easily understood, feasible, cost beneficial, and adaptable. It
calls for a five-fold program, consisting of research and development
pertaining to Understanding Seismic Hazards, Assessing Earthquake
Impacts, Reducing Earthquake Impacts, Enhancing Community Resilience,
and Expanding Education and Public Outreach. Detailed descriptions of
topics and work are provided in the document for each program area, and
interested parties should refer to it for specifics.
Figure 1 shows the recommended funding proportions during the first
five years of the program. Separate categories for capital investments
and information technologies are indicated in each pie chart. The
recommended capital investments pertain to NEES experimental
facilities, ANSS, and field instrumentation. It is assumed that the
first five-year cycle of the program occurs in FY04-08. The recommended
annual level of funding in the first five-year period is nearly $360
million, with a yearly $330 million average over 20 years.
We strongly recommend that NEHRP be reauthorized at an augmented
level consistent with the EERI Research and Outreach Plan. We believe
that this will require the funding authorization for FEMA related to
NEHRP to be increased to approximately $70 million per year, NIST to
$20 million, NSF to $140 million, and USGS to $130 million.
We believe that the basic proportions illustrated in Figure 1
represent the appropriate funding allocations within the NEHRP program.
As the level of overall funding increases, we will achieve the goal of
reducing the effects of earthquakes at an accelerating rate. As a
minimum, we firmly believe that support significantly exceeding current
funding horizons is critically important for ANSS and NEES in FY04-08.
ANSS is fundamentally important for NEHRP. Advancements in
earthquake understanding and earthquake engineering occur after major
earthquakes. The response of the built environment to strong shaking
continues to provide real time clues to what works and what doesn't. To
maximize our understanding, we need to know how strong the ground is
shaking, and we need to understand fully the extent of damage that has
been caused. ANSS will consist of 6,000 new instruments concentrated in
high-risk urban areas to monitor ground shaking and the response of
buildings and structures, together with upgraded regional and national
networks and data centers. ANSS will provide scientists with high
quality data to understand earthquakes, engineers with information
about building and site response, and emergency response personnel with
near-real-time earthquake information.
Appropriations for ANSS are only proceeding at one-tenth the
planned rate. Every year that we delay the deployment of ANSS we run
the risk of missing the opportunity to record the shaking in a manner
that will be useful to the engineering community. ANSS is the most
critical new program needed by NEHRP. Putting the instrumentation in
after the next earthquake will be too late.
NEES is a nationwide resource of advanced research equipment sites
networked through the high performance Internet. The network is focused
on improving the seismic design and performance of U.S. public and
private works through advances in the technologies applied in civil,
mechanical, and telecommunication systems. The network will use state-
of-the-art experimental and simulation capabilities to understand the
behavior of critical facilities under complex earthquake loading and to
test and validate the analytical and computer models needed for
effective engineering. NEES will link sites throughout the U.S. and
globally to create a shared resource that benefits from open access and
the contributions of leading researchers at multiple locations.
Participation in NEES will involve educators, students, practitioners,
public sector organizations and interested individuals, all of whom
will have access to equipment, data, models, and software developed
through the network. Because the network is distributed throughout the
Nation, it will draw attention to earthquake vulnerability nationwide
and the need for proper implementation and mitigation activities.
Support for NEES is support for our future and a significant boost
for our education system. It is an effective means of promoting U.S.
leadership in the engineering of critical civil and mechanical systems
and in applying telecommunications to energize the development of
innovative and advanced technologies that benefit each American
citizen.
Information Technology and Earthquake Mitigation
Information technology (IT) enhances our ability to monitor seismic
motion, predict how the ground will shake during a future earthquake,
and model how structures respond. It provides the basis for rapid
sensing and structural controls that will make buildings perform better
during seismic excitation. It provides for remote data acquisition and
interpretation coupled with rapid communication and visualization to
direct emergency response. In the future, we will find that IT becomes
a unifying and complementary force for decision-making that will be
embedded in the most basic and fundamental units of our communities.
Hence, IT has the potential to improve how communities accomplish the
necessary tasks to reduce vulnerability, coordinate local with regional
planning, and prevent catastrophic earthquake loss.
Securing Society Against Catastrophic Earthquake Losses9
presents an overview of IT applications to earthquake engineering, some
of which are paraphrased here to highlight opportunities for mitigating
earthquake hazards. New developments in micro-electromechanical sensors
for acceleration, strain, pore water pressure, and other quantities
will significantly enhance our ability to collect and process large
volumes of data. Digital video, infrared, ultrasound, radar and lasers
provide unprecedented opportunities for damage assessment. Satellite
imaging, remote sensing, and high-resolution aerial photography provide
new capabilities to capture and update inventory information on the
natural and built environment prior to an earthquake, and to provide
near real-time damage assessments after an event. Since high-end
computers will likely realize petaflop scale (1015 floating
point operations per second) computing well before 2010, computational
simulation of the ground motion in an entire region, with unprecedented
accuracy in simulation of the built environment and interpretation of
data collected through sensors, will soon be possible.
In the post-earthquake environment, IT is providing a more
efficient way of collecting data, coordinating reconnaissance teams,
monitoring reconnaissance, and analyzing and distributing data.
Information technology improves our ability to capture a wide range of
observations and lessons after earthquakes. Data that would otherwise
have perished after earthquakes can now be collected, stored, and made
accessible via IT advances.
One of the most important earthquake engineering applications of IT
involves the utilization of large numbers of sensors and related large-
scale data collection. Wide-area wireless networking is a key
technology to link sensors to modern communication networks. NEHRP-
sponsored programs are already early adopters of this technology. After
the Northridge earthquake, FEMA funded an upgrading of the southern
California seismic network with digital, broadband recording
instruments that report on measurements in virtual real time. The
upgraded network, which is known as TriNet, has proven its ability by
rapidly locating the epicenters and determining the magnitudes of
several significant earthquakes within minutes of their occurrence.
Maps showing the distribution and severity of ground shaking, known as
a ``ShakeMaps,'' were released swiftly and accessible through the
Internet. This application of IT is immensely useful to emergency
management officials, and the web sites showing contours of earthquake
severity have become an integral part of the decision-making process
for allocating resources and organizing emergency response. Extending
these concepts, a city fully instrumented with networked sensors could
include tens of thousands of sensors providing the data needed for
radically improving the knowledge base of earthquake response; video or
other imaging systems would be used in damage assessment, emergency
response, and disaster recovery.
Experience with TriNet was so successful that USGS used it as a
framework for developing ANSS. As discussed previously, ANSS will
expand on the regional application of advanced IT in southern
California to provide nationwide coverage specifically targeted on
urban areas, where much of our vital public works and critical
infrastructure are located.
Another example of advanced IT development and application under
NEHRP is the support that NSF provides to deploy a large-scale
permanent global positioning system (GPS) geodetic array in southern
California, known as the Southern California Integrated GPS Network
(SCIGN). The array contains 250 stations. It uses satellite measurement
data to monitor small (sub-centimeter) movements between stations, and
thus determine the earth deformations that are a prelude to serious
earthquakes. Using the SCIGN data, scientists and engineers can learn
how strains build over time before their sudden release during an
earthquake.
NSF with NEHRP support is driving a revolutionary application of IT
through the creation of NEES. As discussed previously, NEES is a new
major research equipment, computation, and networking initiative. The
system architecture is based on grid computing that enables
coordinated, flexible, and secure resource sharing and problem solving
in real time among geographically dispersed facilities and users.
Through its IT innovations, NEES will provide a world-renown resource
for earthquake engineers to conduct advanced experiments, collect data,
collaborate in improved simulations, and use all this information to
improve design.
In summary, NEHRP to date has successfully harnessed IT. In many
ways, NEHRP is a model for introducing IT into the public arena, where
it serves as a catalyst for further public interest and incorporation
in community activities. Because NEHRP involves several engineering and
science-based agencies, it is able to benefit from and capitalize on
the cross-fertilization of ideas and technologies of diverse
researchers and practitioners. This is a great strength of NEHRP, which
has contributed to cutting-edge development and application of IT to
protect life and property. This type of synergy needs support, and in
return leverages investments into technologies that not only reduce
losses, but substantially enhance the functionality and reliability of
our nation's infrastructure.
NEHRP Improvements and Policy Changes
As effective as NEHRP has been in supporting research and
implementation of great value to our country, it has been subject to
some significant limitations that need to be remedied if NEHRP is to
achieve its full potential. The most significant limitations affecting
NEHRP are leadership and the eroding level of funding.
A new leadership model could be of great benefit for NEHRP. We
recognize that leadership is the joint responsibility of all NEHRP
agencies, with FEMA taking a lead role. We understand and support the
fact that NEHRP was wisely split among four separate agencies, which
allows the expertise of each agency to contribute to a significant
national problem. We recognize and support the need for a lead agency
with the responsibility to coordinate and facilitate the program.
Unfortunately, each agency is within a different department of the
executive branch, with its own Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
examiner and Congressional oversight committee. As a result, the
coordination and cooperation among the agencies are hindered,
especially when it comes to the budgeting details. Previous
reauthorizing legislation has attempted to correct this problem by
calling for strategic planning and an interagency coordination
committee. Although these adjustments in program administration have
had beneficial results, additional improvements are also needed.
We recommend that more be done to bring consistency and
collaboration to NEHRP. We believe that the program should have a
visible place and designated staff within each agency. We recommend
that OMB assign one of the participating examiners to coordinate the
budgeting within the four agencies so that the funds invested will be
balanced and prioritized on a programmatic basis. We recommend that the
Congressional Oversight and the Appropriations Committee also take
steps to bring together the members who oversee each of the related
agencies, so that they too will watch the program in its entirety and
promote balance. Finally, we recommend that Congress ask the President
to create an independent committee of external experts responsible for
oversight of NEHRP. This oversight committee would report to Congress
no less than biannually. We note that similar recommendations have been
made by experts\11\,\12\ previously convened to provide
advice for NEHRP. We believe that it is time to take up the
implementation of this recurrent advice and make the improvements that
will enhance NEHRP productivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Expert Review Committee (1989) ``Commentary and
Recommendations of the Expert Review Committee 1987,'' FEMA-164,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, Jan.
\12\ Cheney, D.W. (1989), ``The National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program,'' 89-473 SPR, Congressional Research Service, The
Library of Congress, Washington, DC, Aug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEHRP funding has fallen approximately 40 percent in real dollars
since its inception in 1978.6 Committees convened in the
past to recommend NEHRP improvements have consistently emphasized the
serious erosion in capability and potential that the steady decline in
real dollars has incurred.11x-812 The report of
the Expert Review Committee10 convened to guide FEMA in the
development of the NEHRP Five-Year Plan for 1989-1993, stressed the
importance of increased funding and recommended more than a three-fold
increase in the annual budget. Recognition of the steady decline in
fiscal support is echoed today in the EERI Research and Outreach Plan,
which recommends and provides justification for a similar increase in
Congressionally authorized funding. If NEHRP is to provide the seismic
risk reduction required by this country in a reasonable amount of time
and achieve its potential in developing advanced technologies to
safeguard U.S. infrastructure, then increased fiscal support for the
program needs to be authorized by Congress. We strongly recommend that
increases in funding consistent with those proposed in Securing Society
Against Catastrophic Earthquake Losses9 and outlined above
be authorized and appropriated by Congress. To reduce the effects of
inflation, the resulting funding levels should be indexed to the
Consumer Price Index, as many federal activities are, thereby
protecting earthquake mitigation support against the funding erosion
that has affected NEHRP since its inception.
FEMA Transfer to the Department of Homeland Security
FEMA is the designated lead agency for NEHRP. It is well qualified
for this role. Of all NEHRP agencies, it has the most direct
responsibility and experience with reducing losses from all natural
disasters. It is focused on implementation, and has long-term
collaboration and working relationships with code development
organizations, professional societies, and state, local, and private
sector groups responsible for reducing earthquake hazards.
The transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
brings about significant mission, administrative, and cultural changes
for the agency, for which it is too premature to make pronouncements
and prognostications of effect or outcome. It is not too premature,
however, to voice honest and supportive concern about such a transfer.
For NEHRP to continue its mission in a productive manner and realize
its potential, it needs a strong and dedicated group within DHS to
provide oversight for and to administer the program. This requires a
clear identity within DHS with designated staff and agency commitment
to the program. NEHRP must be visible, and must be maintained as a
clearly identified line item in the Congressional budget.
FEMA is a results-oriented agency with expertise in the
implementation of research findings. It has management responsibility
in contrast to the research responsibilities of NSF, USGS, and NIST.
Steps must be taken to work across the cultural divide of management
and research. We believe that an external expert oversight committee
will help substantially to achieve this goal.
The transfer of FEMA to DHS provides substantial opportunities. DHS
will have responsibilities for research and implementation programs to
support security of U.S. home property and assets. Earthquake hazards
are an integral part of this package, and have important
characteristics in common with the types of extreme events that DHS has
been created to control. Hence, the expertise of the earthquake
engineering community under NEHRP has both immediate and ongoing value
to DHS not only in seismic risk reduction, but in the protection of our
communities from a variety of hazards, related to natural, accidental,
and pre-meditated causes. As discussed under the next heading, the
research and implementation created by NEHRP have immense beneficial
effects on U.S. technology and the reliability of its civil
infrastructure. Such outcomes leverage the value of NEHRP investments
well beyond their very positive influence in reducing earthquake
losses.
NEHRP Effects on US Technology and Preparedness
Investments in earthquake engineering through NEHRP have resulted
in technical advances that apply beyond earthquakes to other hazards,
civil infrastructure, applied information technology, and homeland
security. A few of the many examples include passive/active building
control for wind hazards, advanced geographical information systems
(GIS) for lifelines and civil infrastructure management, fiber-
reinforced polymers for bridge/building repair and restoration,
inspection protocol for buildings applied after the World Trade Center
(WTC) Disaster, seismic monitoring of nuclear tests, and social science
contributions to federal emergency response plans, early warning
systems, and community perception of risk.
One of the most dramatic examples of the application of earthquake
engineering to extreme events occurred immediately after the World
Trade Center (WTC) Disaster of September 11, 2001.\13\ This attack on
our urban infrastructure was unprecedented and beyond planning
scenarios for serious urban accidents in terms of scale and intensity.
Fortunately, procedures developed for earthquakes under FEMA
sponsorship\14\ were available and rapidly deployed to investigate and
identify the condition of surrounding buildings. For years before the
WTC Disaster, engineers had been responding to earthquakes that caused
damage at scales comparable to and exceeding the destruction resulting
from the terrorist attacks of September 11. Through NEHRP support, they
had developed the tools to deploy rapidly, examine, and assess the
condition of buildings in a simple, practical way that allows for
decisions about structural integrity. This process was of critical
importance in the aftermath of the WTC Disaster, when determination of
building integrity surrounding the WTC complex was needed to protect
lives and property, and to decide on re-occupancy of buildings with
critical telecommunications, financial banking, and securities trading
capabilities essential for the restoration of world business markets.
As a result of NEHRP, the inspection procedures to initiate WTC
recovery were available ``off the shelf.'' Although an unexpected and
unintended outcome of NEHRP, this example nonetheless illustrates the
immense benefits that accrue from our nation's investment in earthquake
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Federal Emergency Management Agency (2002), ``World Trade
Center Building Performance Study,'' FEMA-403, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, DC, May.
\14\ Applied Technology Council (1989), ``Procedures for Post-
earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings,'' ATC-20, Applied Technology
Council, San Francisco, CA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other cases, the influence of earthquake engineering investments
are more subtle, though still of substantial importance. For example,
research and implementation of fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs) for the
seismic retrofitting of bridges and overpasses after the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake were a very important catalyst in proving the
technology and advancing its practical application under field
conditions. Now this technology is used routinely for repair and
rehabilitation of buildings and bridges throughout the country to
enhance normal functionality and extend facility life. The use of FRPs
is extending the useful life of bridges, obviating the need to replace
expensive infrastructure throughout the U.S. They also can improve the
blast resistance of many existing buildings.
Another example includes the development of active and passive
control to dampen or isolate building response from the effects of
earthquake shaking. Active control uses sensors feeding into
electrically activated devices that countermand seismic motion, whereas
passive control involves the use of base isolators and resisting
members to substantially reduce transient movement within structures.
Active and passive control technology developed for earthquake effects
has immediate benefits for similar systems to offset the effects of
natural hazards like wind and hurricanes. Active and passive control
systems also have potential for reducing blast effects, thereby
protecting critical facilities against terrorist attacks.
In 1996, the authors of FEMA 277, The Oklahoma City Bombing:
Improving Building Performance through Multi-Hazard Mitigation,\15\
suggested that the physical damage and extent of progressive collapse
inflicted on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building might well have been
lessened if the original design had incorporated seismic detailing.
Conceptually, this idea has taken root in the structural engineering
industry and is currently under study by various investigators. If
validated, seismic engineering and design could make a very significant
contribution to the homeland security aspects of our built environment.
Additional research in this area is warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Federal Emergency Management Agency (1996), ``The Oklahoma
City Bombing: Improving Building Performance through Multi-Hazard
Mitigation,'' FEMA-352, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most successful loss estimation products is the software
program, HAZUS, developed through FEMA to estimate physical damage,
casualties, and other societal impacts from earthquakes. HAZUS is an
excellent example of how NEHRP-sponsored research converges in a single
platform, readily transportable through GIS and computer technology to
communities throughout the U.S. HAZUS embodies a multitude of
algorithms and correlations originating from NSF- and USGS-sponsored
research into a program implemented by FEMA for national use. The
process and program architecture in HAZUS are adaptable to other
natural hazards, and are currently being applied to floods and
hurricane wind. Hence, NEHRP investments in this case have direct
application for other natural hazards because, in addition to
earthquakes, HAZUS will become the platform for loss estimation related
to flood and hurricane wind.
NEHRP plans for the future involve a Lifelines Initiative that is
required through public law, whereby FEMA, in consultation with NIST,
will develop a plan for design and construction standards for
lifelines. Lifelines include transportation systems, water supplies,
gas and liquid fuel networks, electric power, telecommunications, and
waste disposal facilities. They are the distinguishing characteristic
of modern communities, and deliver the resources and services necessary
for safety, security, and economic well-being.
NEHRP has been a hotbed for innovation and IT applications in
lifeline systems. Research sponsored by NSF, USGS, and NIST have
resulted in sophisticated models of lifeline network performance under
various damages scenarios associated with earthquakes. Much of this
work has involved innovative use of GIS, probabilistic hazard analyses,
network reliability procedures, advanced remote sensing and
characterization of geotechnical hazards, strong motion simulation, and
applications of regional economic analyses and community recovery
models. The overall outcome of this activity is a rich and technically
advanced framework for the simulation and evaluation of complex
infrastructure systems under extreme events.
I can attest personally to the importance of this branch of NEHRP
activity by reference to NSF-sponsored research on the earthquake
performance of the water supply system in San
Francisco.\16\,\17\ Before the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake,
hydraulic network and system reliability analyses of the Auxiliary
Water Supply System (used for fire protection) in San Francisco were
preformed. They demonstrated that the water distribution pipeline
network in that city would be compromised in a severe earthquake
because of liquefaction-induced ground deformation and shaking effects.
The City of San Francisco and the San Francisco Fire Department
responded to this research by successfully petitioning for a
substantial bond issue to upgrade and retrofit the Auxiliary Water
Supply System. As part of the fire department response, special
vehicles, known as hose tenders, were commissioned to convey nearly a
mile of special hose to the waterfront and hook into the fireboat,
which would pump water through the hose and portable hydrants deployed
inland to locations of earthquake-generated fire. During the Loma
Prieta earthquake liquefaction-induced ground deformation, as
predicted, ruptured critical water distribution pipelines, leaving the
Marina without pipeline water. The hose tenders were successfully
deployed to the Marina and extinguished the major fire that erupted
there. Without these benefits of research and implementation under
NEHRP, it is likely that the fire loss from this earthquake would have
been substantial, costing orders of magnitude more than the research
that prevented it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ O'Rourke, T.D., Ed. (1992), ``The Loma Prieta, California,
Earthquake of October 17, 1989--Marina District,'' U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 1551-F, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
\17\ O'Rourke, T.D. and Pease, J.W. (1992), ``Large Ground
Deformations and Their Effects on Lifeline Facilities: 1989 Loma Prieta
Earthquake,'' Case Studies of Liquefaction and Lifeline Performance
During Past Earthquakes, NCEER-92-0002, T.D. O'Rourke and M. Hamada,
Eds., National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY,
April, pp. 5-1-5-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water supply and other critical infrastructure, such as electric
power, telecommunications, and transportation systems, are vulnerable
to a variety of hazards related to natural, accidental, and pre-
meditated causes. The research and implementation for lifelines under
NEHRP have established an excellent baseline and ready resource for
simulating and protecting our vital infrastructure networks. It is
important that Congress consider the immense leverage from NEHRP for
improvements and security of buildings, transportation systems, water
supplies, gas and liquid fuel networks, electric power,
telecommunications, and waste disposal facilities. NEHRP provides an
enormous return on investment that substantially reduces our nation's
vulnerability to earthquakes and improves the performance of its civil
infrastructure.
Summary
The earthquake risk to the United States is unacceptably high. We
are facing inevitable earthquakes that will cost the Nation $100 to
$200 billion each, with the potential loss of thousands of lives. We
believe that the growth of this risk can be arrested and reduced to an
acceptable level. This requires continuous research, expanded seismic
monitoring, and nationwide mitigation.
For the past 25 years, The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction
Program (NEHRP) has provided resources and leadership that have lead to
significant advances in understanding the sources of earthquake risk
and have provided useful tools for arresting its growth. In spite of
all the good work that has been done in the regions of highest
seismicity, our earthquake risk is still unacceptably high because of
the lack of implementation of appropriate building standards and
because the cost of strengthening the existing built environment is too
high. This trend will not be reversed until earthquake risks are
understood by communities in all 39 vulnerable states, existing
mitigation procedures are used more extensively, and new techniques are
developed to better define and reduce earthquake risks.
First and foremost, we need Congress to maintain a strong and
viable NEHRP. It needs to continue under the current organizational
structure and proceed along the lines of the recently developed NEHRP
Strategic Plan.6 This plan outlines a course of action for
the best use of existing funding and prioritizes opportunities for
accelerating the program as additional funding becomes available.
At current funding levels, we believe that it will take 100 plus
years to secure the Nation against unacceptable earthquake risks. Based
on our recently published research and outreach plan, Securing Society
Against Catastrophic Earthquake Losses,8 we believe that
implementing an expanded program, which includes ANSS and NEES with
triple the funding, will allow the needed results to be achieved
throughout U.S. communities within the next 20 to 30 years. We believe
that 100 plus years is much too long to wait. A strong NEHRP that
includes proactive implementation through leadership, incentives,
requirements, and new public policy needs to be maintained.
A new leadership model is needed to enhance consistency and
collaboration in NEHRP. The program should have a visible place and
designated staff within each NEHRP agency, including a strong and
dedicated group in DHS. Congress should create an independent oversight
committee of external experts to provide guidance on enhancing
productivity and strategic orientation for NEHRP.
The Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), authorized by Congress
in 2000, is intended to expand the current monitoring system and
provide essential information. Strong motion data are critical to
making the next advance in understanding how economically to arrest the
growth of earthquake risk and reduce it to an acceptable level. ANSS is
the most critical new program proposed for NEHRP. Putting the
instrumentation in after the next earthquake will be too late.
The George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation (NEES), established by NSF, will expand the state of
knowledge in earthquake engineering through new methods for
experimental and computational simulation. Currently many new
experimental research sites are established around the country, and a
system to link them into a sophisticated testing and simulation complex
is being developed. Unfortunately, funds to carry out the research that
will make use of this new equipment and simulation technology are not
available at the needed levels. Knowledge developed through experiments
and simulation methodologies provide the essential scientific knowledge
base for improving codes and guidelines. Social science and education
research will complement this by helping to understand and communicate
better the implications and choices that must be made. An immediate
investment in NEES is needed to reduce the cost of seismic design and
strengthening to affordable levels and stimulate significant mitigation
activities. NEES will also advance the use of IT nationwide, set new
standards for the synchronous use of geographically distributed
experimental facilities, and be a significant boost for our education
system.
We recommend, above all else, that NEHRP be reauthorized with
increases in the spending levels for each agency consistent with the
NEHRP Strategic Plan6 and the EERI Research and Outreach
Plan. Funding for the EERI Plan,8 Securing Society Against
Catastrophic Earthquake Losses, will require $358 million per year for
the first five years, with a yearly average of $330 million over the
20-year program.
Finally, it is important to recognize the immense leverage from
NEHRP for improvements in the reliability and security of buildings,
transportation systems, water supplies, gas and liquid fuel networks,
electric power, telecommunications, and waste disposal facilities.
NEHRP provides an enormous return on investment that substantially
reduces our nation's vulnerability to earthquakes and, at the same
time, improves the performance of its civil infrastructure for both
normal operation and extreme events.
Biography for Thomas D. O'Rourke
Thomas R. Briggs Professor of Engineering, Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Cornell University, 273 Hollister Hall, Ithaca, NY
14853-3501
Education
Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1975
M.S.C.E., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1973
B.S.C.E., Cornell University, 1970
Experience
Professor O'Rourke has been a member of the teaching and research
staffs at Cornell University and the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign. His teaching and professional practice have: covered many
aspects of geotechnical engineering including foundations, earth
retaining structures, slope stability, soil/structure interaction,
underground construction, laboratory testing, and elements of
earthquake engineering. He has authored or co-authored over 280
publications on geotechnical, underground, and earthquake engineering.
He was elected a member of the National Academy of Engineering in
1993. He was awarded the C.A. Hogentogler Award from ASTM in 1976 for
his work on the field monitoring of large construction projects. In
1983 and 1988, Prof. O'Rourke received the Collingwood and Huber
Research Prize, respectively, from ASCE for his studies of soil and
rock mechanics applied to underground works and excavation
technologies. In 1995 he received the C. Martin Duke Award from ASCE
for his contributions to lifeline earthquake engineering and in 1997 he
received the Stephen D. Bechtel Pipeline Engineering Award from ASCE
for his contributions to the profession of pipeline engineering. In
2002 he received the Trevithick Prize from the British Institution of
Civil Engineers and was designated as an NSF Distinguished Lecturer. He
received the 2003 Japan Gas Association Best Paper Award and the 1996
EERI Outstanding Paper Award. In 1998, he was elected to the EERI Board
of Directors and serves as President from 2003-2005. In 1998, Prof.
O'Rourke received Cornell University's College of Engineering Daniel
Lazar '29 Excellence in Teaching Award. In 2000 he was elected a Fellow
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and received
the Distinguished Alumnus Award in Civil and Environmental Engineering
from the University of Illinois. He testified before the U.S. House of
Representatives Science Committee in 1999 on engineering implications
of the 1999 Turkey and Taiwan earthquakes and in 2003 on the
reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
He has served on numerous earthquake reconnaissance missions, and holds
a U.S. patent for innovative pipeline design.
Professor O'Rourke has developed engineering solutions for problems
concerning foundation performance, ground movement effects on
structures, earth retaining structures, pipelines, earthquake
engineering, tunneling, and infrastructure rehabilitation, both on a
research and consulting basis. He has served as chair or member of the
consulting boards of several large underground construction projects,
as well as the peer reviews for projects associated with highway, rapid
transit, water supply, and energy distribution systems. He has assisted
in the development and application of advanced polymer and composite
materials for the in-situ rehabilitation of water supply and gas
distribution pipelines. He has developed techniques for evaluating
ground movement patterns and stability for a variety of excavation,
tunneling, micro-tunneling, and mining conditions. He has developed
analytical methods and siting strategies to mitigate pipeline damage
during earthquakes, analyze and design high pressure pipelines, and has
established full-scale testing facilities for transmission and
distribution pipelines. He has developed geographical information
systems and network analysis procedures for water supply systems in
areas vulnerable to earthquakes and other natural disasters.
He is a member of the ASCE, ASME, ASTM, AAAS, ISSMEE, EERI, and
IAEG. He is a member of the NSF Engineering Directorate Advisory
Committee, and serves on the Executive Committees of the
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research and the
Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems. He was chair of the U.S.
National Committee on Tunneling Technology and a member of the NRC
Geotechnical Board and Board on Energy and Environmental Systems. He is
a past chair of the UTRC Executive Committee and both the ASCE TCLEE
Executive Committee and Technical Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel
Lifelines. He is a past Chair of the ASCE Earth Retaining Structures
Committee, as well as past President of the ASCE Ithaca Section, and
was a member of the inter-municipal water commission in his home town.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. O'Rourke. Dr. Reaveley.
STATEMENT OF DR. LAWRENCE D. REAVELEY, PROFESSOR AND CHAIR,
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY
OF UTAH
Dr. Reaveley. Chairman Smith and Members of the
Subcommittee, it is with great respect that I speak to you
today.
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program is a
program that I know well and which I have a significant
experience. It is my deeply held belief that the NEHRP program
is primarily responsible for most of the major advances in
structural engineering that have been achieved during the last
25 years.
Research interest in blast loaded structures began to wane
in the early 1970's while the 1971 San Fernando Valley
earthquake sparked interest in seismic design to the poor
performance of many structures. Without the knowledge gained
from the NEHRP program, it would have not been possible to
understand nearly as well the behavior of buildings that were
recently damaged by terrorist activities. The best example of
this technology transfer is that the modeling parameters that
are contained in FEMA 356, ``Prestandard and Commentary for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.'' This document contains
guidance for assessing the behavior of structural components of
all building types when required to resist the effects of
various loading. These loading may range from service
conditions to extreme loading. The methodology embodied in FEMA
356 will undoubtedly be the technical basis of future
performance-based design codes, which, I believe, will address
the major technical and social economic issues that are
important in the earthquake study.
There also have been great advances in understanding the
nature of ground motion associated with earthquakes. In the--in
Salt Lake City, it was virtually impossible to gain the
professional and public support for the seismic design of
buildings until Lloyd Cluff and others established, through
trenching studies, that the Wasatch Fault was still an active
fault-producing system. These studies were completed in the
mid-1970's and provided the necessary proof that a major
earthquake would happen in the future. These were important
benchmark studies. Out of this type of study has grown a body
of knowledge that allowed for the development of new maps for
the determination of how much ground shaking one might expect
from an earthquake anywhere in the United States of America.
These maps are now used in current building codes. The value of
these maps is that they are based upon current scientific
knowledge and will easily--be easily updated as new knowledge
is acquired. The old seismic code maps were somewhat subjective
in nature and were sometimes influenced by political pressure.
This more--this most important advancement was made possible
through NEHRP funding.
NEHRP funding for the FEMA ``yellow book'' series of
publications that deal with structural engineering guidelines
and standards has been critical for the process of technology
transfer to the design professional community. The typical
structural engineer would be completely lost without them. In
fact, the process of creating these documents has clearly
identified the research needs in the overall field of
structural engineering.
We have much more to learn about where and how the ground
will shake. How buildings and other structures respond to
ground motion is still at a rudimentary stage of prediction.
Soil structure interaction is not very well understood, and it
is critical, because we can not close the gap between the
ground shaking and the structure model without this
information. This information will allow the country to be more
efficient in the allocation of resources. We will have a
greater knowledge as to where and with what frequency the
ground will shake. We have the ability to better allocate
construction dollars within a particular structure to achieve a
desired outcome following an earthquake. We will be in a better
position to understand which buildings might be economically
rehabilitated to resist the effects of ground motion.
The fact that there is such a limited few dollars in the
NEHRP budget is simply not justified from a basic economic
point of view, in my opinion. The expenditure of previous funds
has helped minimize the losses in the most recent domestic
earthquakes. Every dollar spent on creating an earthquake-
resistant structure also creates a more blast-resistant
structure, or one that might be resistant to high winds. I
personally had a building that I designed for earthquake that
was hit by a--the only tornado we know about in Salt Lake. It
was hit broadside, a 14-story building. It didn't twitch a bit.
A full tornado hit it. Progressive collapse is also minimized.
If dollars are limited, which I hope they are not, my opinion
is that the following tasks, in order of priority, should be
emphasized, but all of the programs should be kept alive,
because they are important.
One, strong motion networks in regions of high-probable
ground shake, ground--strong ground motion are essential to our
progress. Free field data and data from instrumented buildings
are absolutely necessary for the advancement of our abilities
to understand the behavior of structures. Lack of this type of
data and the almost negligible amount of funding to study such
data is a major roadblock in advancing our understanding of the
physics of the earthquake problem.
I brought with me copies of the report titled, ``The Plan
to Coordinate NEHRP Post-earthquake Investigations.'' The major
NEHRP agencies cooperated in the production of this report.
This report summarizes most of the issues with respect to the
topic.
Two, Performance Based Engineering is an all-encompassing
concept, and it should be a structure upon which all of the
various elements of the program are fit together to achieve the
goals and objectives of NEHRP. It must be funded.
Three, this crosses the line between governmental agencies,
as Mr. Hanson spoke. I personally believe that the most
overlooked factor in improving the overall performance of
buildings is the lack of qualified personnel at the local
government level. Plan review and inspections are critical and
are not being done, even in areas of high seismic risk. Perhaps
some sort of incentives could be fashioned. Since the direct
losses from a major earthquake in an urban environment can be
in the tens of billions or to the hundreds of billions, it
seems that we are being foolish in not realizing the overall
benefit of a better funded program. The United States has
never, in modern times, experienced the impacts of what will
occur if a real big one does strike in a major urban center. I
believe that economic consequences of a major earthquake and
their effects on the surviving population should drive NEHRP
and be the defining parameters in setting priorities. Unless
there is a significant increase in funding, it will not be
possible to create a program that can meet the objectives
associated with the visions set forth by Congress.
Now this turns out to be a common theme, which was not
orchestrated and independently written by all of the panelists.
There is a need to empower a central authority to coordinate
the activities of the various agencies that expend NEHRP funds.
This authority should be charged with achieving the goals and
objectives set forth by Congress. There should be established a
review mechanism drawing on experts with leadership and
technical experience to assist in identifying and prioritizing
program initiatives.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Reaveley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lawrence D. Reaveley
Chairman Boehlert, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is with
great respect that I speak before you today. The National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) is a program that I know well and
with which I have significant experience.
Introduction
The art and science of structural engineering is constantly
evolving as we gain knowledge about the performance of buildings and
other structures when subjected to extreme loads. Extreme loads may
come from natural phenomenon, such as wind or earthquake ground motion.
Other conditions that lead to extreme loading can come from accidental
or purposely induced explosive forces. Although there are some
differences in the specifics of extreme loadings caused by these
individual sources, the basic effect is to cause the structural
elements to deform excessively and subsequently be permanently damaged
or to collapse. The primary goal of a structural engineer is to make
the capacity of a structure greater than the demand placed upon it by
the various loads that it is anticipated to experience. The capacity is
determined by the size, shape, materials, and details utilized in the
construction of restructure. Different details might be utilized for
different loading conditions, but in general, a structure that is
designed for one extreme loading condition has most of the desired
attributes that are required for others.
It has been primarily through examining or observing components of
structures that have experienced extreme loads that we have advanced
the technology of structural engineering. In the laboratory we are able
to make precise measurements while the loading is applied. This
provides the needed information for developing analytical models that
allow for predicting the performance of other structures that may
experience similar loads. We need more specific information of this
nature. An efficient way of gaining good information is to instrument
buildings that are likely to experience an extreme load. Over time, we
will be able to gather needed information to develop improved computer
models that will produce relatively accurate predictions for structural
response and performance. This last step requires much more empirical
data than currently exists.
Comments
Now, it should be asked what has this preamble to do with this
hearing titled, ``The Past, Present, and Future'' (NEHRP).
It is my deeply held belief that the NEHRP program is primarily
responsible for most of the major advances in structural engineering
that have been achieved during the last 25 years. Research interest in
blast loaded structures began to wane in the early 1970's, while the
1971 San Fernando Valley earthquake sparked interest in seismic design
due to the poor performance of many structures. Without the knowledge
gained from the NEHRP program, it would not have been possible to
understand nearly as well the behavior of the buildings that were
recently damaged by terrorist activities. The best example of this is
the modeling parameters that are contained in FEMA 356, ``Pre-standard
and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.'' This
document contains guidance for assessing the behavior of structural
components of all building types when required to resist the effects of
various loadings. These loadings may range from service conditions to
extreme loadings. While developed for existing buildings, it provides
guidance that may be used for the design and construction of new
facilities. FEMA 356 summarizes the state of the art knowledge as of
the late 1990's. It was written to be able to adapt to the increasing
knowledge gained from testing and post disaster studies. It is
recognized that there are many specific areas about which we have
insufficient knowledge. The methodology embodied in FEMA 356 will
undoubtedly be the basis of future performance-based design codes.
There also have been great advances in understanding the nature of
ground motions associated with earthquakes. In Salt Lake City, it was
virtually impossible to gain the professional and public support for
the seismic design of buildings until Lloyd Cluff and others
established, through trenching studies, that the Wasatch Fault was
still an active earthquake producing fault system. These studies (USGS)
were completed in the mid 1970's and provided the necessary proof that
a major earthquake would happen in the future at some point in time.
These were important benchmark studies. Out of this type of study, has
grown a body of knowledge that allowed for the development of new maps
for the determination of how much ground shaking one might expect from
an earthquake anywhere in the United States of America. These maps are
now used in the current building codes. The value of these maps is that
they are based upon current scientific knowledge and will be easily
updated as new knowledge is acquired. The old seismic code maps were
somewhat subjective in nature and were sometimes influenced by
political pressure. This most important advancement was made possible
through NEHRP funding.
NEHRP funding for the FEMA ``yellow book'' series of publications
that deal with structural engineering guidelines and standards has been
critical for the process of technology transfer to the design
professional community. The typical structural engineer would be
completely lost without them. In fact, the process of creating these
documents has clearly identified the research needs in the overall
field of structural engineering.
There have been tremendous advancements during the past 25 years
that have allowed for the development of a rational base upon which to
build. Current code requirements are more firmly founded on scientific
principles and are certainly more rational than previous generations of
building code requirements. But, they are deficient with respect to
what they might be if further development work is funded. We have much
more to learn about where and how the ground will shake. How buildings
and other structures respond to ground motion is still at a rudimentary
stage of prediction. Soil-structure interaction is not very well
understood.
Better information will allow the country to be more efficient in
the allocation of resources. We will have greater knowledge as to
where, and with what frequency, the ground will shake. We will have the
ability to better allocate construction dollars within a particular
structure to achieve a desired outcome following an earthquake. We will
be in a position to better understand which buildings might be
economically rehabilitated to resist the effects of ground motion. The
economics of structural rehabilitation is an emerging area of study
that needs much work. Rehabilitation is a serious concern in that it
can be very costly, but with improved knowledge of design and
construction methods it can produce buildings that are safe and that
can meet various performance expectations. There are some buildings
that can be rehabilitated with simple and relatively inexpensive
techniques. There are others that are simply too costly to improve. We
are beginning to understand this process better, but there is much to
learn in this area. New materials and energy dissipation devices are
making a difference in being able to economically rehabilitate
structures.
It is too costly to replace all of the inadequate structures that
are vulnerable to ground shaking or to other extreme loads, so it is
imperative that we learn how to economically improve those structures
that are a threat to life, those that are critical to the economic
vitality of the country, and those that are critical to the functioning
of our cities.
A Relevant New Report
A very important new report has just been produced in partnership
with NIST by the Applied Technology Council (ATC). The ATC document
number is 57, and it is titled ``The Missing Piece: Improving Seismic
Design and Construction Practices.'' This document deals with the
subjects of this hearing and was produced by some of the leading
professionals associated with the NEHRP activities. A portion of the
preface to this document is as follows:
PREFACE
In 2001, the Applied Technology Council (ATC) commenced a broadly
based effort to define a problem-focused knowledge development,
synthesis and transfer program to improve seismic design and
construction practices. Input was sought from seismic design and
construction industry leaders, and a Workshop was convened in the
summer of 2002 to develop the program. The Missing Piece: Improving
Seismic Design and Construction Practices is the result of an
industrial collaboration. It provides a framework for creating a
knowledge bridge and allows the Nation to more fully realize its NEHRP
investment in practical terms--safer buildings.
The Missing Piece: Improving Seismic Design and Construction
Practices had its genesis in the strategic planning process for the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), which was
undertaken by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from 1998
to 2001. In the course of that strategic planning process,
representatives from the design and construction industry determined
and documented, as one of their major findings, that a technology
transfer gap has emerged within NEHRP, and that it limits the
adaptation of basic research knowledge into practice. To resolve this
problem, industry participants recommended that NEHRP agencies develop
a much-expanded, problem-focused knowledge development, synthesis and
transfer program that will:
1. Develop standards and guidelines that incorporate the best
knowledge available in a practical way.
2. Facilitate the development of new mitigation technologies.
3. Improve the productivity of the engineering and
construction industries.
Included in this report are:
A definition of what needs to be done;
Background information on the impetus for The Missing
Piece: Improving Seismic Design and Construction Practices
program, on how technology transfer works, and a history of the
decline in engineering and construction productivity in the
United States; and
The Missing Piece program plan.
The Missing Piece: Improving Seismic Design and Construction
Practices program emphasizes two subject areas, with a total of five
Program Elements proposed:
Systematic support of the seismic code development process.
Program Element 1 LProvide technical support for the seismic
practice and code development process.
Program Element 2 LDevelop the technical basis for performance-
based seismic engineering by supporting problem-focused, user-
directed research and development.
Improve seismic design and construction productivity.
Program Element 3 LSupport the development of technical
resources (e.g., guidelines and manuals) to improve seismic
engineering practice.
Program Element 4 LMake evaluated technology available to
practicing professionals in the design and construction
communities.
Program Element 5 LDevelop tools to enhance the productivity,
economy and effectiveness of the earthquake resistant design
and construction process.
The full body of the report (ATC 57) is provided in Appendix A. The
goals and objectives set forth in program elements one through five
captures the vision of NEHRP.
Specific responses to the questions contained in the invitation to
testify at the hearing are provided as follows:
Discuss how research in structural engineering has
improved our ability to protect lives and property from
earthquake hazards? How has the focus of NEHRP structural
engineering research evolved since the inception of NEHRP?
There have been great strides made in our ability to design and
construct facilities that are earthquake resistant to earthquake ground
motion. The developments over the last twenty-five years are
remarkable, and can be traced to the NEHRP program. The advent of
computer technology has greatly facilitated this advancement.
Structural engineering research has evolved from dealing with
assumed static linear behavior to realistically confronting the problem
of non-linear time dependent behavior. This requires component testing
that considers structural dynamics and the full range of large
displacement behavior. Computers are critical but they will not
eliminate the need for the physical testing of structural components.
There is a notion of that computer models can replace the need for
actual physical testing, but this is not true at this time. Physical
testing is necessary for the calibration and development of new
simulation models.
The advent of the concept of performance-based design is a product
of trying to develop standards for the seismic rehabilitation of
existing buildings.
How would you prioritize limited federal funds among
specific NEHRP research and mitigation activities (earthquake
monitoring, hazard assessment, performance-based engineering,
lifeline reinforcement, seismic rehabilitation, code
development and adoption, education and outreach, post-
earthquake response and investigation, etc.)?
The fact that there is such a limited few dollars in the NEHRP
budget its simply not justified from a basic economic point of view.
The expenditure of previous funds has helped minimize the losses in the
most recent domestic earthquakes. Every dollar spent on creating an
earthquake resistant structure also creates a more blast resistant
structure. Progressive collapse is minimized. If dollars are limited my
opinion is that the following tasks in order of priority should be
emphasized, but all of the programs should be kept active because they
are important:
1. Strong-motion networks in regions of highly probable strong
ground motion are essential to our progress. Free field data,
and data from instrumented buildings are absolutely necessary
for the advancement of our abilities to understand the behavior
of structures. Lack of this type of data, and the almost
negligible amount of funding to study such data as has been
recorded, is the major roadblock in advancing our understanding
of the physics of the earthquake problem. Significant
expenditures are required to install and maintain the networks,
and for providing a Major Contingency Fund for post-earthquake
detailed analysis of individual buildings. Also, complete
damage surveys in and around areas of intense ground shaking
are greatly needed. Only then will we be able to calibrate our
models of structural vulnerability. Current damage prediction
models are based on opinion, not statistically viable data. Our
understanding of soil/structure interaction is very primitive.
We need data from instrumented buildings to be able to predict
what the actual loading from earthquake ground motions will be.
We have crude models that are currently being used (see
Appendix B).
2. Performance Based Engineering (PBE) is an all-encompassing
concept. To be able to implement the vision of mitigating the
effects of a major earthquake in this country, it will take a
major coordinated effort. PBE should be a structure upon which
all the various elements of the program are fit together to
achieve the goals and objectives of NEHRP. It must be funded.
3. I personally believe that the most overlooked factor in
improving the overall performance of buildings is the lack of
qualified personnel at the local government level. In most
locations outside of California, there are few qualified
building officials to address the seismic plan checking issue.
In most jurisdictions, plan-checking fees are considered
general revenue, and are not utilized to insure compliance with
the building codes. Code development and adoption mean very
little if the codes are not enforced. It is a sensitive issue
for the Federal Government to deal with, but it is imperative
that this issue be addressed. Perhaps some sort of incentive
program can be devised.
What are the major impediments to improving the
overall seismic performance of buildings, both new and
existing? Is the pace and extensiveness of code development and
adoption improving? Is there anything the Federal Government
can do to facilitate increased adoption of seismic codes in
areas of high seismic risk? Is seismic rehabilitation an
economical use of earthquake mitigation funds?
The major impediment to improving the performance of buildings lies
in the lack of code enforcement at the local level. This was stated
previously. The other major impediment is the lack of financial
incentive to create a seismically resistant structure. Developers
expect to sell a new building prior to the next earthquake, and the
existing stock of vulnerable buildings cost considerably more to
improve than what it takes to correctly build a new building.
The pace and format of code development has improved. FEMA has
greatly influenced positive major changes in this area. The pace is
adequate, but funding for code development and maintenance is critical.
The process is just too demanding to be effectively done by volunteer
efforts.
Seismic rehabilitation is very effective in certain situations.
There are certain situations where the consequence of failure is
unacceptable. Generally, it can be cost effective if accomplished
within a window of opportunity that is provided as part of a remodel
program that deals with an updating of architectural finishes. Federal
funds might be used to provide incentives, but they cannot possibly
fund the total cost of improving privately owned buildings.
What factors have limited the success of NEHRP, and
what policy changes would you recommend to remove these
limitations? How can the NEHRP participating agencies improve
planning, coordination, and general administration of NEHRP to
better meet the vision for the program set forth by Congress?
The most obvious factor that has limited the success of NEHRP has
been insufficient funding. There is a huge amount of beneficial
research that could be accomplished over time if a continuous flow of
sufficient funds were made available. These research projects exist
across the range of NEHRP activities.
The most difficult task for the NEHRP program officers is setting
the program priorities when there are limited funds available for
competing worthy program elements. Since the direct losses from a major
earthquake in an urban environment can in the tens of billions of
dollars, it seems that we are being foolish in not realizing the
overall benefit of a better-funded program. The United States has never
experienced the impacts of what will occur if a ``real big one'' does
strike a major urban center. It seems that the element of decision-
making that is missing has to do with the economic realities of such an
event. I have come to believe that major loss of life is not the
defining issue. I believe that the economic consequences of a major
earthquake, and their effects on the surviving population should drive
NEHRP and be the defining parameters in setting priorities. Unless
there is a significant increase in funding, it will not be possible to
create a program that can meet the objectives associated with the
vision set forth by Congress.
There is a need to empower a central authority to coordinate the
activities of the various agencies that expend NEHRP funds. All
agencies are producing valuable contributions, but an effective program
requires an oversight authority to integrate the various activities.
This authority should be charged with achieving the goals and
objectives set forth by Congress. There should be established a review
mechanism, drawing on experts with leadership and technical experience,
to assist in identifying and prioritizing program initiatives.
Closing
It is my view that the USGS, NIST, NSF, and FEMA all have strong
roles to play in achieving the NEHRP objectives, but there needs to be
a strong central coordinating authority to manage the program. Each
agency cannot operate independently. Performance-based engineering
should be the structure upon which the various elements of the program
are fit together to achieve the goals and objectives of NEHRP. The
NEHRP program is critical to our nations future. It has been under-
funded and needs to be renewed. The Nation's economic health may depend
upon the successes of this program. Every structural advancement made
in this program will be applicable to other hazards, be they manmade or
otherwise.
Biography for Lawrence D. Reaveley
Chair and Professor, University of Utah, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, 122 Sough Central Campus Drive,
Suite 104, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0561; Telephone: (801)
581-6931; Fax: (801) 585-5477; E-mail: [email protected]
Education
Ph.D. Civil Engineering, University of New Mexico, 1971
M.S. Civil Engineering, University of Utah, 1964
B.S. Civil Engineering, University of Utah, 1963
Academic Experience
January 1993-present--Professor and Chair, Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City,
Utah.
1975-1993--Adjunct Professor (various rank and intervals), Department
of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Utah, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
1970-1972--Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City,
Utah.
Professional Experience
1974-January 1993--Vice President, Reaveley Engineering, Inc., Salt
Lake City, Utah.
1971-1973--Chief Engineer and Manager, Construction Division, Davidson
Lumber Sales, Salt Lake City, Utah.
1967-1970--Research Assistant, University of New Mexico, Eric C. Wang
Civil Engineering Research Facility, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
1964-1967--Structural Design Engineer, J.F. Patrick Structural
Consulting Engineers, Salt Lake City, Utah.
1963-1964--Materials Engineer, Utah Department of Transportation
1959-1962--Intern, Precast/materials Division, Utah Sand & Gravel
(Monroe)
Professional Registration
Registered Professional Engineer, New Mexico.
Professional Affiliations
American Concrete Institute
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Engineering Education
Chi Epsilon Civil Engineering Honor Society
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
Structural Engineers Association of Utah
Patents
Patent Application ``T-Structure Externally Reinforced with composite
Materials'' (Inventors: Chris Pantelides and Lawrence Reaveley)
U-2434. Docket No. 11240, USSN: 859, 935. May 1998.
Composite Connections for Precast Walls, Patent U-2434. Pending, 1999.
Funded Research (Co-P.I., unless otherwise noted)
``FRP Composite Confined Rectangular Columns,'' Federal Highway
Administration/Utah Department of Transportation. Amount
$161,924. Sept. 2002-Dec. 2004.
``Long-term Structural Monitoring of Post-tensioned Spliced Girders and
Deck Joints,'' Federal Highway Administration/Utah Department
of Transportation. Amount $194,5000. Mar. 2001-Jun. 2004.
``Fatigue Tests of Cracked and Repaired Aluminum Connections of
Overhead Sign Structures,'' New York State Department of
Transportation and Utah Department of Transportation. Amount
$70,572. Dec. 2001-Dec. 2003.
``Long-term Durability of Carbon CFRP Composites Applied to R/C
Concrete Bridges,'' National Science Foundation Contract CMS
0099792. Amount $211,787. Sept. 2001-Aug. 2003.
``Long-term Durability of Carbon FRP Composites Applied to R/C Concrete
Bridges,'' Federal Highway Administration/Utah Department of
Transportation. Amount $173,000. Mar. 2001-Jun. 2004.
``Long-term Structural Monitoring of Prestressed Girders on New I-15
Concrete Bridges,'' Utah Department of Transportation. Amount
$60,161. Jun. 1999-Dec. 2000.
``Cyclic Pushover Research Study on South Temple Structure,'' Federal
Highway Administration/Utah Department of Transportation.
Amount $270,031. May 1999-Jun. 2003.
``Strengthening of R/C Beam-to-column connections with carbon fiber
composites,'' Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Arnount $38,000. Apr. 1999-Dec. 2000.
``Center of Excellence: Center for Composites in Construction,'' State
of Utah Department of Economic and Community Development.
Amount $90,000. Jul. 1998-Jun. 1999.
``Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Joints with Carbon Fiber
Composites,'' Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory. Amount $130,028. Feb. 1998-Sep. 1998.
``Structural and Geotechnical Testing of the South Temple I-15 Overpass
Bridge,'' Utah Department of Transportation. Amount $64,314.
Feb. 1998-Dec. 2000.
``Structural and Geotechnical Testing of the South Temple 1-15 Overpass
Bridge,'' Federal Highway Administration. Amount $187,253. Feb.
1998-Dec. 2000.
P.I. ``Bridge Deck Slab Study,'' Utah Department of Transportation.
Amount $42,000. July 1998-July 1999.
Dr. Lawrence Reaveley, Dr. William Van Moorhem, Dr. Rand Decker,
Principle Investigators. ``Open Burn/Open Detonation Risk
Assessment Ground Motion and Related Effects.'' Tooele Army
Depot. Amount $50,000. Dec. 1996.
P.I. ``Bridge Deck Reinforcement.'' SIKA Corporation. Amount $5,000.
June 1998-June 1999.
``Structural Testing on I-15 South Temple Bridge,'' Federal Highway
Administration/Utah Department of Transportation. Amount
$245,000. June 1999-Dec. 2000.
``Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Joints with Carbon Fiber
Composites,'' Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory. Amount $117,000. Oct. 1998-Sep. 1999.
``Strengthening of R/C Beam-to-column connections with carbon fiber
composites,'' Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Amount $35,000. Apr. 1998-Dec. 1999.
``Center of Excellence: Center for Composites in Construction,'' State
of Utah Department of Economic and Community Development.
Amount $90,000. Jul. 1998-June. 1999.
``Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Joints with Carbon Fiber
Composites,'' Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory. Amount $130,028. Feb. 1998-Sep. 1998.
``Structural and Geotechnical Testing of the South Temple I-15 Overpass
Bridge,'' Utah Department of Transportation. Amount $32,600.
Feb. 1998-Jul. 1999.
``Structural and Geotechnical Testing of the South Temple I-15 Overpass
Bridge,'' Federal Highway Administration. Amount $66,400. Feb.
1998-Jul. 1999.
``Strengthening of Bridge Joints using Carbon Fiber Composites,''
National Science Foundation. REU Supplement. Amount $10,000.
Sep. 1997-Aug. 1999.
``Strengthening of Bridge Joints using Carbon Fiber Composites,''
National Science Foundation. Amount $132,648. Sep. 1997-Aug.
1999.
``Strengthening of Bridge Joints using Carbon Fiber Composites,''
University of Utah Matching. Amount $24,000. Sep. 1997-Aug.
1999.
``Testing of Precast Concrete Connections for Seismic Regions using
Carbon Fiber Composites,'' XXsys Technologies. Amount $142,875.
Mar. 1997-Jun. 1999.
``Full-scale Testing of Bridge of Interstate I-15,'' Utah Department of
Transportation. Amount $10,000. Jun. 20, 1996-Jun. 31, 1997.
``Repair/Retrofit of Bridge using Fiber Composites,'' Utah Department
of Transportation. Amount $32,000. Sep. 30, 1995-Jun. 30, 1997.
Published Articles, Books, or Manuals
Gergely, J. and Pantelides, C.P. ``Design of CFRP composite for seismic
retrofit of R/C bridge,'' J. of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Under
Review, Aug. 1999.
Hofheins, C.L., Reaveley, L.D., Pantelides, C.P., and Volnyy, V.A.
``Behavior of welded plate connectors for precast wall
panels,'' ACI Structural J., Under Review, Jul. 1999.
Ganzcrli, S., rantelides, C.P., and Reaveley, L.D., ``Performance-based
design using structural optimization.'' Earthquake Engineering
Structural Dynamics, Under Review, July 1999.
Volnyy, V.A., Pantelides, C.P., Gergely, J., Hofheins, C.L., and
Reaveley, L.D. ``Carbon fiber composite connections for precast
wall panels,'' ACI Structural J., Under Review, Jul, 1999.
Gergely, I., Pantelides, C.P., and Reaveley, L.D. ``Shear strengthening
of R/C T-joints using CFRP composites,'' J. Composites for
Construction, ASCE, 3(4), Nov. (1999).
Pantelides, C.P., Gergely, I., Reaveley, L.D., and Volnyy, V.A.
``Retrofit of R/C Bridge Pier with CFRP Advance Composites,''
J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 125(10), Paper Ref. No. ST18969, Oct.
(1999).
Gergely, I., Pantelides, C.P., Nuismer, R.J., and Reaveley, L.D.
``Bridge Pier Retrofit Using Fiber-Reinforced Plastic
Composites,'' J. Composites for Construction, ASCE, 2(4), 165-
174, (1998).
Co-Project Director and Co-Team Leader, concrete. ``Development of
Guidelines for the Seismic Strengthening of Existing
Buildings.'' ATC 33 FEMA 273, in Balloting.
Co-Project Director, and Co-Team Leader for reinforced concrete
structures. 1998, ``Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Building Structures.'' ATC 33/FEMA 273.
Lead guideline writer, post-earthquake inspection and evaluation
volume. ``Sac Joint Venture Program to Reduce Earthquake
Hazards in Steel Moment Frame Structures, Phase 2.'' 2000 (in
progress)
Original author, ``Seismic Rehabilitation of Single Family Dwellings--A
Handbook.'' Based on original document prepared for the
Comprehensive Emergency Management Agency, State of Utah. ATC-
39. 1999.
Miller, J. and Reaveley L. ``Hotel Utah Remodel and Seismic Upgrade,''
Seismic Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures, edited by
Gajanan Sabnis, Avanti Shroff, and Lawrence F. Kahn. ACI 1996.
Mills, L., Reaveley, L. ``Similitude Studies in the Dynamic Response of
Reinforced Concrete Beams,'' Vol. lI, Technical Note DE-TN-72-
015, New Mexico, July, 1972.
Reaveley, L., Mills, L. ``Similitude Studies in the Dynamic Response of
Reinforced Concrete Beams,'' Vol. I, CERF, January, 1972.
Taylor, Porush, Tillman, Reaveley, and Blackham. ``Seismic Code
Decisions Under Risk,'' NSF Grant No. BCS-8820148.
Dr. Phillip C. Emmi, Principal Investigator, USGS Funding Agency; L.D.
Reaveley, Project Consultant. ``A Demonstration Project with
Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County on Seismic Risk Assessment
and Hazard Mitigation through Land Use Planning: Part Two,''
1989.
Applied Technology Council Projects
ATC-21, ``Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic
Hazards: A Handbook,'' funded by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 1989. Project Engineering Panel Member.
ATC-22, ``A Handbook for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings,''
funded by Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1989. Project
Engineering Panel Member.
ATC-26, ``U.S. Postal Service Manual for seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings,'' funded by the United States Postal Service. Member
Project Engineering Panel.
ATC-28, ``Development of Recommended Guidelines for Seismic
Strengthening of Existing Buildings, Phase I: Issues
Identification and Resolution,'' funded by FEMA, 1990. Member
Project Engineering Panel and ATC Board Contact.
ATC-36, Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodologies and Data Base, for
Utah.'' Consultant.
ATC-39, Seismic Rehabilitation of Single Family Masonry Dwellings--A
Handbook. Original Author.
ATC-41, SAC Joint Venture, Program to Reduce Earthquake Hazards in
Steel Moment Frame Structures, Phase 2. Lead Guideline Writer,
Post-Earthquake Inspection and Evaluation.
Professional Service Activities
Jan. 2000-Apr. 2003--Member, Board of Directors. Applied Technology
Council.
Jul. 1998-Jul. 2000--Utah State Capitol Preservation Board. Board
member appointment form.
1996-1999--Member, Executive Committee, Technical Activities Division,
Structural Engineering Institute, The American Society of Civil
Engineers.
1996-1998--Member, Code Resources Development Committee (BSSC). For the
Building Code (2000).
1996-1998--Member, Steering Committee, Incentives Impediments to
Mitigation Project, EERI.
1996--Chair, Nominating Committee, EERI 1997.
1994-1997--Member, Special Design Values Panel. Building Seismic Safety
Council (BSSC). Procedures for design based on new generation
seismic maps.
1994-present--Member, Partners in Education Committee, American
Institute Steel Construction. Chair 1999.
1992-present--Member, ACI Committee #369 Seismic Rehabilitation and
Repair.
1993-1995--Member Codes and Standards Committee, American Concrete
Institute (ACI 318-95).
1991-1997--Member, Provisions Update Committee (seismic BSSC), NEHRP
1994 and 1997 Editions.
1991-present--Member TS12 Isolation and Energy Dissipation Subcommittee
(BSSC), NEHRP, Chair 1994 cycle.
1970-present--Member, ASCE 7, Loads Standard, Seismic Loads
Subcommittee, Chair 1998.
1984-1991--Member, Advisory Board of Utah Geological Survey, Chairman,
1989-91.
1980-present--Founding member, Structural Engineers Association of
Utah.
1985-1991--Member, Board of Directors of the Applied Technology
Council.
2000-2003--ASCE Representative to the Board of the Applied Technology
Council.
Honors and Awards
1997--Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Engineers Council.
1996--Governor's Medal for Science and Technology.
1989 Engineer of the Year, Utah Engineers Council.
1988--Special Award for Implementation Action, National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program. USGS & FEMA.
American Concrete Institute's National Structural Engineering Award for
1998. ``Historic Hotel Utah Remodel and Seismic Upgrade,''
Special Publication 1610, Seismic Rehabilitation of Concrete
Structures, 1996. This award recognizes advanced concepts and
techniques related to structural engineering. Awards are made
to the author or co-authors of a peer-reviewed paper published
by the Institute.
Applied Technology Council's Premier Award--the ATC Award for
Excellence for extraordinary achievements in seismic
rehabilitation of buildings.
College of Engineering, Outstanding Service Award, ``In recognition of
your leadership efforts and commitment to enhancing the
educational experience of our students during conversion to
semesters.''
Discussion
Chairman Smith. Are you suggesting, Mr. Reaveley, that
there wasn't collusion in----
Dr. Reaveley. I am suggesting----
Chairman Smith [continuing]. Your more resolved clause of
all of the witnesses?
Dr. Reaveley. I am suggesting that I never saw their
testimony when I wrote this. I have seen it since, and I am
amazed at some of the common experiences we have come to and
recommendations.
Chairman Smith. Each panelist will have five minutes, and I
will begin with the question that I suggested earlier and that
is, just very briefly, the relationship between what government
effort should be in additional research to develop new and
better technology and the efforts in implementing what we
already have. And start with you, Mr. Olson.
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much. I have a perspective on
this that is a governmental perspective. Research is terribly
important. The Federal Government is excellent at supporting
research. When you move out of the research, and I am working
on some projects like this right now, you move into whole
different spheres. And for example, we would like to see more
done by local governments. It is the distribution of power in
the United States. It is the federal system that we have to
work through to make things happen in the public sphere, and so
the Federal Government can do a number of things, including
regulate things like nuclear power plant safety.
In other cases, the initiative and responsibility really
belongs to the state. And so you have to find ways to encourage
states to take action in areas they are responsible for. And as
Dr. Reaveley mentioned, at the local level, and then you have
to depend on local developments to understand the risk and to
take actions that they are responsible for.
Chairman Smith. Okay. But again, the balance--how much--if
you were going to come up with a percentage, how much of our
effort should go into implementing what we already have versus
additional research, whether it is federal, state, or local.
Mr. Olson. I guess I can make some enemies here, what the
heck. I would say we need 40 percent addressed to
implementation and the complexities associated with it.
Chairman Smith. And well, let us just go down the line, Mr.
Cluff, and then we will end up with you, Mr. Lowe.
Dr. Cluff. Yes. Thank you. I come--the perspective of using
NEHRP products within a large operating utility and working
with a lot of other utilities and transportation providers. I
would like to enhance the comments I made on the public/private
partnership where you can leverage the funds. Get the NEHRP
groups. We have NEHRP funding from NSF, from USGS, and the
universities that work with the users, and you allow the users
to drive the agenda. That has been the missing problem. On the
model we set in the San Francisco Bay Area to allow the users
to drive the agenda and then the researchers willing to produce
the products that we can immediately implement. The problem has
been that it takes 15 to 20 years for a research result to get
into effective implementation. With the projects that we have
in the pier center, we are able to implement within a few days
after we get a research result, because we have structured how
the research is done to get a result we can use.
Chairman Smith. Now this is in private sector----
Dr. Cluff. Yes.
Chairman Smith [continuing]. You are talking about mostly?
Dr. Cluff. Yes.
Chairman Smith. So when it comes out of their own
pocketbook and somebody proves to them that they can add to the
assurance that their structure isn't going to be damaged, it is
relatively short time for implementation.
Dr. Cluff. That is right. But it is--but it--we need to
provide that model so that more users will get involved to take
advantage of this and put money where their mouths are.
Chairman Smith. And so somehow part of the question is
should we be looking at some ways to better encourage the
private sector to implement this? I mean, whether it is a
homeowner that is going to build a house that is more
structurally sound for tornadoes or hurricanes or earthquakes,
it seems like the insurance company would say, ``Look, we are
going to really cut your rates,'' but that hasn't happened, to
my knowledge.
Dr. Cluff. We really need a mechanism, as Dr. Reaveley
mentioned, to motivate those people who have control over
building practice and so forth to do it right.
Chairman Smith. And Dr. O'Rourke, your comment and then Dr.
Reaveley.
Dr. O'Rourke. Excuse me. I would like to make a distinction
between implementation of research and research which is
implementable. I think when you do research that you want to
find come into practice, you have to be thinking about the
implementation when you design the research program. And there
are some very good models out there. Dr. Cluff referred to one
with respect to the Bay Area. The other earthquake engineering
research centers also are working with what we call test beds.
For example, the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research works in--with the Los Angeles Department
of Water and Power to look at water supply and electrical
systems. This is very important, because what it does is it
enjoins the researchers with an actual system, gets them
talking to the engineering personnel and the management
personnel, and also gets them to learn that the technical
problems aren't always the only problem that one has to face.
There are important economic repercussions from earthquake
damage. There are important community issues at hand. And when
we look at the research being implementable in an integrated
way, which not only involves geoscientists and earthquake
engineering, but also social scientists, economists and people
that understand the community, then we are able to walk across
these divides and put together a program that not only
addresses the industry issues, but addresses some of the
knottier, more difficult community implementation issues----
Chairman Smith. My time has expired, Dr. O'Rourke----
Dr. O'Rourke. Sure.
Chairman Smith [continuing]. But I am going to ask you and
Dr. Reaveley to briefly comment, and then we will pass it on
to----
Dr. Reaveley. I think one thought that has been introduced
is the difference between applied research and basic research.
This earthquake program needs an awful lot of applied research.
Relative to the appropriation of money to the local and private
sector, we should try to build some incentives to bring on
people in a patterning way. And then I don't know how you ever
reach down to the building official department level, but they
need help and badly, because if in the private sector, outside
of institutions, if it is never--if the plans aren't done right
and not checked, and then if they are not checked in the field,
we will never get earthquake or any high load-resistant
structure actually completed.
Chairman Smith. Congresswoman Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been, I
think, a very helpful hearing and one that I am very interested
in. As you know, I represent San Jose, California. And anybody
who went through Loma Prieta, as I did, remembers it well. And
actually San Jose fared fairly well, largely because of we had
some good luck, but we also had good engineering. And that just
proves that we--you know, you can make people and communities
safer if you work at it. And so I think it is enormously
important that this be reauthorized.
But I am also concerned about funding levels. And as a
matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I think--I am going to be
circulating a letter to the appropriators about funding for
this earthquake effort, and I am hopeful that maybe we could
make that a bipartisan effort, because we can authorize away,
but if we don't put the resources in, we are going to pay a
terrible price. I mean, it is only a matter of time. It is not
an if, it is a when issue. And I do know that the work that we
did, for example, in San Jose, saved us hundreds of thousands,
millions of dollars. So I am hopeful that we might be able to
work together on that.
Chairman Smith. And if the gentlelady would yield, that was
one of my questions also is why wasn't ANSS even in the budget.
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Chairman Smith. And so is it left to Congress to do things
that apparently our experts are suggesting should be done?
Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. I would very much--obviously, we need to pay
some attention to ANSS, and I think we should fund it more
aggressively so we can get it done. And I guess the question
for Mr. Lowe is what efforts have been made to get an adequate
budget request for ANSS in the President's budget? Did you all
ask and get turned down or----
Mr. Lowe. Well, I am--of course, I am not from USGS, so it
is a little difficult to----
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Mr. Lowe [continuing]. Do that. I do think, quite frankly,
the way that Section 206 has been constructed, yes, we would
be--FEMA would, in fact, as the lead agency, be the ones to
move that forward. Heretofore, I am not aware of that occurring
in that fashion. I do know that there was consultation, you
know, with the Committee and so on and so forth to be able to
do what has been done. But that is exactly why I am calling for
a management plan so we can carry out the spirit of Section
206. When the PCC, the principals of the other NEHRP agencies
and we sat down and decided upon a management plan,
specifically as a basis was Section 206, so that we all could,
in fact, coordinate our budgets and move forward and go to OMB
and ask for what Congress told us to do, either request or the
recommendation anyway. So----
Ms. Lofgren. So if I could, the----
Mr. Lowe. Each agency, up to this point, has been left----
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Mr. Lowe [continuing]. In essence----
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Mr. Lowe [continuing]. Up to their own processes to make
requests for their initiatives.
Ms. Lofgren. And I understand. I mean, with the new
Homeland Security Department, and I also sit on the Homeland
Security Committee here, there is so much to do in terms of
reorganization and the like. It--I just think that to wait
while that reorganization goes forward, as, indeed, it must,
and not to address the funding issue in this funding cycle
would be a mistake. And I think, hopefully, we can remedy that.
Mr. Lowe. We are prepared to move forward with our
management plan working with PCC and, of course, the ICC, which
is the program level, to leverage that. Obviously in the
Department of Homeland Security, we have also dispatched one of
our NEHRP staff over to science and technology, who will begin
to try to leverage some of the resources there to help us
achieve the NEHRP vision as well as to put together a fairly
strong----
Chairman Smith. If the gentlelady would yield again----
Ms. Lofgren. Yes, certainly.
Chairman Smith [continuing]. I would be more than generous
on the five minutes. But still, in our NEHRP authorization bill
three years ago, a little over three years ago, we specifically
said that FEMA would guide the budget, a coordinated budget
process for NEHRP. And I guess I hear you say that the
individual agencies have sort of been on their own, but it
seems to me that if the law says FEMA would coordinate and
guide that budget process to have a coordinated budget, that
should happen.
Mr. Lowe. I agree with you. And again, that is exactly why
we called for the first meeting of the PCC to re-establish what
we needed to do specifically, not just the letter but the
spirit of what Section 206 offered. And so I appreciated
Section 206 as a call to, in fact, direct the principals to
manage--if you will, lead this--the NEHRP.
Chairman Smith. I mean, the law said you had to do it.
Mr. Lowe. That is right.
Chairman Smith. What more do we need to make sure it is
done? We ask for reports, but the reports were not timely, and
it has been only recently we have received those reports. So
maybe somehow more----
Ms. Lofgren. Well, if I could, too, it--the report itself,
which we just received, doesn't really have any numbers in it.
And I am just sort of wondering how we could end up with a five
percent reduction in the earthquake program in the proposed
budget consistent with the strategies that are outlined in the
plan without budgetary numbers.
Mr. Lowe. Again, what you have there doesn't really
represent what I am talking about.
Ms. Lofgren. I see.
Mr. Lowe. I think we can do more, and I think we can do it,
certainly, in the '04 budget cycle. And frankly, I think it was
quite clear when we had our PCC with the principals that we
were all committed to doing that. Because the strategic plan is
passed, we all know where we are going. That is a consensus
document. We all agreed. We all agreed that it is important to
do that. We also--part of the management plan was to pick out
exactly what is the staffing expertise we need from all of the
agencies who participate in this process. So I am, frankly,
fairly confident that the agencies are going to work
collectively as a coordinated body to fulfill fully Section
206.
Ms. Lofgren. How much money do we need, do you think? Have
you reached that conclusion?
Mr. Lowe. No, I can't say we have. What I would like to be
able to do is in our annual performance plan be able to chart
out where we are with what we have now----
Ms. Lofgren. Um-hum.
Mr. Lowe [continuing]. And then be able to come back and
tell you, okay, our performance metrics will show here is where
we are, provide it X amount investment more, this is where we
are. So you can see what we can achieve given whatever
resources that we have.
Ms. Lofgren. Just a final, maybe, question or observation,
and I don't want this to be taken as an offensive comment,
because it is not meant in that way. I am--I wonder whether,
especially now that FEMA has been assigned to the Homeland
Security Department, whether FEMA is the best home for this
activity. And I say that not to be critical of FEMA, but I--to
the extent that FEMA has--is diverted to other activities, that
is going to be enhanced, I think, now because of the new
Homeland Security responsibilities. And I am not--I don't have
a vision for another home for this activity, but I am wondering
if--you don't even have to answer now, but if people have
thoughts about what might work better than FEMA, especially now
that you are Homeland. And we are going to keep you very busy
at--in the Homeland Security Department.
Mr. Lowe. Well, I don't--frankly, I think that FEMA is a
good home for it now more than even--ever before, because DHS,
Department of Homeland Security, is an all-hazard agency. But
the all-hazard paradigm is a natural hazard paradigm. An
earthquake, just as we saw in New York, is vitally important.
When we began to do mitigation work in New York, where did we
go? We came to FEMA. Where did we go in FEMA? We came to the
NEHRP partners. We did the--had the retrofit designs for the
bridges, for the tunnels, for the harboring that is occurring,
$417 million worth, and other work.
Ms. Lofgren. Oh, and by the way, I mean, your agency did a
spectacular job in that activity. I mean----
Mr. Lowe. But these are NEHRP earthquake----
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Mr. Lowe [continuing]. Is what I am saying. These are
earthquake designs to harden for manmade intrusions. Very
significant. One of the things that we talked about among our
NEHRP agencies, even about this testimony today, is how
everybody felt, if you will, about, really, bringing forward
the possibilities that are created for moving the earthquake
agenda down the road with our ability to use our lessons
learned in a manmade environment. And everybody is very
positive about that, and so I think that is what you see in the
testimony. The ability that we have now working with S&T and
all of our NEHRP partners is probably greater than it has been
before, because it is all hazard. When we start talking about
earthquake, we are talking about an all-hazard design for----
Ms. Lofgren. I am still--I certainly appreciate that
comment, and I think it something that we may want to even
think about further as we go forward, because clearly FEMA has
many strengths as an agency, but the fact that it took so long
to get answers, and we really don't have the answers now, may
indicate that there is--the focus isn't quite on the science
that we want. And maybe there is a better home.
Chairman Smith. Well, it has been--in fact, one of our
Members of the Science Committee suggested that the lead agency
be USGS. And also, there was a suggestion that we have sort of
a rotating directorate that would rotate every 18 months or two
years that could temporarily be assigned within FEMA or within
another agency. But I mean, you have to----
Mr. Lowe. I would like to comment on that.
Chairman Smith [continuing]. Understand that that is a
concern.
Mr. Lowe. Yeah, I have--we have thought about it on a
couple of different fronts. First, in terms of the research
agenda, yes, we are not a research agency. We use that. We
apply that in a real-life situation, so we are interested in
research practice. And that is the way--that is a bias that we
are going to have, because it needs to be real for FEMA to be
able to use to save lives and property. Very true. My thought,
which I--is outlined in the testimony, is to create a research
subcommittee, which we have done, under ICC with a moving chair
to talk about what that research agenda ought to be and then to
be able to float that upwards so we can establish priorities,
whether it is increasing knowledge or research or practice,
opportunities and, again, float that up.
But the next piece, really, that has always been planned
and is in the strategic plan that we have never operationalized
during the life, as I understand it, of the NEHRP program is
that PCC structure. You have got a lot of folks when you look.
And I won't go back into my slides, but when you look at all of
the advisory groups, we have a lot of advisory groups. But what
has got the strategic plan into your hands was a drive--if you
will, some really strong driving motion at the highest levels
to make it happen, because we have got folks who are technical,
who are very committed, who can do a lot, and who have done a
lot. But right now, we need some commitment at the highest
policy levels of all of these agencies at this point.
And I think that is where you are going to see, frankly,
the movement. It doesn't--and it really--and with that model,
it really doesn't matter where your head is, because the
management plan is we are a leadership of equals. The
management plan is going to be the product of all of the NEHRP
partners. It is not going to be just a FEMA show at all. And so
I welcome your comments. I welcome what you see fit to do,
however.
Chairman Smith. We will start a second round. I don't know
what your schedule is, and I know and apologize for the length
of time that we have held you here. I need some help
understanding a little better our seismic technology and what
the potential might be and is it worth pursuing if we can
increase our lead time on warning by another eight or ten
seconds? So in terms of the seismic technology that is there,
is the United States the leading country? Is Japan the lead
country? Who would be the lead country for the mechanics of
early warning from our technology? You, Mr. Cluff.
Dr. Cluff. Mr. Chairman, I would say that we are close to
being the lead. We are working very closely with the Japanese.
They are--they have a big program on earthquake prediction, but
their experience shows that they really missed it with the Kobe
earthquake. They were--focused all of their money and attention
on the area around Tokyo. The people running that program were
not paying attention to the Kobe area where we, working with
them--I had been over there personally and worked on the active
faults in the Osaka area, and we knew that fault that released
the Kobe earthquake was an active fault. So they kind of have
to redirect their activities. I think trying to short-term
predict an earthquake is not socially responsible. I think the
forecast that the USGS is doing, the shake--real-time shake
maps and so forth is where the future is, and that technology
needs a lot more funding to get it dispersed through ANSS
throughout the country so we don't miss an opportunity. We have
a big earthquake in the mid part of the continent where we
don't have enough instruments right now. It will be another
several hundred years if we miss recording that earthquake. We
have got to get those in. Congress authorized a lot of money to
do that. The appropriations are not there. And the budget at
the USGS has been cut back. And they lack support from the
Department of Interior. I serve on that advisory committee
through the Department of Interior, and our committee is very
distressed that the USGS does not have strong support from the
Department of Interior for their budget on critical items.
Chairman Smith. And I guess it makes me wonder about
somehow doing a better job in communication. Apparently a
tremendous lack of understanding about earthquakes, awareness
of the technology that is available. I am not advocating,
necessarily, more building codes, but certainly a--at least not
an aggressive building code program in more high-risk areas. I
mentioned insurance that seemed like would be--if you are going
to build a building. So we have ended up without some of the
understanding and initiative. And I would also suggest,
respectfully to our appropriators, there is somewhat of a lack
of appreciation and understanding on the part of our
appropriators. So I think a letter would be very advisable.
Mr. Lowe. I agree with those comments, if you were asking.
Chairman Smith. And Mr. Reaveley, you had a comment.
Dr. Reaveley. Just to the insurance issue. Heretofore, the
insurance industry has been very slow at recognizing the
difference between a bad structure and one that might have some
resistance. I was in a meeting a week ago where it looks like
they are going to start taking that into account in premiums.
But if there could be some incentives somehow to get the
insurance companies involved with recognizing the difference
between buildings, then we would probably put some incentive
back into the private sector to do a better job if they could
get a break on insurance by doing it right.
Chairman Smith. Is there enough damage from earthquakes or
potential damage for privately owned homes and the information
and technology of the potential building type structures that
can----
Dr. Reaveley. Yes.
Chairman Smith [continuing]. Dramatically improve their
resistance to earthquakes?
Dr. Reaveley. Absolutely. There has just been a project
finished in Los Angeles to improve that housing stock. It goes
all the way from individual homes to the biggest buildings we
have where if we merged at least the basic technologies to
address seismically deficient buildings and how to improve
them. We don't have all of the answers, and we need an awful
lot more work on finding the best and economical ways to do
that.
Chairman Smith. If it is a home loan with HUD or VA or
Agriculture, now we require, for example, that if it is an
identified potential flood area, we require flood insurance. Do
we do any of that with any of our federal loans for home
ownership----
Dr. Reaveley. Not that I know of.
Chairman Smith [continuing]. To help encourage----
Dr. Reaveley. And some agencies have stopped writing
earthquake insurance in areas, because of the damage and the
loss. It may be too big a hit for them to take. I know that
Lloyds of London bailed out of the Salt Lake Area years ago
when they looked at what it was really going to--what was
really going to happen.
Chairman Smith. How much increase in cost would it take for
a private home versus a--I don't know how you categorize
different sizes of buildings, if we are retrofitting versus
what it takes in initial structure?
Dr. Reaveley. Two to three percent in a brand new building,
at the very maximum. One to two percent, maybe, on the new
structure to go from a bad structure to a good structure of
building cost. That is all we are talking about. Small, small
amounts. When we try to deal with the existing structure to fix
it, we are going in--then we run into historical things and
that. We can run the cost up between 20 percent of the cost to
renew the structure even to 100 percent in the rehab. And there
is where the balance is how--to finding out what we can fix
economically and that which you should walk away from.
Chairman Smith. And what are you suggesting that we change
it to--what would it be to include tornadoes?
Dr. Reaveley. Multi-hazard is the term that I think FEMA
would use.
Mr. Lowe. Well, it has been, but you know what, I think we
should be using the word ``all-hazard'', and the reason we
should be using the world ``all-hazard'' is we are not dealing
in silos of hazards any more. I think we are all saying that
you know what, if you do certain things, it is going to protect
you from a bunch of different hazards, natural, manmade,
whatever. That is all-hazard, not multi-hazard.
Chairman Smith. Yes.
Mr. Lowe. So I would suggest----
Chairman Smith. Representative Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. I think this is a very useful
discussion. And it is, you know--comparing this discussion
with, kind of, what is accepted in California is interesting
and forcing me to kind of think through what happens if New
Madrid lets loose. You know, we are not ready here in the East
or Midwest. And in California, we are readier, although we are
never fully prepared. I think that if we were to advocate, I
guess this may not be in our Committee's jurisdiction, but loan
sources along with the information packets. That would go a
long way. I mean, I know, actually, in the San Francisco Bay
Area everybody knows there is going to be more earthquakes. And
if the faults let loose, you know what is going to fall down.
And people go and repair buildings. I mean, the cities have
gone on reinforced masonry projects. Individual homeowners are
trying to, you know--the structural unsoundness of the
California garage under the apartment. I mean, people are
attending to that. And I think the people in the Midwest and
East aren't familiar with it.
And I think that there are certainly things that can be
done that would save lives in addition to ANSS. I mean, you
know, to have a little warning does matter. I mean, even a
little short warning can mean the difference between whether
you die or whether you don't die. And so that is important, but
I think it is the ability actually to get this information,
these maps and these sensors out across the country and maybe
even especially not in California is essential because I--just
think what the economic damage to this country would be if we
had a large event again, and I think we will. The only question
is when. So I don't know if you agree with that, Dr. Reaveley,
but----
Dr. Reaveley. Let me just say I agree totally with that,
but don't think that what you felt in San Jose from Loma Prieta
is a big earthquake. It is a moderate earthquake.
Ms. Lofgren. It got my attention.
Dr. Reaveley. It absolutely got your attention, but it is
not what we are going to see.
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Dr. Reaveley. And in modern time, we haven't had anything--
--
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Dr. Reaveley [continuing]. That is going to challenge that
built infrastructure the way the big one will.
Ms. Lofgren. Right. I wonder, Dr. O'Rourke, you had
commented on the priorities and what we needed to do. I had a
question, really, about another agency that we haven't
discussed at all and the role that they might play and that is
NIST. I mean, we have talked about needing to get this
information out into the public arena. NIST sets standards.
Their budget has been devastated in the proposed budget. I
don't--maybe--Dr. O'Rourke, maybe that is--you are not the
right person to ask this, but----
Dr. O'Rourke. Well, I think everybody at this table shares
that perspective. And there are varying degrees of articulation
that we could provide for it. But certainly at the EERI Board
of Direction, this has been a concern. As you mentioned, NIST
is the national standards developer for this country, and their
allocation of resources from the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program has been very, very small, almost minuscule
in the last several years. If they are to do the things that
they are capable of to provide the kind of technical device--
advice and development that they are able to do, they need to
have an enhanced budget. They need to have enhanced resources
and to play a much more significant role through those
resources in this program. So you are right, absolutely. And it
is part of our common perspective, I am sure, that NIST needs
to play a stronger role.
Ms. Lofgren. Is there a role to play? I mean, building
codes are a product of state and local and will remain so and
should remain so. But California has dramatically upgraded its
building code relative to seismic, and it has shown in terms of
our losses. And my sense is that that has not actually happened
in other parts of the country who are very much at risk and
that there needs to be--I don't know that we need to mandate so
much as there needs to be some information flow to the Midwest
and to the East about the hazards and risks, because I don't
know that the legislators and city council members are even
aware of this.
Dr. Reaveley. The code is out there, and it is a common
code that we are all working to, essentially with variations.
The difference between the good practice in California, and
there is poor practice as well----
Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
Dr. Reaveley [continuing]. Is in the enforcement level. It
is the will at the local level to do something about it. There
are building officials who lose their jobs in other
jurisdictions for enforcing what the codes would require. And
that is what I am talking about some incentives at the local
level to actually use the knowledge we have instead of building
more bad buildings.
Ms. Lofgren. Um-hum. Well, and I guess the insurance issue
is--that comes into it. And certainly California has had to
take over the insurance, because the loss estimates are so huge
that the private market couldn't even cope with it. But I think
if insurers took a look at the exposure in the Midwest, it is
actually larger than what we have in California under----
Chairman Smith. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Lofgren. Certainly.
Chairman Smith. Do I understand you to say there is, in
effect, a federal national building code that can be--that is
in place that can be adopted locally by municipalities
or----
Dr. Reaveley. One of the panel referred to it this morning
or this afternoon. The IBC 2000 is a--essentially a national
code. And multiple states are adopting it, and it is based upon
a very thorough overall look at the country's problem from the
mapping program of the USGS. Now----
Chairman Smith. I was thinking of a building code.
Dr. Reaveley. It is a building code. The maps are built
into the building code, and there is a document available and
it is being adopted state by state, which is a uniform look at
what is good practice. We have that document. It came, really,
out of multiple agencies, but I would, I guess, really have to
point to FEMA as the one that pushed, along with ASCE and the
building officials. It is a joint effort to make this happen.
It was something that we couldn't even think that might happen,
but it had converged in this last--for the IBC 2000 from
multiple scattered documents where we were conflicting
requirements. We pretty well got rid of those.
Chairman Smith. We have kept these folks for about----
Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
Chairman Smith.--41/2--let us see, 21/2 hours.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, though. This has been
very helpful.
Chairman Smith. Do you want to ask----
Ms. Lofgren. No, I think that, actually, this has been a
very useful hearing, because it is really stimulated some ideas
and issues that I wasn't thinking about when I walked in here,
so----
Chairman Smith. Well, I am not through yet. I have one more
question for----
Ms. Lofgren. Okay.
Chairman Smith [continuing]. Mr. Lowe.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, I will listen to your question and
answer.
Chairman Smith. And that is the--I was told last week that
our Emergency Management Program Grants are being transferred--
the 4.4 million are being transferred to border security. Are
you going to have any input how that is used? I mean, that is
part of the NEHRP budget.
Mr. Lowe. Well, as you know, that money was put into the
EMPG grants before, and that is--and that whole fund is being
transferred over to border security, so there is certainly
NEHRP money, as you are referring to, as well as other
resources that are being transferred over to border security.
We certainly are going to try to make sure that that is done in
an orderly way and a sufficient--but once they are transferred
into the EMPG pot, it means that states have a flexibility to
spend them as they choose, and so----
Chairman smith. Well, so you are not going to work with ODP
on the----
Mr. Lowe. No, what I am trying to say is there is a certain
amount of flexibility that already came from having the money
in EMPG. Now with all of that now going over to ODP, that
flexibility will remain. We absolutely are going to work with
ODP to make sure it works and to try to make sure that we even
can have a better job of making sure we know exactly how states
are using the money, so----
Chairman smith. I hope you were against that transfer, but
other than that, give me the general rationale of why that
decision was made.
Mr. Lowe. Well, that is a first responder pot that is
there. I think it was Secretary Ridge's belief that it--having,
kind of, all grants administered and monitored in one place
would be a much more efficient way of providing an all-hazard
grant. And so that seems to--is the rationale for doing that,
as I understand it.
Chairman Smith. We are going to call this----
Ms. Lofgren. Could I just do a----
Chairman Smith. Certainly.
Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. Quick follow-up on that, because
I was actually not aware of that transfer? Will the grants that
were--the money that was transferred, are they being treated in
the same way using the same formula as the first responder? The
reason why I ask is that California is currently receiving, I
think it is $3.57 per capita under the First Responder Grants.
Wyoming is getting $37 per capita. And----
Chairman Smith. They live farther apart.
Ms. Lofgren. Farther from the--and so there is some sense
that this is not a good idea in California. And I would be very
concerned if these--if this additional money now is morphed
into this strange formula. Do you know the answer to that?
Mr. Lowe. As I understand it, the first responder grants
are really modeled after the Patriot Act. And so--which is--you
know, there is a base level, and then there is some more. So it
is a little different in terms of what you are talking about.
There is no designation for earthquake funds now or----
Ms. Lofgren. Okay.
Mr. Lowe [continuing]. Would they be in the future. So I
think that kind of answers your question.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
Mr. Lowe. Can I take a little bit of a liberty to say
something about insurance incentives?
Chairman Smith. Yes, what do you think?
Mr. Lowe. Yes. I just want to say a little bit about it. As
you know, I am also the Federal Insurance Administrator and do
have the NFIP, which is the National Flood Insurance Program.
And one of the things that we thought would be useful is to try
to work with the private sector to create an all-hazard
insurance policy, which would help spread the risk of, if you
will, all of the major hazards across a larger policy base. And
so in doing that, it might very well be an earthquake pool, let
us say, in California, who would pick up a piece, the NFIP with
its 92 insurance companies would pick up the flood piece. We
would have a hurricane piece. There would be other pieces. It
would also, obviously, create a certain amount of soundness in
trying to deal with the terrorism piece.
Now the significance of that is the NFIP, just very
quickly, is built on insurance, the promise of insurance if
certain mitigation actions occur after the hazard areas are
defined. And so ANNS, NEES, all of those are--ANSS, excuse me,
are all very critical to such a system. But we think that that
is a model that is worth looking at. So we would encourage that
and just wanted you to know that those are the sorts of things
we were thinking about.
I just want to mention that Executive Order 12699 does say
that for federally owned, leased, assisted, or regulated new
building construction, it needs to be in accordance with that
design standard. And so in other words--and that is the NEHRP
standard. That is the 2000 standard. So that is there. And so
it might be a matter of compliance to reach some of what you
are talking about.
Chairman Smith. Let us conclude by, if you wish, maybe
taking up to one minute, and I will just raise my hand when
your 60 seconds are up, of any last thoughts that you would
like to pass on to the Committee as we write the NEHRP
reauthorization. And we will start at this end, Mr. Reaveley,
with you, and go down the line.
Dr. Reaveley. Just fund us. And fund the broader program,
and make it a focused program. I worry that we have--that we
are not focused and coordinated on what our goals and
objectives are.
Chairman Smith. Dr. O'Rourke.
Dr. O'Rourke. I echo that. I think that this program has
done great service and value for the United States, that it is
a model for the rest of the world, that it contributes not only
to our seismic safety, but, as you have heard in this testimony
from all different sources, has had a profound influence on our
homeland security and other natural hazards. And so it is--
needs support. It needs the funding. And you also asked for
priorities. I think ANSS, and also NEES, are two model programs
that have terrific opportunity to do the kinds of things you
want it to do. They are on the table. They are there. They are
well thought out. They are visionary. And with support for
those two projects, you will get a lot of leverage.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Cluff.
Dr. Cluff. Yes, I support the need to expand the funds,
increase the funding in line with what the EERI comprehensive
program has called for, at least a three times expansion. When
we look at the losses that we certainly can get from
earthquakes, on a cost benefit ratio, it is very clear. The
Trans-Alaska Pipeline is a good example on the money that was
saved from a potential environmental disaster. It was a non-
event in the press. When asked--when I had been asked can we
afford to increase the budget for the NEHRP program, when I
look at the consequences, we can't afford not to.
Chairman Smith. Thank you. Mr. Olson.
Mr. Olson. I believe my colleagues have said it all very
well. Being educated in political science, I look back and I
would like to just suggest that maybe it is time to look back
at the chartering legislation that was passed in 1977 and to
take a look forward to the next 20 years and see what it ought
to say, because that chartering legislation then is what the
agencies implement and report to you on. And I think that may
be a policy--it might be just time to look at that policy
issue. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you. Mr. Lowe.
Mr. Lowe. Yeah. I just would want to re-emphasize that the
important thing here seems to me to really drive this program
toward results, and the results, of course, are saving lives
and property. We have all of the makings of that. We have a
strategic plan. We are developing an annual plan working with
all of our stakeholders and then, of course, the work that will
come out of the research coordinating committee. And so we are
developing a performance management program. That is vitally
important, and so we would like, certainly, the Committee's
strong consideration of what we are trying to do here and to
give the strategic plan and the structure we have set up along
with the management plan, among all the PCC leaders, the NEHRP
agency leaders, if you will, to work, because we believe that
you will be pleased with the success if you do.
Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Let me close in saying thank you all very
much for the sacrifice of your time being here. Thank you for
your expertise and interest and advice. Without objection, the
record of this committee hearing will remain open for, how
long, 48 hours?
The Clerk. Five days.
Chairman Smith. Five days in order to have comments from
other Members of the Committee and, with the permission of the
panelists, to possibly ask you additional questions that
haven't been answered. And with that, the Committee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Additional Statements
Prepared Statement of Charles G. Groat
Director, U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been an active participant in
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) for twenty-
five years. Within NEHRP, USGS provides the fundamental earth sciences
information, analyses, and research that form the foundation for cost-
effective earthquake risk reduction measures.
Earthquakes are the most costly, single event natural hazard faced
by the United States. Twenty-five years of work by USGS, in close
cooperation with the three other NEHRP agencies (Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), and National Science Foundation (NSF)), has yielded
major advances in earthquake preparedness and monitoring, as well as a
vastly improved understanding of earthquake hazards, effects, and
processes. Through NEHRP, USGS is poised to build on these
accomplishments, helping to protect lives and property in the future
earthquakes that will strike the United States. In FY 2003, USGS
received $46.6 million in appropriated funds to support NEHRP work. The
three major activities of USGS within NEHRP and the percentage of funds
supporting these activities are given below:
-- Assessment and quantification of seismic hazards. The USGS
produces and demonstrates the application of products that
enable the public and private sectors to assess earthquake
risks and implement effective mitigation strategies. (40
percent)
-- Operation, modernization, and expansion of real-time
earthquake notification and monitoring systems. The USGS
operates the national program in collecting, interpreting, and
disseminating information on earthquake occurrences throughout
the U.S., and significant earthquakes worldwide, in support of
disaster response, scientific research, national security,
earthquake preparedness, and public education. (40 percent)
-- Increasing scientific understanding of earthquake processes
and effects. The USGS pursues research on earthquake processes
and effects for the purpose of developing and improving hazard
assessment methods and loss reduction strategies. (20 percent)
The work of USGS Earthquake Hazards Program is focused on the
Nation as a whole and on five broad geographical regions, addressing
particular regional needs and problems in areas where the earthquake
risk is the greatest. These regions are Southern California, Northern
California, the Pacific Northwest (including Alaska), the Intermountain
West, and the central and eastern United States (including Puerto
Rico).
Approximately one-fourth of the USGS NEHRP funding is used to fund
activities, investigations, and research outside USGS. Each year we
support approximately 100 research grants at universities, state
governments, and in the private sector. The USGS is engaged in some 16
cooperative agreements to support the operations of 14 regional seismic
networks maintained by universities. In a cooperative effort with NSF,
USGS provides support to the Southern California Earthquake Center, a
leading effort in earthquake research at the University of Southern
California. By involving the external community, through research
grants and cooperative agreements, the USGS program increases its
geographical and institutional impact, promotes earthquake awareness
across the Nation, encourages the application of new hazards assessment
techniques by State and local governments and the private sector, and
increases the level of technical knowledge within State and local
government agencies.
USGS NEHRP ACTIVITIES
Earthquake Hazard Assessments. The USGS carries out quantitative
earthquake hazard assessments on national and regional scales. The
national seismic hazard assessments are used to form the seismic safety
elements of model building codes for the United States. These maps
integrate results of geologic mapping, field studies of fault locations
and slip rates, analyses of seismicity patterns and rates, and crustal
deformation measurements. The maps are prepared in digital format and
give, at some 150,000 grid points nationwide, the severity of expected
ground shaking (in terms of horizontal acceleration and velocity) over
exposure times of 50, 100, and 250 years. The maps and their associated
databases are used also to predict earthquake losses and to define
insurance risks. Periodic review and revision of these maps, as new
data become available, is a high priority in the USGS NEHRP program.
The latest revision of these maps was completed in 2002.
The national scale earthquake hazard maps do not take into account
variations in the amplitude and duration of seismic shaking caused by
local geologic structures and soil conditions. For example,
artificially filled land and shallow geologic basins filled with
loosely consolidated sediments tend to amplify and extend earthquake
shaking to dangerous levels. The USGS works in areas of high to
moderate seismic risk, such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and
Memphis, to produce large-scale maps and databases that show the
variations in ground shaking patterns that can be expected from local
conditions.
In addition to not taking into account variations in local geology,
the national scale assessments do not take into account the time
dependence of earthquake occurrence. For example, if a large, magnitude
8 earthquake occurs on the northern San Andreas fault in California
tomorrow, is unlikely that an earthquake of similar magnitude will
occur on the same fault a year from now, simply because a large portion
of the tectonic strain in the region will have be relieved. Studies of
the regional ``strain budget'' result in forecasts of the probabilities
of future earthquakes on individual active faults and across the region
as a whole. The USGS is in the process of publishing an exhaustive
study of the earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region.
This study estimates a 62 percent chance of an earthquake of magnitude
6.7 or greater in the region before 2031.
Earthquake Monitoring and Notification. The USGS is the only agency
in the United States responsible for the routine monitoring and
notification of earthquake occurrences. The USGS fulfills this role by
operating the U.S. National Seismograph Network (USNSN), the National
Earthquake Information Center (NEIC), the National Strong Motion
Program (NSMP), and by supporting 14 regional networks in areas of
moderate to high seismic activity. All of these efforts are being
integrated into the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). Rapid and
reliable information on the location, magnitude, and effects of an
earthquake is needed to guide emergency response, save lives, reduce
economic losses, and speed recovery. Additionally, the seismic data
from routine network operations are essential to define and improve the
models of earthquake occurrence, fault activity, and earth structure
that underlie earthquake hazards assessments and research on earthquake
effect and processes.
The same analysis systems and facilities that process data for
domestic earthquakes use data from the Global Seismograph Network (GSN)
to monitor foreign earthquakes. Notifications of large foreign
earthquakes are provided to the Department of State, the Office of
Foreign Disaster Assistance, the Red Cross, and the news media.
The ANSS is an effort to integrate, modernize, and expand
earthquake monitoring and notification nationwide. This effort was
authorized in the last reauthorization of NEHRP in 2000 (P.L. 106-503).
Although appropriations have not reached the authorized level,
significant progress has been made in the development of the ANSS. A
management structure is in place that includes regional implementation
and advisory groups with national level oversight and coordination. By
the end of 2003, USGS and its regional partners will have installed
some 400 new seismic sensors in urban areas of the United States. These
areas include Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Salt Lake City,
Reno, Anchorage, and Memphis. Data from earthquake sensors in urban
areas can be used to produce, within a few minutes of an earthquake
occurrence, a map showing the actual severity and distribution of
strong ground shaking caused by an earthquake. Emergency management
officials and managers of transportation, communication, and energy
grids use these ``ShakeMaps'' to direct the response to the earthquake,
minimize it effects, and speed recovery. Data from these ``Shake Maps''
can be imported into FEMA's HAZUS GIS based loss estimation tool to
provide extremely reliable results. Some form of ShakeMap capability
now exists in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Salt Lake City.
ANSS sensors in urban areas also provide the data necessary to
improve earthquake resistant building design and construction
practices. These instruments will provide quantitative data on how the
ground actually shook during an earthquake. These data will serve as
the input to engineering studies to improve site characterization and
infrastructure (bridges, buildings, lifelines, etc.) performance, such
as the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation (NEES) sponsored by NSF.
Better Understanding of Earthquake Processes and Effects. With the
goal of improving hazard assessments, earthquake forecasts and
earthquake monitoring products, USGS conducts and supports research on
earthquake processes and effects. This is a effort to increase our
understanding of the tectonic processes that lead to earthquakes, the
physics of earthquake initiation and growth, the propagation of strong
shaking through the Earth's crustal and surficial layers, and the
triggering of landslides, rock falls, and other ground failures by
seismic shaking. This research is based on theoretical, laboratory, and
field studies and addresses many of the fundamental problems of
earthquake occurrence and consequences.
Working with User Communities. The USGS believes that all of its
work under NEHRP must relate to reducing public risk from earthquake
hazards. We make strong efforts to engage the communities of users of
our information, assessment products, and research.
The development of the national seismic hazard maps involves an
exhaustive process in which we engage seismologists, geologists, and
engineers on the regional and national levels. Regional workshops are
held at which new data and studies on earthquake hazards are presented
and discussed. The changes that will result in incorporating the new
results into revised maps are also presented and discussed. Every
effort is made to reach a consensus on the validity of the new results
and on the resulting changes in the hazard maps. At the national level,
we work with FEMA, the National Institute of Building Safety, the
Building Seismic Safety Council, the Building Officials Conference of
America, and the American Society of Civil Engineers to ensure that the
maps are of maximum practical use to the engineering and construction
communities.
Our work on regional hazard assessments in northern and southern
California, Seattle, and Memphis is carried out in participation and
collaboration with regional and local governments and local interest
groups. These groups provide essential input on what information is
needed and the form in which it is needed to be of greatest practical
use.
Within the ANSS management structure, there are six regional
advisory committees and a national steering committee. These committees
are made up of engineers, seismologists, and emergency management
officials. The regional advisory committees ensure that the
implementation of ANSS meets regional requirements; the national
committee ensures that the program is developed as an integrated system
with national operating standards and equipment specifications.
In 2002, under the authority of P.L. 106-505, USGS established a
Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee to advise USGS on its
roles, goals, and objectives within NEHRP, to review its capabilities
and research needs, and to provide guidance on achieving major
objectives and performance goals. Members of this committee have
backgrounds in geology, seismology, and engineering and represent
academia, State governments, and the private sector. The Committee has
met three times during the past year and has provided two reports to
this committee on its findings.
The USGS maintains close ties with professional groups such as the
Seismological Society of America, the Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, and the American Geological Institute. We also work closely
with and support regional groups such as the Central United States
Earthquake Consortium, the Western States Seismic Policy Council, the
Cascadia Region Earthquake Working Group, and various state geological
surveys and seismic safety commissions.
At the federal level, in additional to working with our NEHRP
colleagues, we have strong ties to the Tsunami Warning Service of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the Bureau of Reclamation, and various elements of the
Departments of Defense, Energy, and Transportation.
The USGS has worked with the Red Cross and other agencies to
prepare Sunday paper inserts on earthquake awareness for San Francisco
and Anchorage. A USGS employee wrote the pamphlet ``Putting Down Roots
in Earthquake Country'' which was published and distributed throughout
southern California by FEMA, the State of California, the Red Cross,
and the Southern California Earthquake Center.
Promoting the International Exchange of Earthquake Information and
Research. Since the beginning of NEHRP, USGS has had formal, active
scientific exchange programs with Russia, Japan, and the Peoples
Republic of China. In prior years, before development of the Internet
and the demise of the Cold War, these exchanges were rather stiff and
prescribed with formal annual meetings at which details of joint
research projects were negotiated. The annual meetings continue, but in
addition to them there is a continual flow of information, ideas, and
results between participants on all sides through electronic mail and
personal visits. The USGS also has exchange programs with institutes in
France, Italy, Turkey, Mexico, and Canada.
In the case of a large, foreign earthquake, when there are lessons
to be learned that have applications in the United States or when
assistance is requested, the USGS will send teams of scientists to
carry out post-earthquake investigations. During the 25 years of NEHRP
the USGS has sent teams to investigate earthquakes in dozens of
countries including Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Chile, China,
Columbia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Turkey,
Yemen, and Yugoslavia. Most of these investigations have led to
scientific reports that are provided to the host country and many have
led to extensive collaborative work between USGS and foreign
scientists.
SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENTS OF NEHRP
The USGS has made substantial progress in earthquake awareness,
preparedness, and safety during the past 25 years. Immense efforts have
gone into planning earthquake emergency response, retrofitting existing
structures, and ensuring that new structures are built to withstand
expected shaking levels. The USGS has contributed to these efforts
through its hazard assessment, monitoring, and research efforts.
Earthquake Hazard Assessment. The flagship product of the USGS
under NEHRP is the series of national seismic hazard maps. These
seismic hazard maps are the scientific basis of seismic provisions in
building codes enacted throughout the U.S. to prevent loss of life and
limit damage during large earthquakes. Ten years ago these code maps
were based on four broad, qualitative zones that were used to describe
the earthquake hazard nationwide. This depiction and classification of
the Nation's earthquake hazard was completely inadequate. Today these
maps consist of 150,000 grid points each with a quantitative estimate
of the expected shaking at each point. The 1996 national seismic hazard
maps are directly included in design maps in the NEHRP Recommended
Provisions, published by the Building Seismic Safety Council and FEMA.
In turn, these Provisions are used in the 2000 International Building
Code (IBC), which is the merging of the three major national model
codes. The IBC and the International Residential Code have now been
adopted by jurisdictions in 37 states. Thus, this NEHRP product, the
set of national seismic hazard maps, is being used to make billions of
dollars of new construction each year safer from earthquakes.
The national seismic hazard maps are also used in the FEMA retrofit
guidelines, ensuring that older buildings are strengthened so that they
withstand future earthquakes. These maps and associated products are
also used in the design of highway bridges, landfills under EPA
regulation, and dams, as well as the setting of earthquake insurance
premiums and the cost of re-insurance. The California Earthquake
Authority uses the seismic hazard maps for California, produced by USGS
and the California Division of Mines and Geology, to set earthquake
premiums for the state earthquake insurance program. Pension funds
apply these maps, made under NEHRP, to evaluate the risks to their
portfolios of properties. Presidential executive orders specify that
new and leased federal buildings must adhere to the NEHRP Recommended
Provisions. The State of Oregon recently upgraded to seismic zone 4
along the southern part of its coast, largely based on hazard
information presented in USGS seismic hazard maps.
Another major advance in hazard assessment work occurred in the
1990's when USGS created formal field offices in Pasadena, Memphis, and
Seattle. The purpose of these field offices was to bring our scientists
in direct contact with the regional users of the results of our
studies. Personnel at these field offices, and at our regional center
in Menlo Park, California, have been very successful in working with
local interests and creating products that will allow these interests
to effectively and efficiently address their earthquake risks.
Earthquake Monitoring and Notification. The USGS has also realized
major improvements in its ability to provide timely and informative
earthquake reports and information. Twenty-five years ago basic
earthquake data processing (location and magnitude determination) was
done by hand. Scientists made measurements on paper seismograms with
rulers and used slide rules to compute epicenters and magnitudes.
Earthquake notification was performed by individually dialed telephone
calls. It took at least an hour to develop the photographic paper that
recorded the seismic data, make the measurements, analyze the data, and
make the phone calls. This was the time required to process one
earthquake! Today digital data flows from hundreds of seismometers over
dedicated communication links to regional and national data centers. At
these centers computers that ``read'' the seismograms using complex
analysis programs process the data. Epicenters and magnitudes are
generated automatically and instantaneously and the results are
broadcast within seconds.
The concepts underpinning the Advanced National Seismic System are
allowing USGS to capitalize on the revolution in information technology
of recent decades to achieve dramatic advances in real-time seismic
data analysis and rapid earthquake notification. The most noteworthy
result of this is the ``ShakeMap'' product. Complementing ShakeMap is a
suite of other real-time earthquake products such as earthquake paging
and e-mail services, real-time earthquake location maps, automatic Web
pages for significant events, and aftershock probability estimators.
Recently we established a Web-based interface to provide Internet users
with a means of recording individual earthquakes experiences and
compiling these into summary maps of shaking intensity (``Did-You-Feel-
It?''). These additional products provide rapid, reliable, and
comprehensive information about U.S. and worldwide earthquakes.
Understanding Earthquake Processes and Effects. Progress made in
earthquake hazard assessments during the past 25 years have their roots
in pioneering USGS field, laboratory, and theoretical research focused
on understanding the basic physical processes of earthquakes. Key
results include:
-- Improved models of seismic energy attenuation as a function
of distance from an earthquake;
-- Use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) to determine the
rate at which faults are being ``loaded'' (stressed) by the
movement of tectonic plates that make up the Earth's outer
shell;
-- Discovery and documentation of large, prehistoric
earthquakes through a new field of study known as
paleoseismology through identifying evidence of past
earthquakes in trenches dug across faults, in riverbanks, and
from drowned coastlines;
-- Quantifying the effect of soils and near-surface conditions
in amplifying strong ground motion; and,
-- Advances in earthquake forecasting through improved
understanding of the physics of fracture and friction of rocks
in fault zones.
IMPROVING NEHRP
The USGS believes that, although the coordination between NEHRP
agencies is good, it could be substantially improved. Coordination
between USGS and NSF on NEHRP matters takes place more on a collegial
basis, rather than being driven by NEHRP; however, FEMA has recently
taken steps to establish a Research Coordination Committee, which may
improve the overall coordination. The USGS believes that stronger
direction to the overall NEHRP program would be constructive. Because
of provisions in the last legislation authorizing NEHRP, USGS now
benefits from the advice and guidance of its Scientific Earthquake
Studies Advisory Committee. This committee has proven invaluable in
providing sound direction to our NEHRP activities. The USGS suggests
that a similar advisory body to the entire NEHRP effort would provide
the stimulus and guidance to ensure greater coordination, cooperation,
and planning.
NEHRP CHALLENGES AND USGS PLANS
Although much has been accomplished under NEHRP, much work remains
to be done to ensure safety and reduce economic losses in future
earthquakes. The country's population and economy continue to grow in
earthquake prone areas. Exposure to earthquake risk continues to
increase. Emergency officials, lifeline managers, the news media, and
the public expect immediate, reliable, and complete information on the
location, magnitude, impact, and effects of any and all earthquakes.
Earthquake hazard information used in model building codes is
applied for public safety only; that is to keep the structure from
collapsing. The building may be a total loss, but the inhabitants are
expected to be safe. Financial and engineering interests are now
pursuing the more sophisticated, and more complicated, concept of
performance-based design. Under this concept, the structure is designed
and constructed so that it will meet a desired performance level during
and after an earthquake. For example, the owners and occupants of a
structure housing a national corporate headquarters may want it
designed so that it will be completely functional immediately after a
strong earthquake. Performance based design concepts require more
extensive and complete data on the nature and variation of ground
shaking and building from earthquakes.
Going forward, USGS will continue to build on existing USGS
earthquake monitoring, assessment, and research activities with the
ultimate goal of providing the Nation with earthquake products that
promote earthquake mitigation and facilitate earthquake response. At
the heart of this effort will be a continued emphasis on delivering
information that is useful, accessible, and easily understood. By
working closely with policy-makers and emergency planners, USGS will
ensure that they have the most reliable and accurate information
possible about earthquake hazards and that our products are tailored to
their needs. The USGS will participate in local and national earthquake
mitigation planning exercises and help train emergency responders,
contingency planners, risk managers, the media, and others in how to
use earthquake hazard assessments and real-time information products.
The USGS will also continue to work directly with communities to help
them understand their vulnerabilities to earthquakes and to plan
mitigation actions. Critical decisions for earthquake preparedness and
response, including continued corporate and government operations, are
often made far from areas of high seismic hazard. So that informed and
appropriate actions can be taken, USGS will continue to work to ensure
that earthquake hazard information and products are useful and familiar
to decision-makers even in regions of low seismic hazard.
Advanced National Seismic System. The ANSS initiative is intended
to contribute to reducing loss of life and property in earthquakes
through monitoring actual ground shaking levels in urban areas and the
dynamic performance of structures and lifelines in earthquakes. ANSS is
intended to collect this information through a nationwide network of
sophisticated shaking monitors, placed both on the ground and in
buildings in urban areas in seismically active regions. Under the ANSS
initiative, USGS had added 400 new seismometers in urban areas and 18
new seismometers to the regional networks it supports.
One component of ANSS is the instrumentation of buildings. To date,
two buildings have been instrumented under the ANSS initiative.
Currently, the spacing of seismometers is not sufficient to correlate
the ground shaking to the performance of specific buildings. If
hundreds of buildings in high-risk areas are instrumented with
seismometers, engineers can determine how specific types of buildings
respond to earthquake shaking. Although model building codes set
earthquake resistant standards for broad, general classes of structures
(i.e., wood frame, residential) on a generic soil type, these
instruments will provide data about how more complicated buildings
(i.e., steel-moment frame and non-ductile concrete frame) buildings
perform during earthquakes and how to design buildings that will
perform well during violent shaking.
The instrumentation of structures in seismically active areas
provides engineers with critical information they need to determine how
buildings respond to earthquakes. This information includes:
-- the coupling between the building foundation and the
underlying soils;
-- the role of torsion of columns in building shaking;
-- the performance of commonly used systems such as shear
walls combined with a moment-frame structure; and,
-- the ability of mathematical models to predict the
performance of buildings during strong shaking.
The closely spaced seismometers could also be used to identify
areas of special engineering problems, such as high amplification and
focusing, that will require special building design before the
destructive earthquake occurs. This in turn will allow identification
of locations where seismic strengthening of buildings is needed the
most, ensuring the cost effectiveness of the mitigation.
A goal of ANSS is improved reliability, timeliness, and breadth of
USGS real-time earthquake products for emergency response purposes.
ShakeMap, in particular, requires access to a modern seismic network
with digital strong motion recording capabilities and real-time
telecommunications feeds. Few U.S. urban areas possess this type of
modern technology. For this reason, ShakeMap is currently only
available in a handful of cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle,
and Salt Lake City). We note that the instruments and automatic
analysis systems being deployed and developed within the ANSS effort
can detect, locate, and determine the severity of large, non-natural
events that generate seismic energy, such as explosions and impacts.
Earthquake Warnings. As the ANSS system develops, it will be
technically possible, under some conditions, to issue warnings within a
few tens of seconds of the initiation of strong ground shaking. The
seismic waves that carry strong shaking travel at about two miles-per-
second. If an earthquake occurs 100 miles outside of an urban area,
data from ANSS sensors near the epicenter can immediately be
transmitted over robust communication links to a data analysis center.
Here the data can be analyzed automatically to determine that a strong
earthquake has occurred. This could be done within a few seconds. A
warning could then be issued via radio to the urban area that strong
earthquake shaking is imminent. The warning would give school children
time to get under their desks, allow surgeons time safely pause their
procedures (if possible), and provide time to suspend the pumping of
toxic materials and other hazardous activities. The USGS is taking the
lead in demonstrating this capability; however its implementation must
be done in cooperation with local and regional governments.
Integrating essential data for expanded urban hazard assessments.
Most current USGS earthquake hazard assessments are compiled on
regional or national scales. These estimates typically are limited to
calculating hazards on hard rock conditions as opposed to the actual
soil conditions beneath cities and lifelines. At scales needed for
urban planning and development, assessments need to account for the
amplifying effects of soils and the potential for ground failures, such
as liquefaction and landslides.
USGS pilot urban assessments in Oakland, Seattle, and Memphis have
shown the usefulness of detailed urban assessments. Central to this
effort will be the integration of data on local geology, site
conditions, and ground motions needed to produce detailed urban hazard
maps. These data integration efforts will require partnerships with
state geological surveys and local agencies. As these hazard
assessments evolve, they will allow estimates of potential earthquake
losses to building stocks and critical lifelines. This is one of the
keys to developing cost effective mitigation strategies to reduce
future earthquake losses.
Earthquake Hazards in the Eastern United States. The USGS
earthquake program devotes approximately 75 percent of its resources to
work in the Western United States, primarily because the hazard there
is greater. However, history demonstrates that a catastrophic quake
could also strike a major city in the Eastern United States. Four
damaging earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 7 centered in the New
Madrid, Missouri, area struck the Mississippi Valley in 1811-1812.
Charleston, South Carolina, was devastated by a magnitude 6.7 shock
in1886, and a magnitude 6.0 quake struck the Boston area in 1755.
USGS studies show that urban areas in the Eastern United States
will incur far greater damage and far more deaths in a quake of a given
magnitude than those in the West for several reasons: (1) for the same
magnitude earthquake, shaking affects a much larger area, (2) most
structures are not designed to resist earthquakes, and (3) population
density is high and residents are not routinely educated about seismic
safety.
USGS is developing the methods and understanding that could improve
our understanding of the earthquake hazard in the East, where the
causative earthquake faults are rarely exposed at the surface and the
subsurface conditions beneath major cities are poorly documented. More
thorough and accurate assessment of the seismic risk faced by major
urban centers in the East will reveal the greatest vulnerabilities and
serve as key input to evaluate possible mitigation strategies.
Earthquake Hazards in Alaska. Alaska has the greatest exposure to
earthquake hazard of any state. Because of the relatively small urban
population, many assume the risk is low compared to the rest of the
country. However, the impact of a devastating earthquake in Alaska can
extend far beyond its borders, both by generating deadly tsunamis and
through economic consequences. Alaska is a major source of natural
resources for the rest of the Nation, a major transportation and
commercial node of the Pacific Rim being the 5th busiest air cargo
airport in the world, and of significant importance to national
defense.
Capitalizing on new national facilities. As described in the 2003
National Research Council report, Living on an Active Earth:
Perspectives on Earthquake Science, continued progress toward
evaluating earthquake hazards will increasingly require integrative,
physics-based research involving theoretical studies of processes
controlling earthquake phenomena, sophisticated numerical modeling, in
situ, ground-based, and space-based field observations, and laboratory
simulations. Research, data collection, and monitoring facilities
developed during the first 25 years of NEHRP are aging and becoming
obsolete. Recent and proposed U.S. government investments in a number
of major earth science and engineering facilities (e.g., ANSS, the NSF-
coordinated EarthScope initiative--including the Plate Boundary
Observatory, USArray, and the San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth,
the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(NEES), and a future interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR)
satellite mission) offer, for the first time, the breadth and depth of
data required to truly address the physical nature of earthquakes.
The USGS will take advantage of these new data streams to perform
earthquake hazard focused experiments on scales never before possible.
To improve long-term hazard assessments, USGS will also create region
specific earthquake occurrence models that simulate the multiple
factors operating in active fault systems. A major goal will be to
understand the criteria for the occurrence of earthquakes within a
fault system and the impact of one quake on the system through the many
processes that transfer stresses. To determine if earthquakes are
predictable, USGS will build models of earthquake likelihood, akin to
weather forecast models.
Earthquake Prediction. Reliable prediction of the time, place, and
magnitude of future earthquake is the ``holy grail'' of earthquake
science. The USGS spent considerable effort on earthquake prediction
during the early days of NEHRP (1978-1990). After strong efforts and at
least one dramatic failure, based mostly on a phenomenological
approach, USGS concluded that earthquake prediction would not be
possible without a foundation based on a complete understanding of
earthquake physics and processes. During the past decade, we have seen
considerable progress in the understanding of earthquake processes.
This progress in understanding could contribute to advancing reliable
earthquake prediction. But, in order to do so, it would be necessary to
review the current state of knowledge, identify the scientific problems
that should be addressed, and develop a strategy to address these
issues.
CONCLUSION
After 25 years of NEHRP, USGS has become a world scientific leader
in seismic hazard studies. In implementing the results of these studies
to mitigate the effects of earthquakes, USGS has actively collaborated
with state geologic surveys, emergency response officials, earthquake
engineers, local government, and the public. This has resulted in
dramatic improvement in building safety and earthquake response in the
United States. But there is still much to be done. By integrating USGS
earthquake information with data from new national initiatives, such as
ANSS, USGS will be able to develop a new generation of effective and
efficient earthquake hazard assessment and mitigation tools. These
tools will be used to further reduce losses of life and property in the
future earthquakes that are certain to strike our nation's seismically
hazardous regions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to submit this
statement.
Biography for Charles G. Groat
On November 13, 1998, Dr. Charles G. Groat became the 13th Director
of the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Groat is a distinguished professional in the earth science
community with over 25 years of direct involvement in geological
studies, energy and minerals resource assessment, ground-water
occurrence and protection, geomorphic processes and landform evolution
in desert areas, and coastal studies. From May to November 1998, hie
served as Associate Vice President for Research and Sponsored Projects
at the University of Texas at El Paso, following three years as
Director of the Center for Environmental Resource Management. He was
also Director of the University's Environmental Science and Engineering
Ph.D. Program and a Professor of Geological Sciences.
Prior to joining the University of Texas, Dr. Groat served asp
Executive Director (1992-95) at the Center for Coastal, Energy, and
Environmental Resources, at Louisiana State University. He was
Executive Director (1990-92) for the American Geological Institute.
From 1983-88, he served as assistant to the Secretary of the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources, where he administered the Coastal Zone
Management Program, and the Coastal Protection Program.
From 1978-1990, Dr. Groat held positions at Louisiana State
University and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources which
included serving as professor for the Department of Geology and
Geophysics, and as Director and State Geologist for the Louisiana
Geological Survey. He also served as associate professor (1976-78) at
the University of Texas at Austin, in the Department of Geological
Sciences, and as Associate Director and Acting Director of the Bureau
of Economic Geology.
Dr. Groat received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Geology (1962) from
the University of Rochester, a Master of Science in Geology (1967) from
the University of Massachusetts, and a Ph.D. in Geology (1970) from the
University of Texas at Austin.
Among his many professional affiliations, Groat is a member of the
Geological Society of America, American Association for the Advancement
of Science, American Geophysical Union, and the American Association of
Petroleum Geologist. He has also served on over a dozen earth science
boards and committees and has, authored and contributed to numerous
publications and articles on major issues involving earth resources and
the environment.
Dr. Charles G. Groat was born in Westfield, New York, March 25,
1940. He currently resides in Reston, Virginia, with his wife, Barbara.
He has two grown children.
Prepared Statement of Priscilla P. Nelson
Senior Advisor, Directorate for Engineering,
National Science Foundation
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony from the
National Science Foundation (NSF) concerning the Subcommittee's
reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP). NEHRP was established in 1977 and operates as an effective
multi-agency partnership; NSF is privileged to serve as a NEHRP agency.
We are confident that NEHRP--in collaboration with other federal
agencies, local and state governments, colleges and universities, and
private sector organizations throughout the country--will continue to
take crucial steps toward meeting the challenge of reducing deaths,
injuries and property damage caused by earthquakes in the years to
come.
In order to provide context for the NSF involvement in NEHRP, let
me first discuss the broader NSF mission in order to place in context
my extended discussion of the role of NSF in the NEHRP partnership.
The NSF Mission
Recent years have seen acceleration in rates of change in society
and in the world at large. In this era of dynamic change, in which
science and technology play an increasingly central role, NSF has
remained steadfast in pursuit of its mission: to support science and
engineering research and education for the advancement of the Nation's
well being. Knowledge is our strongest insurance for preparedness. The
Foundation is that main source of funding for the growth in fundamental
scientific knowledge and, at the colleges and universities funded by
NSF, scientists and engineers are working to provide more effective
predictions and to discover ever more effective approaches to
prevention and amelioration.
The perspective of each NEHRP agency is critical to creating a
complete picture of the Nation's vulnerability to earthquakes--an
understanding that leads to effective mitigation and hazard reduction.
Collectively, we cover the spectrum from natural and social sciences to
engineering, from discovery to implementation, from response to
mitigation. With the vulnerability of the Nation to natural hazards
growing increasingly complex, we need an integrated, multi-agency
perspective to make significant progress.
Role of NSF in NEHRP
NSF supports research and educational activities in many
disciplines, and this is reflected in our role within NEHRP. Our role
complements the responsibilities assigned to our principal partners in
the program: the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). NSF is involved in continuing strategic planning
with the other NEHRP agencies in order to further interagency
coordination and integration.
Legislation authorizing NEHRP called for NSF to support studies in
the earth sciences, earthquake engineering, and the social sciences.
Since 1977, NSF investments have supported growth of vibrant hazards-
related research communities in engineering, geosciences, and in the
social sciences. Leadership from the engineering research community has
been important to technology transfer of research outcomes into
practice and into improvements in codes and standards. NSF's
investments in center-based research (the Earthquake Engineering
Research Centers--EERCs, and the Southern California Earthquake
Center--SCEC) have been very important for the integration of social
sciences into engineering and geoscience research questions, and NSF's
investments in IRIS (Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology)
have resulted in an effective global network for seismic monitoring.
The EERCs are recognized for global leadership in the development of
new concepts of performance based earthquake engineering (PBEE), and
consequence-based approaches to understanding the performance and
vulnerability of complex infrastructure systems. NSF's centers programs
provide very useful institutional arrangements for conducting complex
holistic research, and this tradition will be carried into the George
E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)
project as it becomes fully operational at the end of FY 2004.
During 2002, NSF supported the Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute (EERI) to develop a long-term research and education plan to
advance the state-of-the-art and the state-of-the-practice in
earthquake engineering and earthquake loss reduction. The result is a
comprehensive, community-held vision that includes buy-in from all
sectors and disciplines including academics, practicing engineers and
geoscientists, social scientists, and government employees and
regulators. The plan takes advantage of opportunities presented by high
performance computing, information systems, simulation and
visualization. Integral to the outcome is the commitment by EERI to
maintain and update this vision, and to coordinate with other kindred
organizations and programs including the Advanced National Seismic
System (ANSS, a project of the USGS) and the NEHRP agencies.
Earthquake and hazards-related research and educational activities
are supported in many of the programs at NSF, including particular
contributions from the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE),
the Geosciences (GEO) and the Engineering (ENG) Directorates.
Fundamental seismic research is funded in GEO, while ENG supports
fundamental earthquake engineering. Social science research related to
earthquake hazard mitigation and preparedness is supported through the
SBE and ENG Directorates. Significant progress continues to be made in
these programs in understanding plate tectonics and earthquake
processes, geotechnical and structural engineering, and the social and
economic aspects of earthquake hazard reduction.
In addition to the four NEHRP-funded earthquake centers, numerous
individual investigator and small group projects related to earthquakes
are also supported by NSF. Other NEHRP-related NSF activities include
programs involving earthquake research facilities, post-earthquake
investigations, international cooperation, and information
dissemination. In the remainder of this testimony, recent highlights of
such activities will be discussed briefly.
Research Facilities
NEHRP legislation has reinforced NSF's own expectations regarding
the important role for NSF to ensure that U.S. researchers have the
required facilities to conduct cutting-edge research well into the next
century.
The George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(NEES)
Previous NEHRP legislation called for NSF, in collaboration with
the other NEHRP partners, to develop a comprehensive plan for
modernizing and integrating experimental earthquake engineering
research facilities in the U.S. That plan was completed and implemented
as an NSF Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction
project--the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation (NEES). In 1999, the NEES project was authorized for NEES
construction between FY 2000 and FY 2004. The FY 2004 budget request
includes the final increment of $8.0 million for completion of this
$81.8 million project.
NEES will be a networked simulation resource of fifteen
geographically-distributed, shared use next-generation experimental
research equipment sites. The NEES sites were identified through peer-
reviewed proposal competitions and include facilities under
construction in California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New
York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah.
The NEES experimental capabilities will lead to new tools for
modeling, simulation, and visualization of site, structural, and
nonstructural response to earthquakes and tsunami effects. NEES will
provide an unprecedented engineering capability for attacking major
earthquake problems with coordinated multi-organizational teams,
producing convincing results that can be adopted into building codes
and engineering practice.
NEES experimental research equipment, located at U.S.
universities or off-campus field sites, includes shake tables,
geotechnical centrifuges, a tsunami wave basin, large-scale
laboratory experimentation systems, and field experimentation
and monitoring installations.
The NEES network links nation-wide users and
equipment sites through a high performance Internet system that
will include web-based collaborative tools, data and simulation
software repositories. The NEES network also provides access to
leading edge compute resources.
Through the network, researchers can remotely
interact with each other and with their experimental and
simulation tools via ``telepresence'' tools.
NEES will also serve as a major educational tool. Undergraduate and
graduate students throughout the U.S. will be able to access the
network for data, information, and course material as well as to
participate in various experiments. Involvement with NEES will also
enable students to sharpen skills in utilizing modern information
technology tools and resources. These learning opportunities could be
made available for pre-college students as well as college students,
ushering in an unprecedented appreciation for earthquake problems and a
new age for earthquake engineering education.
Proposal competitions for all equipment sites and the NEES
Internet-based network were completed by FY 2002. All awards are by
cooperative agreement and all projects are on schedule and at budget.
The sites and the network will be operational by September 30, 2004.
Internet sites for NEES are established as http://www.nees.org for the
sites and the overall project, and http://www.neesgrid.org for the
network.
From FY 2005, the NEES network and facilities will be maintained
and operated by the NEES Consortium. The NEES Consortium will provide
the leadership, management, and coordination for all the NEES shared-
use resources. The NEES Consortium was incorporated on January 31, 2003
and already has more than 250 members in the short 8 weeks since its
formation.
The NEES experimental capabilities will lead to new tools for
modeling, simulation, and visualization of site, structural, and
nonstructural response to earthquakes and tsunami effects. NEES will
provide an unprecedented engineering capability for attacking major
earthquake problems with coordinated multi-organizational teams,
producing convincing results that can be adopted into building codes
and engineering practice. NEES experimental resources and data are
expected to be used annually by approximately 1,000 U.S. researchers
and students, and the Consortium is expected to develop as a broad and
integrated partnership in earthquake engineering community, both within
the U.S. and abroad, as equipment sites around the world join the NEES
network.
We expect NEES to lead to a new age in earthquake engineering
research and education. It should be well worth the large investment.
We look forward to keeping the Subcommittee informed about its
development.
EarthScope
Progress in earthquake prediction and hazard mitigation is
critically dependent on results of studies that probe fundamental
earthquake processes. Knowledge of regional tectonic conditions enables
geophysicists to establish the long-term level of earthquake hazards.
Understanding stress accumulation provides the basis for identifying
and interpreting earthquake processes. Knowledge of the rupture
process, particularly the effects of the local geology on ruptures,
provides the basis for estimates of ground shaking. The compelling need
for such knowledge has led to the development of the EarthScope
project, first authorized and funded in FY 2003.
EarthScope is also an MREFC project, developed with partnership
from USGS and NASA. EarthScope will apply modern observational,
analytical, and telecommunications technologies to investigate the
long-term structure and evolution of the North American continent and
the physical processes controlling earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
When fully deployed, EarthScope's components will include modern
digital seismic arrays, global positioning satellite receivers,
strainmeters and new satellite radar imagery, and an observatory deep
within the San Andreas Fault.
The need for knowledge about earthquake processes also explains the
intellectual support at NSF for the USGS project--the Advanced National
Seismic System (ANSS). ANSS is a permanent national network of shaking
measurement systems that will make it possible to provide emergency
response personnel with real-time earthquake information, provide
engineers with information about building and site response, and
provide scientists with high-quality data to understand earthquake
processes and solid earth structure and dynamics. ANSS includes a
strong emphasis on urban areas and the response of buildings to
shaking. Discussions are underway to link the ANSS resource with
EarthScope, NEES and the NSF research programs.
NSF expects strong synergy among EarthScope, ANSS and the NEES
network, and we will be sure to keep the Subcommittee informed about
their progress.
Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS)
In 1984, the seismological community created the IRIS initiative:
the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology. The IRIS
constituency, now at 100 members, includes virtually all U.S.
universities with research programs in seismology, plus 44 foreign
affiliates. Through IRIS, NSF supports two instrumentation programs
that are needed for seismology to take advantage of the many advances
in instrumentation and computer technology that have taken place: a
permanent network--the Global Seismographic Network (GSN)--in
cooperation with USGS; and a portable seismic array--the Program for
Array Seismic Studies of the Continental Lithosphere (PASSCAL).
The GSN plan for 120 stations evenly placed throughout the world
has been essentially completed. The past two years have seen a number
of accomplishments. Use of the GSN seismometers in a rapid analysis of
damaging earthquakes has been invaluable. Attention is now being
directed toward the much more difficult job of instrumenting the large
gaps in the network consisting of the major ocean basins of the world.
The IRIS GSN is a founding member of the Federation of Digital
Seismographic Networks (FDSN). Other participating networks include
Canada, Germany, the French Geoscope, Italy's Mednet, and Japan's
Poseidon. FDSN stations worldwide now total about 180.
The PASSCAL plan is for a portable array of 1000 seismic
instruments for detailed study of the lithosphere and rapid response to
monitor earthquake occurrence or possible earthquake precursors. The
PASSCAL Instrument Center is at the University of New Mexico. 600
PASSCAL instruments are now available for fieldwork and they are being
used in a number of projects in the U.S. and throughout the world.
The IRIS Data Management Center (DMC) was developed to handle the
extremely large volume of digital data that is generated, stored, and
accessed by the seismological community. Data is provided through Data
Collection Centers in Albuquerque and San Diego to the data archive/
mass store in Seattle. Users have network access to the archive and to
IRIS headquarters for more general information services. All FDSN data,
from 180 stations worldwide, and all PASSCAL project data are available
at the DMC, which serves as the first FDSN archive for continuous data.
Over 14 terabytes were stored in the DMC at the end of 2002 and it
continues to grow at about 3 terabytes per year. A measure of the
success of IRIS's effort is the remarkable number of investigators
making use of DMC data. In 2002, there were more than 45,000 data
requests serviced by the DMC for seismic data.
Global Positioning Systems
NSF has supported development of several GPS networks. The NSF- and
USGS-funded Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) has provided
the impetus for the development of a large-scale permanent GPS geodetic
array in southern California focused on earthquake hazard assessment--a
new and ambitious concept for the use of GPS technology. SCEC organized
the southern California geodetic community through establishment of the
Southern California Integrated GPS Network (SCIGN). SCIGN brings
together networks and GPS expertise at UC-San Diego, UCLA, MIT, USGS
and JPL/NASA. Funding is garnered from many sources, with an
implementation plan developed by the SCIGN Steering Committee used to
guide resource allocation. The permanent array is now complete at 250
stations.
PANGA is an 18-station permanent GPS network installed in the
Pacific Northwest with support of NSF and the Canadian Geological
Survey in collaboration with the Central Washington University,
University of Washington, and Oregon State University.
The University NAVSTAR Consortium (UNAVCO) has become UNAVCO, Inc.,
a non-profit membership-governed organization that supports and
promotes Earth science by advancing high-precision geodetic and strain
techniques such as the Global Positioning System (GPS). UNAVCO, Inc.
was formed in response to community support of its role as lead
organization for community-based planning and management of new
initiatives such as the EarthScope Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO), by
establishing corporate oversight, and through the already-established
community workshops and working groups.
NSF supports separately a number of investigations utilizing the
UNAVCO GPS equipment in crustal distortion areas that are prime
candidates for future earthquakes. Seismically active areas occupied to
date within or near the U.S. include California, New England, the
Caribbean, Colorado, Hawaii, Wyoming, and Montana. Outside the U.S.,
important distortion areas in Turkey, Iceland, Greenland, Asia, and
South America are being monitored.
NSF Research Centers
Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC)
The Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) was founded in
1991 as an NSF Science and Technology Center, and continues under
support from NSF and the USGS. The SCEC headquarters are at the
University of Southern California, and the Center includes eight core
university partners. Other universities, state and local governments,
and private companies are participating in the research and outreach
activities. The primary science goal of SCEC is to develop a
comprehensive, physics-based understanding of earthquake phenomena in
southern California through integrative, multidisciplinary studies of
plate-boundary tectonics, active fault systems, fault-zone processes,
dynamics of fault ruptures, ground motions, and seismic hazard
analysis.
Earthquake Engineering Research Centers (EERCs)
NSF funded three new earthquake engineering research centers
(EERCs) in October 1997. Each EERC is a consortium of several academic
institutions--with an administrative headquarters at a designated
campus--involved in multidisciplinary team research, educational and
outreaches activities. The EERCs are combining research across the
disciplines of the earth sciences, earthquake engineering, and the
social sciences, and some of the research conducted at the EERC's is
funded by FEMA.
The Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE) is headquartered at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. MAE's mission is to reduce
losses across societal systems through the development of consequence-
based engineering approaches that are founded on advanced technologies
for characterizing seismic hazards and the response of the built
environment.
The Multi-disciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
(MCEER) has its headquarters at the State University of New York at
Buffalo. MCEER's vision is to help establish earthquake resilient
communities and its mission to discover, nurture, develop, promote,
help implement, and, in some instances pilot test, innovative measures
and advanced and emerging technologies to reduce losses in future
earthquakes in a cost-effective manner. MCEER places significant
emphasis on the seismic response of networks and critical facilities.
With its administrative headquarters at the University of
California at Berkeley, the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center (PEER) focuses on earthquake problems in areas west of the Rocky
Mountains. The main focus for the PEER Center is performance-based
earthquake engineering (PBEE) that includes socio-economic evaluation
of whether the seismic performance is cost-effective and suitable to
the owner and society.
The three EERCs are not involved only in research and technology
advancement for the mitigation of earthquake damages. In order to meet
the needs of future professionals in the field, they are educating
hundreds of undergraduate and graduate students in the latest
analytical, computational and experimental techniques. They also reach
out to K-12 students to inspire even younger generations in earthquake
engineering: An example is PEER's ``Learning with LEGO'' Program, which
brings annually over 500 K-12 students from socio-economically
disadvantaged areas to the campus for an open house and shake-table
demonstration.
The EERCs also engage in a variety of outreach activities to the
public. Keeping the public abreast of scientific and technological
advancements is a continual activity, essential to better understanding
of natural hazards, policy issues, and disaster mitigation as it
applies to the individual.
MCEER has worked with the Discovery Channel to
develop three programs related to earthquakes.
The PEER Center worked with the California Academy of
Sciences to develop the Academy's Earthquakes! Exhibit, which
is visited by over one million people annually, and focuses on
earthquake preparedness and safety.
Post-Earthquake Investigations
In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, NSF funded
quick response research awards that mobilized more than 50 faculty and
students to begin the process of observing, recording, and evaluating
the impact on the public, the structures, and the organizations
involved in response. The National Hazard Research Application and
Information Center (NHRAIC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder--a
Center funded through NSF with contributions from many federal agencies
including FEMA and USGS--coordinated much of the social science
research, and the NSF-funded Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems
(ICIS, http://www.nyu.edu/icis) provided on-site facilitation and
coordination for researchers arriving at the WTC site. It is the
mission of ICIS, in addition to its location, that rendered it ideal
for coordinating the NSF sponsored research: to focus on developing
resources and networks to sustain, renew, and improve the Nation's
infrastructure system by integrating different perspectives and
disciplines into infrastructure planning, engaging users and
communities that host infrastructure services and facilities.
In large part, the reason that NSF could move so fast following the
events of 9/11 was that there had been so much practice in multi-agency
coordinated post-disaster investigations following major earthquakes in
the United States and abroad. Areas struck by major earthquakes
represent natural laboratories, offering unusual opportunities to
collect time-sensitive information and to learn vital lessons about
earthquake impacts. This data importantly serves to test models and
techniques derived from analytical, computational and experimental
studies, and to observe and document effects on the natural and built
environment and resulting social, economic, and policy impacts. For
these reasons and for nearly 30 years, NSF has supported post-disaster
investigations in conjunction with the Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute (EERI) ``Learning from Earthquakes'' (LFE) project. The post-
earthquake investigations involve quick-response teams of researchers,
deployed with close coordination to USGS and other NEHRP agency
activities. Recent events investigated with NSF support include: the
2001 earthquakes in Nisqually, Washington; Peru; India; the 2002
earthquakes in Italy; El Salvador, and Alaska; and the 2003 earthquake
in Colima, Mexico.
The three EERCs are also active in post-earthquake reconnaissance.
The Centers initiated their program following the success of the
previous MAE Center initiative in sending students to areas around the
world hit by earthquakes. Four MAE applicants traveled to Taiwan to
engage in a hands-on field assessment exercise. For future events,
plans call for a group of EERC faculty and 12 graduate students to
spend 10 days visiting earthquake sites to complete hands-on field
assessment exercises. Also, MCEER's expertise in earthquake
reconnaissance was used to collect and disseminate perishable data in
the aftermath of the 9/11 attack for later study to gain a better
understanding of how resilience is achieved in physical, engineered and
organizational systems.
International Collaborative Earthquake Research
The National Science Foundation aims at nothing less than U.S.
world leadership in science, engineering, and technology. Earthquakes
are a global hazard. Many countries find collaborative research and the
sharing of information essential in meeting this challenge and the U.S.
is no exception. Like the other NEHRP agencies, NSF has a long history
of cooperating with other countries--such as China, Mexico, Italy and
Japan--facing similar seismic risks. There have been some recent
developments that serve as excellent examples of how NSF's efforts
enable U.S. earthquake researchers to collaborate effectively with
international colleagues.
Following the 1999 earthquakes in Izmit, Turkey, and Chi-Chi,
Taiwan, NSF made awards to 23 U.S. research teams, each involving
collaborators in Turkey and/or Taiwan. In 2002, researchers from the
U.S. and other countries gathered in Turkey for a workshop on
continuing research needs and opportunities. The research outcomes from
this program are providing much needed data on strong ground motion
near fault ruptures and attenuation of ground motion with distance from
the causative fault. The vast number of recording stations, especially
in Taiwan, and the similarity between fault systems in the Western U.S.
and those in Turkey and Taiwan will greatly aid seismic code
development in the United States. The data base to address the required
set-back distances from faults, ground motion estimates close to
faults, and similar questions will increase by more than ten times due
to the results of research on the Turkey and Taiwan earthquakes.
The response of modern high-rise structures designed under Turkish
and Taiwanese codes that are very similar to codes in the United States
has been documented through this research, as have the effects of
construction quality, code enforcement and specific seismic design.
This will directly lead to better design and construction techniques to
minimize damage from earthquake loading. In addition, a very important
determining factor in loss of life and property during earthquakes is
the level of preparedness of individuals, companies, national and
international institutions and government agencies prior to the
earthquake. Several research projects addressed these issues, and
information gathered has proven to be invaluable to emergency planners
in the United States.
Individual researchers also engage in international collaboration.
For example, an NSF award to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the
University of California at San Diego includes a significant
international component. The researchers will complete experimental
studies on the effect of earthquake-induced lateral ground spreading
due to liquefaction on pile foundations, both in full size and
centrifuge model conditions. The research will take advantage of the
NEES experimental facilities in the United States, and facilities
operated by the National Research Institute for Earth Science and
Disaster Prevention (NIED) in Japan, including the world's largest
shake table (15m by 20m) at Miki City. This research constitutes the
first opportunity for direct comparison of results in controlled
experimental environments between centrifuge and full size tests to be
conducted at NIED. The NEES network will be used both during experiment
conduct and collaborative development of engineering interpretations
and computer simulations.
NEHRP, Agency Coordination, and the Future
The results of NSF research are carried forward into implementation
through the involvement of the researchers themselves in professional
organizations, and through activities managed by our three sister
agencies. In this respect, NSF funding enables a knowledgeable research
community to be prepared to answer questions posed by seismic events
themselves, and by observations of the performance of the built
environment and socio-political systems during and after earthquake
events. NSF-funded research enables changes warranted in engineering
practice, and enhances understanding and assessment of risks and
uncertainties in natural, physical, and social environments.
NSF-funded fundamental research in base isolation devices was taken
up by NIST where methods of test for these systems and provisions for
design were developed. NIST's contributions made it possible for the
engineering profession to include base isolation in design of new
structures and seismic upgrades, and FEMA funds were instrumental in
making the early applications of base isolation systems possible. In a
similar sequence of knowledge transfer and implementation, NSF-funded
research on geographic distributions of hazards, liquefaction potential
and ground instability have directly fed into microzonation assessments
and the USGS-produced ShakeMaps. These maps are, in turn, used in HAZUS
(HAZards United States), a GIS-based (Geographic Information Systems)
technology that FEMA developed and that allows users to compute
estimates of damage and losses that could result from an earthquake.
The future is bright for the NEHRP agencies, and recent actions
have been taken that will enhance coordination of plans and efforts:
FEMA has set up a Subcommittee on Research that is
chartered to identify synergies among research and development
programs and to identify ways existing programs can work
together more effectively; including enhances linkages between
ANSS, NEES, EarthScope and the research programs at USGS and
NSF.
Under USGS leadership, the NEHRP agencies have worked
during FY 2002 to create a ``Plan to Coordinate NEHRP Post-
Earthquake Investigations'' that establishes how the agencies
will coordinate and share information in the event of a
significant national or international earthquake. In FY 2003,
the agencies are working to modify this plan to provide clarity
concerning how the agencies will interact if/when NIST declares
an NCSTA (National Construction Safety Team Act) investigation
following an earthquake.
The NEHRP agencies have the challenge to continue
evaluation and updating of the strategic plan, and to maintain
the strong ties with stakeholders that were so important to the
success in creating the original plan in FY 2001.
The NEHRP agencies also have the challenge to develop
an all-agency Internet portal for dissemination of information
about research opportunities and outcomes, news releases, plans
and activities in a form that can be easily accessed by the
research community, government organizations, and the public at
large.
The new research plan of EERI that lays out a road map for research
and technology transfer, and with the end of construction for NEES in
FY 2004 and the start of grand challenge research projects using this
network and equipment, the initiation of the EarthScope project,
continued development of ANSS, and with the coordinated NEHRP post-
event response plan in-place--NEHRP is poised to accomplish great
things.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to present this
testimony. NSF is very excited about what NEHRP has been able to
accomplish in the past, and what we expect will be possible to achieve
in the future.
Biography for Priscilla P. Nelson
Dr. Priscilla Nelson is Senior Advisor for the Directorate for
Engineering (ENG) at the National Science Foundation (NSF). She has
been at NSF since 1994, and has served as Director of the Civil and
Mechanical Systems (CMS) Division, Senior Engineering Coordinator,
Program Director for the Geotechnical Engineering program, and as
Program Manager for the NEES (Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation) project that represents an $82 million federal investment
in cyber infrastructure and earthquake experimentation equipment to be
completed between FY 2000 and FY 2004.
Dr. Nelson was formerly Professor of Civil Engineering at The
University of Texas at Austin. She has received three earned advanced
degrees including Master's degrees in both Geology (Indiana University)
and Structural Engineering (University of Oklahoma). In 1983, she
received her Ph.D. from Cornell University in Geotechnical Engineering.
Dr. Nelson has a national and international reputation in geological
and rock engineering, and the particular application of underground
construction. She has more than 15 years of teaching experience and
more than 120 technical and scientific publications to her credit.
Dr. Nelson is Past-President of the Geo-Institute of the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), a lifetime member and first
President of the American Rock Mechanics Association, and currently
served on the Executive Committee of the American Geological Institute.
In addition to these, she has many other professional affiliations
including: the Moles (an organization of the heavy construction
industry), the American Underground-Construction Association, the
Association of Engineering Geologists, the International Tunnelling
Association, and the American Society for Engineering Education. She
has served as a member of and liaison to several National Research
Council boards and committees. Dr. Nelson has been a part of several
major construction projects, including field engineering
responsibilities during construction of the Trams-Alaska Pipeline
System, and serving as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Energy
and the State of Texas for the Superconducting Super Collider project.
She is a member of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, appointed
by President Clinton in 1997 and reappointed in 2000.
Prepared Statement of S. Shyam Sunder
Chief, Materials and Construction Research Division,
Building and Fire Research Laboratory,
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Introduction
As a representative of one of the four primary federal agencies
that comprise the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP), I congratulate the earthquake community and our three
partners--the Federal Emergency Management Agency as lead, the United
States Geological Survey, and the National Science Foundation--as we
celebrate the 25th anniversary of the founding of NEHRP.
NEHRP has been an extraordinary, and often exemplary, collaboration
between federal agencies, State and local governments, and the private
sector.
During its first 25 years, NEHRP has contributed in very
significant ways to reduce our nation's vulnerability to earthquakes
and NIST is proud to have been a part of that record of accomplishment.
While it is difficult to quantify loss prevention through the
adoption of improved mitigation practices, and such measures are very
much needed, there is no doubt that NEHRP products and results have
contributed in significant ways to reduce the loss of life and economic
losses from earthquakes. In addition, the loss of life from earthquakes
in the United States has been small compared with similar earthquakes
in other countries.
My testimony traces how NIST has contributed to the success of
NEHRP. It also reflects upon the broader public safety challenges the
Nation now faces and how NEHRP can contribute to meeting those
challenges.
Earthquakes and Creation of NEHRP
Earthquakes are among the most frightening and devastating natural
disasters. They strike virtually without warning, last only seconds,
but can leave death and destruction in their wake.
Seventy-five million Americans in 39 states face significant risk
from earthquakes. On an annualized basis, earthquake losses amount to
about $4 billion a year, while a single earthquake has a loss potential
of $100 billion or more.
For example, the 1971 San Fernando earthquake in California killed
65 people and caused $500 million in damage. The 1994 Northridge
earthquake caused losses in excess of $40 billion, with $15 billion in
insured property losses alone.
The San Fernando earthquake led Congress to pass the Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to ``reduce the risks of life and
property from future earthquakes in the United States through the
establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards
reduction program.'' Pursuant to the Act, the Executive Office of the
President developed the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
and issued a program plan in June 1978.
Pre-NEHRP Efforts
Prior to the creation of NEHRP, NIST and many other government,
private-sector organizations and universities were conducting research
on ways to improve the seismic design of constructed facilities.
NIST began work in earthquake hazards reduction with its
organization in 1969 of the U.S.-Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic
Effects under the U.S.-Japan Program in Natural Resources. This
successful bilateral program continues to this day, with the 35th
annual meeting slated to be held next May.
NIST work also included its significant investigation of the
performance of structures in the 1971 San Fernando, California,
earthquake.
Also, in 1972, the Applied Technology Council, an organization
created by the Structural Engineers Association of California, called
for a cooperative effort of practice, research, and government to
produce up-to-date seismic design and construction provisions. A
subsequent ATC study completed in 1978 produced design provisions that
were a significant advance on existing provisions.
Role Assigned for NIST in NEHRP
NIST was a natural part of NEHRP because of its long-time role in
providing measurements, standards, and technology to help Federal,
State, and local government agencies and the private sector protect the
Nation and its citizens from natural as well as manmade threats.
As part of NEHRP, NIST took on three assignments:
First, to develop seismic design and construction
standards for consideration and subsequent adoption in federal
construction, and encourage the adoption of improved seismic
provisions in State and local building codes;
Second, to assist and cooperate with federal, State,
and local agencies, research and professional organizations,
model code groups and others that are involved in developing,
testing, and improving seismic design and construction
provisions to be incorporated into local codes, standards, and
practices; and
Third, to conduct research on performance criteria
and supporting measurement technology for earthquake resistant
construction.
In addition, as part of the USGS-led Post-Earthquake Investigation
Program established by the NEHRP Reauthorization Act of 1990, NIST took
on another assignment:
Fourth, to participate in NEHRP post-earthquake
investigations and analyze the behavior of structures and
lifelines, both those that were damaged and those that were
undamaged, and to analyze the effectiveness of the earthquake
hazards mitigation programs and actions and how those programs
and actions could be strengthened.
Products and Results from NIST's Problem-Focused R&D
Through laboratory based problem-focused R&D NIST has made
important contributions to earthquake safety over the years. Examples
include our products and results related to:
bridge column reinforcing requirements,
rehabilitation of welded steel moment frame
connections,
test methods for passive and active seismic energy
absorption systems, and
precast concrete frames.
One example is our work with industry and others on precast
concrete frames (Attachment A provides summaries of the other
examples).
While construction with this type of frame has not been extensive
in high seismic regions of the United States, it has enormous benefits
in construction speed and quality control.
In 1987, NIST initiated a project to develop a precast beam-to-
column connection that was economical, easy to construct, and capable
of resisting earthquake loads. A few years later, Pankow Builders, a
California general contracting firm specializing in quake-resistant
construction, provided funding through the American Concrete Institute
(ACI) to further develop the concept. Close collaboration among NIST,
Pankow Builders, and the University of Washington resulted in a hybrid
connection that combined the use of low-strength reinforcing steel for
energy absorption with high-strength pre-stressing steel.
Tests at NIST and on a five-story precast building at the
University of California at San Diego demonstrated that the concept
worked. NIST-developed guidelines and results were used to obtain
approval from a code evaluation service. In addition, the American
Concrete Institute issued standards and the International Building Code
has adopted provisions that allow use of the system.
Recently, Pankow Builders used the hybrid connection to build a
$128 million, 39-story building in San Francisco. Topped out in June
2001, the building is the tallest concrete frame building built in a
high seismic region.
Several other structures using the hybrid connection have been
built, are underway, or on the drawing board.
We are very proud of our collaboration with Pankow Builders, the
University of Washington and others and are gratified that this design
innovation and the contributions of its developers have been widely
recognized. This work has won numerous awards, most recently the Harry
H. Edwards Industry Advancement Award of the Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute.
Lessons Learned from NIST's Post-Earthquake Investigations
Throughout its history, NIST scientists and engineers have been
called in to investigate building failures following fires,
earthquakes, high winds, terrorist attacks, construction accidents, and
other events.
Tragically, we learn many lessons following an earthquake about
what type of design and construction works and what does not. Our goal
is to investigate and document building performance and the adequacy of
current codes and practices, as well as to identify research needed to
mitigate the impact of future earthquakes.
Our investigators have traveled not only to earthquake sites in the
United States, including the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 and the
Northridge earthquake in 1994, but also to those places around the
world including Japan, Romania, Nicaragua, Mexico, Armenia, and--most
recently--Turkey. The investigation following the 1999 earthquake in
Turkey was a cooperative effort led by the USGS, with participation of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Since NIST is not a regulatory agency and does not issue building
standards or codes, the institute is viewed as a neutral, ``third-
party'' investigator. Our investigations are fact-finding, not fault
finding. The focus is on improving public safety and on deriving
lessons for the future. And, by law, the data, analysis, and reports
resulting from NIST investigations may not be used in litigation.
Formation of ICSSC and Federal Construction
One of the early accomplishments of NEHRP was to involve federal
agencies with construction responsibilities. Federally-constructed
facilities comprise one of our nation's largest building sectors. It
was realized early in the NEHRP that it was vital to assist the more
than 30 federal agencies that are involved in one way or another in
construction to implement earthquake hazards reduction elements into
their ongoing programs.
In 1978, the White House directed the Federal Emergency Management
Agency to form an Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in
Construction (ICSSC). ICSSC was assigned to develop and implement
seismic deign standards for federal construction. NIST, with funding
from FEMA, has provided the secretariat for ICSSC since its inception,
and the Director of NIST (or the Director's designee) has chaired the
ICSSC since 1982.
Not only did the ICSSC provide up-to-date seismic design and
construction standards and practices that federal agencies used for
their own new buildings, but it had a broader effect as well. An
executive order issued by the President in 1990 required both federal
and federally-assisted homes, such as new homes with FHA or VA
mortgages, be designed and constructed using these standards.
This federal mandate was welcomed by the national standards and
model building code organizations since it provided incentive for state
and local governments to adopt and enforce up-to-date standards and
codes to be eligible for federally-assisted construction.
The bottom line result was that NEHRP's broad goal of making
adequate seismic resistance available for all new U.S. building
construction was achieved. This successful outcome would not have been
realized without a NIST study that was crucial to the issuance of the
executive order. That study revealed the modest cost implications of
the recommended seismic provisions as determined by trial designs.
ICSSC was much involved in support to federal agencies in
implementation of the executive order for new buildings. It continues
today to provide support for the assessment of the equivalency of model
building codes to the NEHRP recommended provisions--the most recent
assessment was issued in late 2001--and the development of proposed
changes to model codes.
The ICSSC turned next to the challenge of evaluating and
strengthening existing buildings by developing seismic safety standards
and assisting federal agencies in implementing a second executive
order. That executive order called for agencies to inventory buildings
they own or lease and estimate the costs of mitigating unacceptable
seismic risks.
The ICSSC developed policies and practices for evaluation and
strengthening of existing federal buildings. This included seismic
safety standards for existing buildings, which were updated recently;
guidance to the federal agencies on implementation of the executive
order; assistance with estimating the costs of mitigating unacceptable
seismic risks; and extensive review and comment in drafting the
resulting report.
Currently, ICSSC is developing a handbook for the seismic
rehabilitation of existing buildings. This handbook will facilitate
implementation of the seismic rehabilitation plan for federal buildings
when a policy decision is made to proceed.
Major Challenges for the Future
NEHRP has come a long way. But, it faces many challenges in meeting
its legislative mandate to ``reduce the risks of life and property from
future earthquakes in the United States.''
Four of the key challenges faced by NEHRP are to:
fill the technology transfer gap between basic
research and practice,
develop and implement seismic safety standards for
lifelines,
develop and implement a multi-hazard approach to risk
mitigation, and
better coordinate post-earthquake investigations.
Challenge #1: Filling the Basic Research to Practice Gap in Earthquake
Engineering
Just as NEHRP strives for better ways to improve the performance of
construction during an earthquake, NIST and its three NEHRP partners
are continually looking for better ways to carry out our mission.
Early in 2001, a NEHRP Strategic Plan was approved by each of the
four participating agencies. This plan, developed in partnership with
stakeholders, has identified the emergence of a technology transfer gap
that limits the adaptation of basic research knowledge into practice.
The plan recommends a much-expanded problem-focused research and
guidelines development effort:
to develop future design, construction, evaluation,
and upgrade guidelines and standards of practice, and
to facilitate the development of new mitigation
technologies.
It further recommends that NIST, in partnership with FEMA and other
NEHRP agencies, should develop a coordinated plan to support this
effort.
NIST looks forward to working with its NEHRP agency partners and
with industry, academia, and the broader stakeholder community to
address this gap.
As a first step, NIST requested the Applied Technology Council, a
non-profit corporation to advance engineering applications for natural
hazard mitigation, to convene a workshop of national leaders in
earthquake design, practice, regulation, and construction in July of
2002.
The purpose of the meeting was to assess the state of knowledge and
practice and to suggest an action plan to address the gap between basic
research and practice.
Recently completed, the action plan identifies industry priorities
in two areas:
support for the seismic code development process
through technical assistance and development of the technical
basis for performance standards; and
improved seismic design productivity through the
development of tools and guidance and evaluation of advanced
technologies and practices.
This action plan fits within the broader research and outreach plan
developed by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute titled
``Securing Society Against Catastrophic Earthquake Losses.'' It also
incorporates issues raised under Challenge #2 below.
NIST now looks forward to working with the stakeholder community to
explore ways to best meet those needs via a public-private partnership.
We expect this effort will build on NSF-funded basic academic research,
including that conducted as part of the George E. Brown, Jr. Network
for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) Consortium.
Challenge #2: Developing and Implementing Seismic Safety Standards for
Lifelines
While up-to-date seismic provisions for building codes are
available today, there are no nationally accepted standards or
guidelines for lifelines, except for highway structures and nuclear
facilities.
Lifelines include all types of transportation (highways, airports,
railways, waterways, ports and harbors), communication, and utility
(electric power, gas and liquid fuels, water and wastewater) systems.
They provide the physical infrastructure that support most human
activities.
The American Lifelines Alliance, with support from FEMA, is working
on the development of guidelines and standards for lifelines.
Concurrently, the ICSSC has completed an initial survey of lifelines
that are the responsibility of federal agencies. It has begun a major
effort to identify the needs for standards and guidance for these
lifelines, with an initial focus on electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution facilities. It is anticipated that
implementation of the lifelines plan would be primarily through the
existing voluntary standards system with a possible executive order
requiring agencies to adopt and use the standards for federal
lifelines.
While these initial public and private sector efforts are laudable,
I believe NEHRP has much work to do before the Nation will have seismic
standards and guidelines for lifelines similar to those we already have
for new and existing buildings.
Challenge #3: Developing and Implementing a Multi-Hazard Approach to
Risk Mitigation
Seismic hazards are one of many significant hazards that must be
considered in design and construction. From the viewpoint of an owner
or end-user, a multi-hazard approach to risk mitigation is desirable
since it likely will yield more cost-effective solutions. This is
especially true for existing construction, where seismic retrofit
investments may be better justified when made in conjunction with
needed functional and security upgrades.
A careful consideration of regional hazards such as earthquakes and
high winds shows that these hazards pose a major risk since they
coincide with geographical areas that have seen significant population
growth and development in recent years. The risks from fire hazards are
spread across the Nation, while the risks from terrorist or
technological threats are limited to certain critical facilities or
locations.
In comparison with the $4 billion annualized loss estimate for
earthquakes, the annualized loss estimate for extreme winds is about $8
B/year and for fire hazards is about $12 billion a year. Similarly, in
comparison with the $100 billion loss potential for a major earthquake,
a single hurricane event has a loss potential of as much as $50
billion. Major earthquakes, high winds, and other extreme hazards have
one thing in common--they are all low probability, high consequence
events.
There is significant merit to multi-hazard risk mitigation if
practicable tools, practices, and guidance can be developed. Examples
include:
improving overall structural integrity by mitigating
progressive collapse, where NIST is already working with the
private sector to develop needed tools and guidance;
conducting multi-hazard vulnerability assessments
using an integrated framework based on standard information
representation models and interoperable software tools; and
evaluating the cost-effectiveness of alternate risk
reduction technologies and strategies using integrated software
tools for making cost-risk trade-offs.
I believe NEHRP has a unique opportunity to provide national
leadership in charting the course for a multi-hazard approach to risk
mitigation, while continuing with its important risk reduction mission
for earthquakes. The development of the HAZUS regional loss estimation
model--that now covers earthquakes, wind, and floods--is an excellent
example of how NEHRP has already demonstrated this kind of leadership.
Challenge #4: Coordinating Post-Earthquake Investigations
NEHRP has long supported post-earthquake investigations, and in
1990 Congress specifically authorized the establishment of a
coordinated program to conduct such investigations with leadership to
be provided by the United States Geological Survey. Consistent with
this legislation and the recent NEHRP Strategic Plan, an implementation
plan has been completed to coordinate future post-earthquake
investigations.
In the aftermath of the World Trade Center disaster, Congress has
given NIST additional authorities--beyond those NIST already had--
through the National Construction Safety Team Act. The legislation,
which is modeled in many ways on the National Transportation Safety
Board, was introduced by the House Science Committee and signed into
law by President Bush on October 1, 2002.
That law, Public Law 107-231, established NIST as the lead agency
to investigate building performance, emergency response, and evacuation
procedures in the wake of building failures that result in substantial
loss of life or that posed significant potential of substantial loss of
life. Currently, NIST is conducting two major investigations: a
building and fire safety investigation of the September 11, 2001, World
Trade Center building collapses; and the February 20, 2003, fire at The
Station nightclub in West Warwick, R.I. The act calls for NIST to
establish investigative teams including public and private-sector
experts.
NIST is developing agreements for future investigations with other
federal agencies, and with the private sector so that we can quickly
and effectively deploy investigation teams and so that we can share the
results of those investigations and related research.
The National Construction Safety Team Act gives NIST the authority
to dispatch teams of experts within 48 hours when practicable. The law
gives the teams a clear authority to:
Establish the likely technical cause of building
failures;
Evaluate the technical aspects of procedures used for
evacuation and emergency response;
Recommend specific changes to building codes,
standards and practices;
Recommend any research or other appropriate actions
needed to improve the structural safety of buildings, and/or
changes in emergency response and evacuation procedures; and
Make final recommendations within 90 days of
completing an investigation.
The act gives NIST and its investigation teams comprehensive
authorities to:
Access the site of a building disaster;
Subpoena evidence;
Access key pieces of evidence such as records and
documents, and
Move and preserve evidence.
Congress anticipated the NCST Act to be applicable to building
failures caused by earthquakes. The Act specifies that the NIST
Director develop implementing procedures that ``provide for
coordination with federal, State, and local entities that may sponsor
research on investigations of building failures, including research
conducted under the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977.'' In
addition, the Committee Report 107-530 published by the House Science
Committee on June 25, 2002, states that ``The Director should clearly
define how earthquake researchers and Teams will carry out their
responsibilities in a coordinated fashion in cases where building
failures have been caused by an earthquake.''
NIST's responsibilities under the NSCT Act have been incorporated
in the recently completed plan to coordinate post-earthquake
investigations issued by the four agencies comprising the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. The plan (USGS circular #1242)
states that, within 48 hours, NIST will examine the relevant factors
associated with building failures that occur as a result of the
earthquake and will make reasonable efforts to consult with the other
NEHRP agencies prior to determining whether to conduct an investigation
under the Act. Any NIST investigation conducted under the authority of
the Act will be limited to building failures on one or more buildings
or on one or more class or type of buildings selected by NIST.
Conclusion
As we look to the future, I believe NEHRP will continue to play a
vital leadership role in making the performance of our buildings and
lifelines highly measurable and predictable. This measurement and
prediction ability will provide the critical underpinning upon which to
achieve specified levels of performance and seismic risk reduction via
workable and practicable solutions. Our nation will be safer and more
secure for it.
We at NIST look forward to contributing our part to address the
challenges that lie ahead.
Attachment A
Products and Results of NIST Problem-Focused R&D
Bridge Column Reinforcing Requirements
Immediately following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, NIST
dispatched a team to document and investigate structural damage caused
by the earthquake. In particular, many bridge columns suffered either
significant damage or failure. As a result, design requirements for
bridge columns in seismic zones were modified. However, the adequacy of
these design modifications was not verified.
NIST initiated a project in the 1980s to provide the necessary
verification, consisting of two full-scale bridge column tests. The
challenges arose from the size of the test specimens and the need to
apply horizontal seismic loads in addition to vertical gravity loads.
The series of column tests was the first of its kind and as such,
provided important benchmark data. The tests also verified the adequacy
of the revised design specifications.
In addition, NIST tested companion 1/6-scale bridge columns and the
results indicated that the behavior of full-scale bridge columns could
be extrapolated from small-scale bridge column tests. This finding
suggests that high costs associated with full-scale tests are not
always necessary and less expensive small-scale tests may be
sufficient.
Welded Steel Moment Frame Connections
Steel framed buildings traditionally have been considered to be
among the most seismic resistant structural systems. The January 17,
1994, Northridge Earthquake, however, caused unexpected damage to many
welded steel moment frame buildings. In general, the damage was
confined to beam-to-column connections that suffered brittle fracture
in the flange welds.
In response to these failures, NIST initiated a project to study
methods to modify existing buildings to improve their seismic
performance, in collaboration with the American Institute of Steel
Construction, the University of Texas, the University of California at
San Diego, and Lehigh University. Eighteen full-scale tests were
conducted on three different methods to reduce the stresses at the
beam-to-column connections.
The result of this multi-year effort was the publication of
comprehensive guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of existing welded
steel frame buildings as an AISC Design Guide. The guidelines provided
experimentally-validated response prediction models and design
equations for the three connection modification concepts that shift
loading from the welded joints into the beams, thus enabling the
structure to absorb the earthquake's energy in a non-brittle manner.
Test Methods for Structural Control Devices
Structural control devices, such as seismic isolation and passive
energy dissipators, have been installed in numerous structures
throughout the world and have proven to be effective in reducing both
motions and forces during earthquakes and strong winds. Still these
devices are generally produced in small quantities, specifically for
each application.
To guarantee that the devices will perform as the designer
expected, many building codes and guidelines recommend that the devices
be tested before installation. While some of these standards describe a
limited number of specific tests, widely accepted test standards do not
yet exist. Such standards are useful to designers, manufacturers, and
contractors, since they will make the process of validating these
devices consistent.
To address the issue NIST has developed two sets of testing
guidelines. The Guidelines for Pre-Qualification, Prototype, and
Quality Control Testing of Seismic Isolation Systems was issued in
1996. ASCE has developed and is currently balloting a national
consensus standard based on the NIST-developed isolation device testing
guidelines.
While seismic isolation is generally accepted in earthquake
engineering practice and recognized in the building codes in high-
seismic areas, passive structural dampers are still gaining acceptance
and semi-active devices are still in the development phase. NIST has
just issued Guidelines for Testing Passive Energy Dissipation Devices.
Biography for S. Shyam Sunder
Dr. Shyam Sunder is Chief of the Materials and Construction
Research Division in the Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL)
at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). He is
responsible for planning and directing the overall scientific and
technical programs, controlling the budget, and recruiting personnel
for the Division. The Materials and Construction Research Division
provides leadership for BFR's Homeland Security, Advanced Building
Materials, and Advanced Construction Technology Goals.
In his current position, Dr. Sunder:
is working with the BFRL Director Jack Snell to
develop and implement the Laboratory's homeland security
efforts via a public-private response plan involving a broad
coalition of organizations;
is the lead investigator for the NIST building and
fire safety investigation into the World Trade Center disaster;
is a member of the Executive Group of the Cement and
Concrete Reference Laboratory of the American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM) that is co-located at NIST;
leads BFRL's Construction Integration and Automation
Program in partnership with FIATECH, a consortium established
by the Construction Industry Institute (CII) in cooperation
with NIST, and is a member of CII's Breakthrough Strategy
Committee;
represents NIST on the four-member Interagency
Coordination Council for the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP);
is designated by the NIST Director to chair the
Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction
(ICSSC)--a group that recommends policies and practices to its
32 member-agencies on improving the seismic safety of federal
buildings nationwide; and
is U.S.-side chair of the Wind and Seismic Effects
Panel established under the U.S.-Japan Cooperative Program on
Natural Resources (UNJR).
Dr. Sunder was chief of the Structures Division from January 1998
until June 2002 when the Building Materials Division was merged with
the Structures Division and renamed the Materials and Construction
Research Division. From June 1996 to December 1997, Dr. Sunder was on
assignment to the Program Office, the principal staff office of the
NIST Director, first as Program Analyst and later as Senior Program
Analyst for NIST. In 1994, Dr. Sunder joined NIST's Building Materials
Division as Manager of BFRL's newly created High-Performance
Construction Materials and Systems Program and served in that position
until June 1996. This program was in support of CONMAT, a public-
private R&D program created by the Civil Engineering Research
Foundation in partnership with 11 key sectors of the construction
materials industry. Dr. Sunder worked with the $100 B/year concrete
construction industry to plan an advanced research program and document
its economic and commercial benefits. This led to the creation of the
Strategic Development Council, bringing together industry executives
for the first: time ever to conduct leveraged R&D. He also studied key
factors affecting quality, productivity, and innovation among the small
firms that make up 85 percent of the more than one million firms in
construction.
Dr. Sunder's awards include the Gilbert W. Winslow Career
Development Chair (1985-87) and the Doherty Professorship in Ocean
Utilization (1987-89) from MIT, the Walter L. Huber Civil Engineering
Research Prize (1991) from the American Society of Civil Engineers, and
the Equal Employment Opportunity Award (1997) from NIST.
Statement of the NEHRP Coalition
1015 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005; Phone: 202-326-5140; Fax:
202-289-6797
Chairman Smith and Members of the Subcommittee:
The below signed ten members of the NEHRP Coalition, representing
the scientific, architecture, design and engineering communities
responsible for earthquake hazard mitigation are pleased to offer this
testimony on the reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP).
The earthquake risk to the Nation is unacceptably high and growing
daily. We are facing inevitable earthquakes, any one of which alone can
cost the Nation $100 to $200 billion. The reauthorization of NEHRP can
address this, but it will require additional continuous research,
expanded seismic monitoring, and nationwide mitigation. Earthquake
occurrence in the United States is not restricted to any single
geographical area. All or parts of 39 states are vulnerable to
earthquakes.
NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM
The NEHRP Coalition believes that Congress, in reauthorizing NEHRP,
should take the necessary steps to strengthen this critical program.
Earthquakes are among the most devastating of all natural hazards. To
find ways to reduce the devastation, NEHRP, enacted in 1977, funds
earthquake related activities of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Despite continuing need, appropriations for NEHRP have decreased
significantly in real dollars since the late 1970's.
Earthquake occurrence in the United States is not restricted to any
single geographical area. All or parts of 39 states are within zones
where the probability of an earthquake occurring exists. Recent
research indicates that areas in the eastern and central United States
are at greater risk of earthquake occurrence than earlier evidence
indicated.
Recent events substantiate that many public buildings cannot
survive a major earthquake. In many cases, federal buildings are less
earthquake-resistant than nearby privately-owned buildings.
Because of funding cuts, programs to develop safer buildings and
other structures, including lifelines, have been reduced and existing
research facilities have been underutilized. In addition, some
excellent earthquake researchers have left the field. There is also
evidence that much of the engineering research that has been
accomplished under NEHRP has not been applied effectively. NEHRP has
produced numerous recommendations for standards for new and existing
buildings, lifelines and other structures. These provisions have yet to
be fully implemented by local governments. As such, there is inadequate
transfer of findings to those who help communities prepare for
earthquakes. Funds have not been available to help localities improve
building codes and zoning provisions in order to improve building
safety.
SUCCESSES OF THE NEHRP PROGRAM
Over the past 25 years, NEHRP has provided a wealth of information
useful to both the scientific and engineering practice resulting in a
significant benefit to the public. The USGS has developed and published
uniform earthquake hazard maps that clearly identify the expected
earthquake ground shaking at any location in the Nation. NSF, through
their grants to university researchers, has funded the development of
new engineering analysis and design techniques that allow engineers to
make better and more cost effective decisions related to seismic
design. FEMA has been able to leverage a small amount of funding into
an impressive series of design guidelines, standards and codes that
have spread the experience of a few to engineers nationwide. NIST has
developed standards for federal buildings that have encouraged owners
nationwide to recognize the earthquake vulnerabilities of their
communities. It has been a successful program with significant results.
Determining the proper seismic hazard level for a community is
still the most consequential information needed for seismic resistant
design. The new USGS hazard maps, developed in conjunction with
structural engineers, have significantly influenced the engineering
community. Some areas in the Nation, such as the Central Valley of
California, have learned that the potential earthquake shaking is much
lower than traditionally thought. To reduce their vulnerability, some
of California's essential business operational facilities have been
relocated to these low seismic areas and the need for and cost of
seismic rehabilitation in these areas has been significantly reduced.
At the other extreme, areas of the Nation, such as the Portland Oregon
area, have learned that their seismic exposure is much greater and
steps are being taken to increase their resilience to damage through
new codes and rehabilitation programs.
Because of the detailed, scientifically based maps, billions of
dollars of construction is being spent more wisely, both in terms of
reduced initial construction costs and reductions in expected future
damage. Similar examples could be cited across the Nation.
Buildings today all over the world are being built on isolation
systems or have energy absorbing systems built within their structures.
These advanced construction techniques grew out of fundamental NSF
research begun in the late 1970's by Professor James Kelly and others
at the University of California at Berkeley. Their work was ``curiosity
based'' and not held in high regard at the time. Over the past 30 years
it has matured into a commonly used system that protects essential
facilities and historic structures in a superior manner. Basic NSF
funded research such as this has yielded dozens of analysis and design
techniques that are of significant benefit to the public and the
Nation.
The Nation's ability to arrest the growth of its seismic
vulnerability and reduce it to acceptable levels depends on the efforts
of all practicing engineers nationwide. FEMA, recognizing the need for
published guidelines and standards, has leveraged the volunteer talents
of an army of engineers by providing travel funds, meeting spaces, and
publication support. Over the past 20 years, dozens of FEMA ``Yellow
Books'' have been published on various aspects of seismic design and
rehabilitation. For example, the American Society of Civil Engineers,
has been able to use this material in their standards process to
produce state of the art design standards such and as ASCE 7 and ASCE
31. These new standards are used to train engineers nationwide and
guide their seismic design and rehabilitation efforts. These efforts,
in turn are providing the Nation with a much more reliable constructed
environment.
COALITION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REAUTHORIZATION
The NEHRP Coalition asks that in reauthorizing NEHRP, Congress
provide for stronger leadership, increased authorization and improved
interagency coordination. In a broad sense, the Coalition supports
``Securing Society Against Catastrophic Earthquake Losses,'' a study
recently completed by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
(EERI) with funding from NSF. The report lays out a vision for the
future of earthquake research and outreach focused on securing the
Nation from the catastrophic impacts of earthquakes. The report was
prepared by a cross disciplinary panel of scientists, engineers and
social scientists, and has been endorsed by numerous professional
organizations involved in earthquake research.
The report comprises the following five research and outreach
programs:
Understanding Seismic Hazards--developing new models
of earthquakes based on fundamental physics.
Assessing Earthquake Impacts--evaluating the
performance of the built environment by simulating performance
of structures and entire urban systems.
Reducing Earthquake Impacts--developing new
materials, structural and nonstructural systems, lifeline
systems, tsunami protection, fire protection systems and land
use measures.
Enhancing Community Resilience--exploring new ways to
effectively reduce risk and improve the decision-making
capability of stakeholders.
Expanding Education and Public Outreach--improving
the education of engineers and scientists from elementary
school to advanced graduate education, and providing
opportunities for the public to learn about earthquake risk
reduction.
Success in research will only matter if that research finds its way
into practical use. The translation of research knowledge into practice
is more than simply disseminating research findings. The report
outlines programs to improve the exchange of knowledge and acceptance
of new technology and processes during design and construction of new
structures as well as in retrofitting older structures.
Technology--ANSS & NEES
Information technologies will play an increasing role in earthquake
research in the future. Two applications central to that vision are the
Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) and the George E. Brown, Jr.
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES).
ANSS, authorized by Congress in 2000, is intended to expand the
current monitoring system and provide the needed information to
maximize our understanding of how specific buildings performed during
earthquakes. Strong motion information is critical to making the next
quantum leap in understanding how to economically arrest the growth of
earthquake risk. ANSS is a critical new program needed by NEHRP and
must be funded at an adequate level.
NEES, established by the NSF, will expand knowledge through new
methods for experimental and computational simulation. Currently, many
new experimental research sites are being put in place around the
country, and a system to link into a sophisticated testing and
simulation program is being developed. Unfortunately, funds to carry
out the research that will make use of this new equipment and
simulation technology have not been authorized. Knowledge developed
through experiments and simulation methodologies provide the essential
scientific knowledge base for improving codes and guidelines. Social
science and education research will complement this by helping to
better understand and communicate the implications and choices that
must be made. An immediate investment in NEES is needed to reduce the
cost of seismic design and to strengthen and stimulate significant
mitigation activities.
Funding Levels
In order to implement the plan envisioned by the NEHRP Strategic
Plan and the EERI report and to increase the effectiveness of NEHRP, it
is essential that Congress raise funding levels for NEHRP. The
undersigned organizations support increasing funding levels to $358
million a year for the first five years of a twenty-year program.
Despite real needs, the funding level for NEHRP has remained flat for
many years, which translates into a significant decrease in real
funding. This trend must be reversed if we are to reduce our nation's
vulnerability to earthquakes to acceptable levels.
Finally, it is important to recognize the immense leverage from
NEHRP for improvements in the reliability and security of buildings,
transportation systems, water supplies, gas and liquid fuel networks,
electric power, telecommunications, and waste disposal facilities.
NEHRP provides an enormous return on investment that substantially
reduces our nation's vulnerability to earthquakes and, at the same
time, improves the performance of its civil infrastructure for both
normal operation and extreme events.
CONCLUSION
The first 25 years of NEHRP have proven that limited federal funds,
applied to the Nation's earthquake vulnerability, can be leveraged 100
times over in terms of savings in construction and limiting the losses
after an earthquake. We believe that the program is just now hitting
its stride and reaching full maturity, and is well equipped to handle
additional funds that will provide new levels of understanding about
the vulnerability and tools for the analysis and design. Significant
progress will then be made toward reducing the Nation's vulnerability
to an acceptable level.
Thank you for this opportunity to express our views. The NEHRP
Coalition is ready to assist in any way we can. If you have questions
or need additional information, contact Martin Hight, Senior Manager,
Government Relations, American Society of Civil Engineers at (202) 326-
5125 or by e-mail at [email protected].
This statement is endorsed by the following members of the NEHRP
Coalition:
American Geological Institute
American Institute of Architects
American Society of Civil Engineers
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
Mid-America Earthquake Center
National Fire Protection Association
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries
Portland Cement Association
Seismological Society of America
World Institute for Disaster Risk Management
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Washington Office: 1015 15th Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C.
20005-2605; (202) 789-2200; Fax: (202) 289-6797; Web: http://
www.asce.org
Chairman Smith and Members of the Subcommittee:
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is pleased to offer
this testimony on the reauthorization of the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP).
ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country's oldest national civil
engineering organization. It represents more than 125,000 civil
engineers in private practice, government, industry and academia who
are dedicated to the advancement of the science and profession of civil
engineering. ASCE is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational and
professional society.
NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM
ASCE believes that Congress, in reauthorizing NEHRP, should take
the necessary steps to strengthen this critical program. Earthquakes
are among the most devastating of all natural hazards. To find ways to
reduce the devastation NEHRP, enacted in 1977, funds earthquake related
activities of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Science
Foundation (NSF), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Despite continuing
need, appropriations for NEHRP have decreased significantly in real
dollars since the late 1970's.
Earthquake occurrence in the United States is not restricted to any
single geographical area. All or parts of 39 states are within zones
where the probability of an earthquake occurring is great. Recent
research indicates that areas in the eastern and central United States
are at greater risk of earthquake occurrence than earlier evidence
indicated.
Recent events substantiate that many public buildings cannot
survive a major earthquake. In many cases, federal buildings are less
earthquake-resistant than nearby privately-owned buildings.
Because of funding cuts, programs to develop safer buildings and
other structures, including lifelines, have been reduced and existing
research facilities have been underutilized. In addition, some
excellent earthquake researchers have left the field. There is also
evidence that much of the engineering research that has been
accomplished under NEHRP has not been applied effectively. NEHRP has
produced numerous recommendations for standards for new and existing
buildings, lifelines and other structures. These provisions have yet to
be fully implemented by local governments. As such, there is inadequate
transfer of findings to those who help communities prepare for
earthquakes. Funds have not been available to help localities improve
building codes and zoning provisions in order to improve building
safety.
SUCCESSES
Over the past 25 years, NEHRP has provided a wealth of information
useful to engineering practice and therefore of significant benefit to
the public. The USGS has developed and published uniform earthquake
hazard maps that clearly identify the expected seismicity of any
location in the Nation. NSF, through their grants to university
researcher, has funded the development of new engineering analysis and
design techniques that allow engineers to make better and more cost
effective decisions related to seismic design. FEMA has been able to
leverage a small amount of funding into an impressive series of design
guidelines, standards and codes that have spread the experience of a
few to engineers nationwide. NIST has developed standards for federal
buildings that have encouraged owners nationwide to recognize the
earthquake vulnerabilities of their communities. It has been a
successful program with significant results.
Determining the proper seismic hazard level for a community is
still the most consequential information needed for seismic resistant
design. The new USGS hazard maps, develop in conjunction with
Structural Engineers, have significantly influenced engineering
community. Some areas in the Nation, such as the Central Valley of
California, have learned that their seismicity is much lower than
traditionally held. Some of California's essential business operational
facilities have been relocated to these low seismic areas to reduce
their vulnerability and the need for and cost of seismic rehabilitation
in these areas has been significantly reduced. At the other extreme,
areas of the Nation, such as in the Portland Oregon area, have learned
that their seismic exposure is much greater and steps are being taken
to increase their resilience to damage through new codes and
rehabilitation programs. Because of the detailed, scientifically based
maps, billions of dollars of construction is being spent more wisely,
both in terms of reduced construction costs and reductions in expected
damage. Similar example could be cited across the Nation.
Buildings today all over the world are being built on isolation
systems or have energy absorbing systems built within their structures.
These advanced construction techniques grew out of fundamental NSF
research begun by Dr. Jim Kelly at the University of California at
Berkeley and others in the late 1970's. Their work was ``curiosity
based'' and not held in high regard at the time. Over the past 30 years
it has matured into a commonly used system that protects essential
facility and historic structures in a superior manner. Basic NSF funded
research, such as this, has yield dozens of analysis and design
techniques that are of significant benefit to the public and the
Nation.
The Nation's ability to arrest the growth of its seismic
vulnerability and reduce it to acceptable levels depends on the efforts
of all practicing engineers, nationwide. FEMA, recognizing the need for
published guidelines and standards, has leveraged the volunteer talents
of an army of engineers by providing travel funds, meeting spaces, and
publication support. Over the past 20 years, dozens of FEMA ``Yellow
Books'' have been published on various aspects of seismic design and
rehabilitation. ASCE has been able to use this material in their
standards process to produce state of the art design standards such and
ASCE 7 and ASCE 31. These new standards are used to train engineers
nationwide and guide their seismic design and rehabilitation efforts.
These efforts, in turn are providing the Nation with a much more
reliable constructed environment.
The first 25 years of NEHRP has proven that limited federal funds,
applied to the Nation's earthquake vulnerability, can be leveraged 100
times over in terms of savings in construction and limiting the loss
after an earthquake. We believe that the program is just now developing
its stride and maturity and is ready for additional funds that will
provide new levels of understanding about the vulnerability and tools
for the analysis and design. Significant progress will then be made
toward reducing the Nation's vulnerability to an acceptable level.
ASCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Specifically, ASCE asks that in reauthorizing NEHRP, Congress
provides for stronger leadership, increased authorization and improved
interagency coordination. Further, ASCE supports changes to NEHRP
which:
Increase applied research, testing, and accelerated
technology transfer of research results.
Adopt and enforce standards for seismic design and
construction of new and existing public buildings.
Adopt and enforce building codes and zoning
provisions to incorporate improved seismic design and
construction standards of new and existing buildings and
lifelines by State and local governments and by industry.
Improve earthquake preparedness, particularly for
building safety, lifeline systems and emergency response.
Increase public education about earthquakes and
engineering concepts for hazard reduction.
Additionally, ASCE supports practices and policies to assist local
communities in the use of state-of-the-art performance standards for
existing critical, essential, educational and disaster-recovery
facilities, such as hospitals, schools and emergency shelters. There
needs to be improvements in community preparedness and related civil
infrastructure to make them economically resilient to earthquake
hazards. Work must continue on development and adoption of nationally
accepted, consensus-based standards for evaluation and retrofit of
existing buildings. Finally, ASCE supports the development of national
seismic standards for new and existing lifelines.
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT
The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), with
financial support from the National Science Foundation, recently
published a report, ``Securing Society Against Catastrophic Earthquake
Losses.'' This report highlights the accomplishments of NEHRP along
with the challenges that still must be met. We have an opportunity to
build on the existing knowledge gained from past research and to create
new knowledge. The report contains a detailed plan, including cost
estimates, to meet those remaining challenges.
The report summary concludes that:
``The earthquake engineering community is poised for a
fundamental shift in the mitigation of earthquake risks by
developing new ways of thinking about the performance of
structures and new societal choices about seismic safety. The
time is now to launch a new, bold initiative to provide
security for the United States from the effects of catastrophic
earthquakes.''
ASCE encourages Congress to incorporate the recommendation of the
EERI report into the legislation to reauthorize NEHRP. It is time to
make a good program a great one.
Thank you for this opportunity to express our views. ASCE is ready
to assist in any way we can. If you have questions or need additional
information, contact Martin Hight, Senior Manager, Government Relations
at (202) 326-5125 or by e-mail at [email protected].
Appendix 2:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Anthony S. Lowe, Administrator, Federal Insurance
Mitigation Administration; Director, Mitigation Division,
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate (Federal
Emergency Management Agency), Department of Homeland Security
Questions submitted by Chairman Nick Smith
Q1. LMr. Lowe noted during the hearing that the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) has not submitted the coordinated budget
request report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required
by Section 206 of Public Law 106-503. The Committee views these
reporting requirements essential to ensuring that each agency's
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) expenditures are
coordinated to create synergy and adequately reflect the Program's
objectives. Please explain why this report has not been submitted.
A1. Since the language for Section 206 was included in the
authorization of the NEHRP program, FEMA, now part of the Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate (EP&R), has taken the
requirements very seriously. As the NEHRP agencies moved toward
completing the NEHRP Strategic Plan, EP&R considered the Plan a
surrogate format that would satisfy the requirements of Section 206.
Despite the fact that the issuance of the Plan was delayed, EP&R and
the other NEHRP agencies were initiating and continuing work pursuant
to the Plan within their respective existing resources. The Strategic
Plan has served as the platform for compliance with Section 206 and has
been a critical linkage in the coordination among the NEHRP agencies.
The Strategic Plan created the synergy necessary to adequately reflect
the Program's objectives.
EP&R has put into place changes that will allow explicit compliance
with Section 206 for the future. Those changes include:
The other NEHRP agencies have agreed with EP&R's
proposal for an overall Management Plan. This Management Plan
will articulate NEHRP priorities in the context of the policies
of the Administration and will be used to guide the efforts of
the senior career levels of the NEHRP, the Interagency
Coordinating Committee, or ICC.
In conjunction with the Management Plan, we will
collaborate in the development of an annual Plan of Work, which
will lay out each of the proposed activities from the Strategic
Plan that we intend to accomplish during the year. This
coordinated effort will ensure that activities are
complementary. Each of these proposed activities will be
justified, using the Strategic Plan, to demonstrate its
importance in advancing the stated NEHRP objectives and goals.
For each planned activity, we will explicitly identify
associated funding requirements that are also represented in
each agency's overall request for appropriations.
The guidance from EP&R to each agency for the
preparation of requests for appropriations, as required by
Section 206, will occur in the form of our coordination of the
development of the annual Plan of Work in concert with the
Strategic Plan.
EP&R will submit the Plan of Work as the overall
NEHRP annual budget request to OMB, and this will satisfy our
agency requirements, as well as the overall program
requirement.
Q2. Section 406 (C) of Public Law 107-296 states that FEMA ``shall
have the primary responsibility within the executive branch to prepare
for and mitigate the effects of nonterrorist-related disasters in the
United States.'' However, the Committee learned on May 2nd that $4.4
million in FEMA Emergency Management Performance (EMP) Grants would be
administered from the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) within the
Border and Transportation Security Directorate, which is dedicated to
protecting the country from acts of terrorism.
Q2a. Given that ODP is not one of the four NEHRP agencies, why are
these funds considered part of the NEHRP budget?
Q2b. Please explain how the purpose and structure of ODP grant program
that will distribute the $4.4 million is related to the FEMA EMP Grants
program.
Q2c. How will FEMA ensure that an appropriate amount of ODP grants are
directed toward earthquake hazards mitigation?
A2a,b,c. In FY 2003, $4.4 million of NEHRP funds are provided to States
as part of the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPGs), along
with funds from other programs within EP&R. The EMPG program was
created in 1999 to consolidate funding streams to the states and to
allow state emergency management directors to direct resources to the
risk reduction priorities that they identify for their population at
risk from various hazards.
With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
EMPGs are being consolidated with other grants, to be managed by the
Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP), beginning in FY 2004.
Consolidating the management of grants will provide efficiency and cost
effectiveness in grants administration as it has under the EMPG
program.
As part of the Administration's effort to increase states'
flexibility in FY 2004, there is not explicit funding set aside for
this purpose. Of course, states may use the ODP funds for a similar
purpose if they so choose.
Q3. How many full-time equivalents within the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) are dedicated to NEHRP activities? How will DHS balance
staff-time devoted to carrying out day-to-day NEHRP activities with
other emergency needs such as responding to tornadoes and floods?
A3. Within DHS, 46 full-time equivalents (FTEs) are funded with NEHRP
funds, 30 FTEs at headquarters and 16 in the regional offices. The
headquarters contingent consists of 7 FTEs that are specifically
designated to work on NEHRP activities, 11 that are dedicated to multi-
hazard initiatives, and 12 support staff and management FTEs. EP&R's
staff resources are leveraged among the many programs, and the
functional alignment of EP&R's organization allows for the most
effective use of resident expertise. There are a number of EP&R
employees who work primarily in the NEHRP area, but who are funded from
other sources as well.
As with all EP&R programs, NEHRP employees are subject to
deployment during disaster situations.
Q4. Please provide written comments on:
Q4a. Witness testimony recommending the designation of a single OMB
examiner to review the NEHRP budget.
A4a. The Department of Homeland Security can not comment on the
staffing plan of the Office of Management and Budget. The Committee
will have to direct those questions directly to OMB.
Q4b. Witness testimony recommending the establishment of an external
advisory committee (much like the current USGS Scientific. Earthquake
Studies Advisory Committee) to provide recommendations on NEHRP.
A4b. In recent months EP&R has re-energized the high-level Policy
Coordinating Committee (PCC) to provide increased direction to the
Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC). This will be accomplished
through a Management Plan, which will guide the PCC's oversight of the
implementation of the NEHRP Strategic Plan. This Management Plan will
articulate NEHRP priorities in the context of the policies of the
Administration. In addition, the ICC will develop, each year, a Plan of
Work that will contain specific metrics, which will evolve over time
and will provide a results-oriented approach. This will assist the PCC
in gauging the success of NEHRP initiatives against the metrics, so
that the PCC can make decisions about how to effectively allocate NEHRP
resources. We believe that this system of oversight by the PCC,
previously dormant, will provide excellent support and direction for
NEHRP, obviating the need for an advisory committee.
Based on these management initiatives, as well as the newly formed
Research Coordination Subcommittee, we feel that an advisory committee
is not needed to provide guidance for NEHRP.
Q4c. The five-fold R&D program, priorities, and funding levels
detailed in the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute's (EERI)
Research and Outreach Plan.
A4c. In the National Science Foundation's (NSF) written testimony, it
``. . .supported the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI)
to develop a long-term research and education plan to advance the
state-of-the-art and the state-of-the-practice in earthquake
engineering and earthquake loss reduction. The result is a
comprehensive, community-held vision that includes buy-in from all
sectors and disciplines including academics, practicing engineers and
geoscientists, social scientists, and government employees and
regulators. . .''
EP&R supports the process through which this research and education
plan was developed because it represents a consensus of many of the
experts in the stakeholder community. EP&R anticipates that the EERI
plan will prove beneficial as we implement the NEHRP Strategic Plan,
particularly as we integrate components of other research plans, such
as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) research
plan (ATC 57), the performance-based earthquake engineering design plan
(ATC-58), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) research plan,
into our efforts, through the Research Coordination Subcommittee.
With respect to funding levels, the EERI plan calls for roughly a
tripling of the current NEHRP budget over the next 20 years. EP&R will
consider EERI recommendations as it develops the FY 2005 budget
request,
Q5. The National Science Foundation's written testimony noted the need
to develop an ``all-agency Internet portal for dissemination of
information about research opportunities and outcomes, news releases,
plans and activities in a form that can be easily accessed by the
research community at large.'' Is development of such a one-stop
shopping website for NEHRP planned for the near future?
A5. EP&R is in the process of developing a NEHRP website that will
reside on the EP&R server and will be the primary vehicle to
disseminate general NEHRP and EP&R programmatic information relevant to
NEHRP. The NEHRP website will provide linkage to other NEHRP
information including NEHRP agency websites, state earthquake program
websites, earthquake consortia websites, earthquake information
research institutions with relevant information or programs, relevant
associations and nonprofit organizations, and university programs.
EP&R has also set up a Research Coordination Subcommittee, under
the ICC, that is charged with identifying synergies among research
programs. This subcommittee is also charged with making research
findings more available to the NEHRP stakeholders, as well as to other
appropriate audiences. EP&R's NEHRP website will also encapsulate the
work of the subcommittee.
Questions submitted by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. Explain how the strategic plan influenced the FY 2004 budget
request for the earthquake program.
A1. The NEHRP Strategic Plan lays out the present and future activities
of NEHRP and its four agencies and is organized around the four goals
of the program, which are:
A. Develop effective practices and policies for earthquake
loss-reduction and accelerate their implementation.
B. Improve techniques to reduce seismic vulnerability of
facilities and systems.
C. Improve seismic hazard identification and risk assessment
methods and their use.
D. Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.
Although this Plan has only recently been approved by OMB and sent
to Congress, the four agencies have been operating and reporting
according to its draft guidance for two years, while remaining within
existing resource constraints. Therefore, each agency's 2004 budget
request for NEHRP activities was designed to fulfill the goals of the
Strategic Plan, while remaining within the Administration's 2004 budget
allowances.
Q2. What level of priority does NEHRP assign to completion of the
Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), and what efforts have been
made to get an adequate budget request for ANSS in the President's
budget submission?
A2. The NEHRP places the completion and implementation of ANSS among
its highest priorities. Specifically, its priority is described in the
recently released NEHRP Strategic Plan, Expanding and Using Knowledge
to Reduce Earthquake Losses. Page 12 of the Plan identifies the need
for real-time seismic monitoring and reporting of ground motion
intensities that would be provided by ANSS as the first of the
program's future challenges, opportunities, and priorities. Under that
section, the Plan states that:
``Recent and unprecedented advances in information technology,
telecommunications, and digital electronics now allow for real-
time, high fidelity monitoring of seismicity across the Nation.
An upgraded seismic monitoring system in the U.S. would enable
rapid assessments of the distribution and intensity of
earthquake shaking, thereby allowing emergency response
officials to assess, within minutes of an event, where the
damage is likely to be concentrated and how emergency resources
should be allocated. Someday, the new technology may even allow
for a few seconds of warning of impending strong seismic
shaking from distant earthquakes already in progress. The USGS
funds the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), an effort to
update current instrumentation and provide this real-time
monitoring capability.''
Further, the NEHRP Strategic Plan also lists this objective under
Goal C: ``Provide rapid, reliable information about earthquakes and
earthquake-induced damage.'' Under this objective, NEHRP specifically
calls for the implementation of ANSS.
The responsibility for securing adequate funding for ANSS or any
other program has historically been with the individual agency--in this
case the USGS. In the future, however, we will use the NEHRP Management
Plan to submit a coordinated and consolidated NEHRP budget request that
fully complies with Section 206.
Q3. Dr. O'Rourke in his testimony indicated that there are
insufficient research funds in NEHRP to take full advantage of the new
equipment and simulation facilities being made available by the George
Brown Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. Is this a subject
of discussion during the planning process for NEHRP? Explain how
program priorities being developed to balance research and research
infrastructure needs.
A3. The operation of the NEHRP over the last 25 years has worked within
the research community to establish what is essentially a market-driven
balance between funded research work and available research
infrastructure. With the advent of the first phase of the Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) program, we are presently
increasing the available research infrastructure. However, even more
important, with the remainder of the NEES program, we will be
significantly improving how this expanded research infrastructure can
be used through the NEES Co-Laboratory infrastructure. The NEES Co-
Laboratory will ultimately allow research to be done much more
efficiently, as it will allow researchers to utilize research
facilities via the Internet. So, while we are presently expanding the
available research infrastructure, we also in effect are lowering the
cost of doing research by making it easier for researchers to access
that expanded infrastructure.
The expansion of the research infrastructure under the first phase
of NEES was called for and directed by the Assessment of Earthquake
Engineering Research and Testing Capabilities in the United States, a
report prepared for NSF and NIST by EERI that was called for under the
NEHRP Reauthorization Act of October 1994. That report was published by
EERI in September 1995.
NSF has tasked the National Research Council to investigate
research needs post-NEES and to prepare a report documenting this
issue. This report is due to NSF later this year, and will be used as
part of our NEHRP planning process for funding future research. In
particular, this report will be utilized by the new Research
Coordination Subcommittee of the NEHRP ICC as it moves to improve the
coordination of NEHRP-funded research activities.
Appendix 3:
----------
Additional Material for the Record