    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       PACIFIC NORTHWEST SEISMIC HAZARDS:
                         PLANNING AND PREPARING FOR THE
                                 NEXT DISASTER

    =======================================================================

                                    (114-18)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
        ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 19, 2015

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
            committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation

                                      ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    94-639 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2016
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                      BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
    DON YOUNG, Alaska                    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee,      ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
      Vice Chair                             Columbia
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                JERROLD NADLER, New York
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            RICK LARSEN, Washington
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    RICHARD L. HANNA, New York           ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    JEFF DENHAM, California              JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin            ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              JANICE HAHN, California
    TOM RICE, South Carolina             RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            DINA TITUS, Nevada
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    MARK SANFORD, South Carolina         ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    ROB WOODALL, Georgia                 LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    TODD ROKITA, Indiana                 CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
    JOHN KATKO, New York                 JARED HUFFMAN, California
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    CRESENT HARDY, Nevada
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
    CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
    LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
                                    ------

     Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
                                   Management

                      LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania, Chairman
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina             Columbia
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania       DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia           DINA TITUS, Nevada
    CARLOS CURBELO, Florida              PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina             Officio)
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex       VACANCY
        Officio)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................    iv

                                   TESTIMONY

    Robert J. Fenton, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of
      Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency.....     4
    Scott A. Ashford, Ph.D., Dean, College of Engineering, Oregon
      State University...............................................     4
    Richard M. Allen, Ph.D., Director, Berkeley Seismological
      Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley.................     4
    John D. Hooper, Senior Principal and Director of Earthquake
      Engineering, Magnusson Klemencic Associates, on behalf of the
      American Society of Civil Engineers............................     4

              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon..................................    20

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

    Robert J. Fenton.................................................    27
    Scott A. Ashford, Ph.D...........................................    41
    Richard M. Allen, Ph.D...........................................    49
    John D. Hooper...................................................    52

                           SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

    Robert J. Fenton, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of
      Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
      responses to questions for the record..........................    35

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    PACIFIC NORTHWEST SEISMIC HAZARDS: PLANNING AND PREPARING FOR THE NEXT
                                    DISASTER

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2015

                      House of Representatives,
           Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
                   Buildings, and Emergency Management,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in
    room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ryan A. Costello
    presiding.
        Mr. Costello. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
    order. Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Pacific Northwest
    Seismic Hazards: Planning and Preparing for the Next
    Disaster.''
        The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency, FEMA's role in earthquake hazard
    preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. We are also
    going to speak with some of the world's leaders in seismology
    and earthquakes.
        I want to thank Ranking Member DeFazio for his leadership
    on this critical national issue. He has been an advocate for
    his State and the Pacific Northwest supporting preparedness and
    mitigation efforts and the development of a public west coast
    earthquake early warning system.
        Just last week, we saw the second devastating earthquake
    strike Nepal. Our thoughts and prayers go out to those impacted
    and the thousands that are working to help.
        We know earthquakes pose one of the greatest natural
    hazards here in the United States. They strike without warning
    and result in potentially catastrophic casualties and damage to
    buildings and infrastructure.
        Portions of all 50 States and the District of Columbia are
    vulnerable to earthquake hazards. Earthquakes cannot be
    prevented, but their impacts on life, property, and the economy
    can be managed.
        FEMA is responsible for coordinating the Federal response
    to a catastrophic earthquake and has been diligently working to
    help States plan and prepare for the inevitability of an
    earthquake. FEMA has a robust National Exercise Program that in
    recent years has tested State and regional earthquake response
    plans in Alaska, in the South and Midwest, along the New Madrid
    Seismic Zone, and just last week in California.
        We know that FEMA's national urban search and rescue teams
    are key assets in the wake of disasters like earthquakes. This
    Congress, H.R. 1471, the FEMA Disaster Assistance Reform Act of
    2015, which was voted out of committee in April, reauthorizes
    the USAR program and provides key protections to the
    individuals who serve on those teams.
        We also will hear from Dr. Ashford about the earthquake
    threat in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest and the efforts the
    State has led to bring together all members of the community to
    strengthen communities.
        While we are not able to predict earthquakes, I was excited
    to learn that Dr. Allen and his colleagues are working with the
    Federal Government to develop an earthquake early warning
    system.
        Finally, Mr. Hooper has been leading efforts to update
    model building codes to include the latest engineering and
    building science to minimize earthquake impacts on buildings.
    There are lessons to be learned from the efforts of leaders in
    the Pacific Northwest that should drive the way we plan for and
    mitigate against disasters.
        I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and thank them
    all for being here today.
        I now call on the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
    Carson, for a brief opening statement.
        Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Costello. And we acknowledge the
    ranking member, Mr. Peter DeFazio. My good friend Albio is here
    as well.
        Good morning. I join in welcoming today's witnesses for
    this important hearing.
        When someone hears ``earthquake,'' they immediately think
    of the west coast, but there are actually 42 States at
    significant risk for a quake. Indiana, the great Hoosier State,
    is one of them. Two major fault zones run in or near
    southwestern Indiana, the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone and the
    New Madrid Zone as well.
        In the past, the New Madrid Fault has produced magnitude 7
    to 8 earthquakes. If a 7.7 quake from the New Madrid Fault was
    to occur today, the Mid-America Earthquake Center estimates
    that it would damage 14,000 buildings, resulting in 2,000
    deaths, and cause $12 billion in direct economic loss in
    Indiana alone.
        The Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, plays an
    important role in helping the Nation address earthquake risks.
    I appreciate that the 2011 National Level Exercise tested
    earthquake plans in the New Madrid Zone. Indiana had many
    participants and learned a great deal, including the need to
    address urban search and rescue issues beforehand. As a result
    of this exercise, communication has increased among the States
    affected by the New Madrid Fault.
        Last year, several public and private agencies in Indiana
    participated in the Central United States Earthquake Consortium
    multistate CAPSTONE-14 exercise. That exercise assessed
    national and regional response and recovery capabilities after
    a quake on the New Madrid Zone. Building on the 2011 exercise,
    the Hoosier State focused on housing recovery support functions
    to address post-disaster housing issues and to facilitate
    delivery of resources to local governments for reconstruction.
    This exercise provides valuable insight into what works and
    what needs improvement.
        FEMA has statutory duties under the National Earthquake
    Hazards Reduction Program, or NEHRP, and I would like to see
    this subcommittee take a really more active role in the
    reauthorization of this program. We need to ensure that FEMA is
    fulfilling its mission and has adequate authority and funding
    levels to perform its duties. The GAO has identified no-notice
    catastrophic events such as earthquakes as one of the greatest
    emergency management challenges that FEMA faces. We cannot
    ignore this issue.
        And finally, I would be remiss to not recognize and commend
    the urban search and rescue teams that are assisting in the
    aftermath of the two recent Nepal quakes. Their training and
    skills are being put to effective use. Once again they are
    putting their lives at risk to help others around the world.
    This is a perfect example of why Congress needs to ensure the
    teams have the protection and benefits they deserve. Congress
    needs to move forward quickly on H.R. 1471, the FEMA Disaster
    Assistance Reform Act of 2015, which was recently reported from
    this committee.
        Thank you. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you, Ranking Member Carson.
        I now call on the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
    DeFazio.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate your
    bringing attention to this.
        I would observe, unfortunately, here in Washington, DC, we
    seem to have what I call a tombstone mentality, which if this
    were the day after the Cascadia Subduction Fault or a big
    earthquake on New Madrid the room would be packed, press would
    be out in the hallways, and we would have lines waiting.
        But the sad fact is that if we are better prepared, if we
    invest in resilience, if we invest in the case of the west
    coast and an early warning system, we can save potentially
    thousands of lives and billions of dollars in infrastructure
    and economic damages and losses.
        The Cascadia earthquake, basically it is inevitable. The
    question is when and what will we do to prepare for it before
    then. I did get a minor provision in H.R. 1471 that would
    encourage States to use hazard mitigation and support of
    building capability for earthquake warning, except,
    unfortunately, FEMA is underinvesting in that program.
        For the Pacific Northwest, Oregon, Washington, at risk, and
    northern California, for $38 million the Government of the
    United States of America could fund a real-time, at-sea-based
    early warning system which would give people halfway up the
    coast a couple of minutes to get out of inundation zones. It
    would give people in Portland maybe 7 minutes to shut down the
    Metro, get people off the bridges, shut down manufacturing
    processes, et cetera, over in the valley. We would have 5 to 7
    minutes to evacuate schools made out of bricks that are going
    to fall down and kill the kids.
        But we don't have that because we are the United States of
    America and we can't afford $38 million to save thousands of
    lives. And then everybody would be pointing fingers the day
    after the quake and say: Why didn't we do that, just like with
    Amtrak, and we can and we should. And so I am really pleased
    you are holding this hearing here today.
        I want to particularly thank Dr. Scott Ashford, dean of
    Oregon State University's College of Engineering. He has worked
    very closely with the State of Oregon on an earthquake
    resilience plan. We are really at the beginning stages. Our
    legislature is deciding whether to commit more and how much
    State money to that sort of predisaster investment, and he has
    played a very key role in that.
        With that, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Oh, I would like to put my entire statement, which is long
    and very thoughtful and more detailed, in the record, without
    objection.
        Mr. Costello. Without objection. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio.
        We will have a single panel of witnesses today. We have Mr.
    Robert J. Fenton, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of
    Response and Recovery at FEMA; Dr. Scott A. Ashford, dean of
    the College of Engineering at Oregon State University; Dr.
    Richard M. Allen, director of the Berkeley Seismological
    Laboratory at UC Berkeley; and Mr. John Hooper, senior
    principal and director of Earthquake Engineering at MKA
    [Magnusson Klemencic Associates], representing the American
    Society of Civil Engineers.
        I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements
    be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
        Since your written testimony has been made a part of the
    record, the subcommittee would request that you limit your oral
    testimony to 5 minutes.
        Mr. Fenton, you may proceed.

    TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. FENTON, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,
     OFFICE OF RESPONSE AND RECOVERY, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
    AGENCY; SCOTT A. ASHFORD, PH.D., DEAN, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
      OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY; RICHARD M. ALLEN, PH.D., DIRECTOR,
     BERKELEY SEISMOLOGICAL LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
    BERKELEY; AND JOHN D. HOOPER, SENIOR PRINCIPAL AND DIRECTOR OF
      EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, MAGNUSSON KLEMENCIC ASSOCIATES, ON
           BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS

        Mr. Fenton. Vice Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Carson,
    and members of the distinguished subcommittee, as a fifth-
    generation San Franciscan who has served 13 years for FEMA
    Region IX's Oakland office in California and will soon be
    reporting as its Regional Administrator, I understand the
    significant threats that catastrophic earthquakes pose to our
    Nation. We have seen in recent weeks the devastating
    consequences of both the 7.3 and 7.8 magnitude earthquakes that
    struck Nepal, and our thoughts continue to be with the
    survivors.
        Catastrophic earthquakes of that magnitude in an urban area
    in the United States would impact millions of people and cause
    profound social and economic impacts. That is why it is vitally
    important that the Federal Government maintain a forward-
    leaning posture and be ready to act decisively at the direction
    of the President to effectively support State, local, tribal,
    and territorial governments in saving lives and protecting
    property.
        I appreciate the opportunity today to update you on FEMA
    and our whole-community partner efforts to improve our Nation's
    preparedness for earthquake threats and to maintain our
    readiness to respond.
        Over the past 4 years, and at the direction of the
    President, FEMA and our partners have worked to develop and
    implement the National Preparedness System, which includes a
    national planning framework for each of the five mission areas:
    prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery.
    These frameworks identify how the whole community will build
    and deliver the core capabilities required to address the
    threats that pose the greatest risks to our Nation.
        In support of the national response and recovery
    frameworks, we recently developed Federal interagency
    operational plans which are all-hazards plans based on a
    maximum of maximums scenario that includes catastrophic
    incidents and cascading impacts, including a major earthquake.
        In addition to the Federal interagency operational plans,
    FEMA has developed five national-level incident annexes, one of
    which is focused on earthquakes.
        In addition, we have recently facilitated the development
    of all-hazards plans in each of our 10 regions and developed 31
    regional incident annexes. The one I am holding today is for
    the Cascadia Subduction Zone in the Pacific Northwest.
        Recognizing this, FEMA, in coordination with our State,
    local, tribal, and territorial partners, is constantly seeking
    ways to improve our ability to address potential threats and
    risks associated with catastrophic events such as earthquakes.
    Through our National Exercise Program, the whole community
    continues to test, improve, and assess national preparedness
    across the whole homeland security enterprise.
        This year FEMA participated in the southern California
    earthquake exercise involving a magnitude 7.8 earthquake on the
    San Andreas Fault. FEMA, in conjunction with our partners, is
    analyzing the results of the exercise and will integrate
    lessons learned into our plans, doctrine, and operations as
    required.
        In addition to the planning and exercising that FEMA
    supports with our whole community partners, I also want to
    highlight our efforts in improving individual preparedness for
    earthquakes.
        In 2013, FEMA and our partners unveiled the America's
    PrepareAthon, a nationwide community-based campaign for action
    to increase emergency preparedness and resilience. A major
    activity of the America's PrepareAthon is the Great Shakeout,
    an exercise whereby millions of people participate in
    earthquake drills. We continue to see increasing levels of
    participation in the Great Shakeout.
        I would also like to highlight that FEMA has made
    significant strides in alert and warning systems through our
    Integrated Public Alert and Warning System for all hazards
    called IPAWS. Early detection for earthquakes can be difficult.
    However, I am encouraged by our State partners that are
    actively installing sensors in the ground to warn of earthquake
    activities as early as possible.
        In conclusion, FEMA is one part of the whole community
    effort that is required to effectively prepare for, respond to,
    and recover from disasters. The response to a major earthquake
    along one of our Nation's fault lines will require resources
    from across all levels of Government, private sector, and
    nongovernmental organizations and the public. These are the
    scenarios that we are planning to exercise against, and we are
    adapting the way we do business based on these lessons learned.
        As outlined in our Administrator's and our agency's 2014
    through 2018 strategic plan, we are focusing on strategic
    priorities, including becoming an expeditionary organization
    and posturing and building capability for catastrophic
    disasters. That will help to institutionalize key improvements
    while building capacity and strengthening national capabilities
    for disaster preparedness.
        I look forward to working with you, distinguished members
    of this subcommittee, and other Members of Congress, to
    continue these important efforts. I am prepared to answer any
    questions the subcommittee has. Thank you.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Fenton.
        Dr. Ashford, you may proceed.
        Mr. Ashford. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    committee. My is Scott Ashford. I am dean of the College of
    Engineering at Oregon State University. I am pleased to be
    before you today testifying on my role as chair of our
    Governor's Task Force on Resilience Plan Implementation. As
    chair, I was responsible for advancing Oregon on a path towards
    resilience in the face of the upcoming mega-quake along the
    Cascadia Subduction Zone, perhaps the greatest impending
    natural disaster to face the United States.
        I have seen firsthand communities destroyed by earthquakes.
    Most recently, in Japan I saw the devastation left by the 2011
    9.0 subduction zone earthquake and tsunami that killed over
    15,000 people and wiped entire communities off the map.
        This is a mirror image of what we expect in the Pacific
    Northwest. The Cascadia Subduction Zone extends from northern
    California to British Columbia, where a 9.0 magnitude
    earthquake felt from Salt Lake to San Francisco will shake 3 to
    5 minutes and a tsunami will inundate much of the coastline,
    killing thousands. The last major Cascadia event occurred in
    the year 1700, and we are now due.
        The biggest challenge for Oregon is our legacy
    infrastructure, vulnerable buildings, bridges, and pipelines
    that were built before anyone knew that the Cascadia was
    active.
        This problem is not unique. States in the New Madrid Fault
    Zone, like Indiana, Arkansas, and Kentucky, are also
    seismically vulnerable because of their legacy infrastructure.
        Oregon leaders recognized the need to prepare for the
    eventual likelihood of a Cascadia event and called for the
    Oregon Resilience Plan. Our vision is that 50 years from now
    our businesses and communities will have the resilience to
    bounce back from this mega-quake. The 300-page report completed
    in 2013 contains over 140 different recommendations, and,
    frankly, it was difficult to figure out where to start.
        To find a path forward, the legislature formed the
    Governor's Task Force on Resilience Plan Implementation, which
    I chaired. Our specific recommendations were submitted to the
    legislature last September in a 2-page report, which I have
    submitted as part of my testimony. Based on our report, four
    bills now sit in our State's Senate Ways and Means Committee
    waiting for action.
        Today, I would like to focus on our recommendations in just
    three areas where the Federal Government plays a key role in
    working in partnership with States and private enterprise.
        In transportation, mobility is critical to rescue, relief,
    and recovery efforts following a natural disaster and for the
    economy to start moving so that people can get back to work.
    Our State knows what we need to do, but the price tag for the
    seismic retrofit program in Oregon is over $5 billion. The
    first phase alone, to strengthen our bridges and prevent
    landslides in the Cascadia event only along key lifeline
    routes, is $1 billion. This is definitely an area where
    enhanced State-Federal partnership is needed, where the State
    is stuck with a plan but really no money to act.
        Around liquid fuels, 90 percent of all liquid fuel used in
    Oregon comes into one single location extremely vulnerable to
    damage in an earthquake. But due to the interstate nature of
    liquid fuel transmission, Oregon has no regulatory authority to
    act. This is another area where the Federal Government can work
    with affected States to require seismic resilience of federally
    regulated utilities.
        And finally in research, with the unique combination of a
    9.0 earthquake and the legacy infrastructure, applied research
    is a way that we can assure that precious taxpayer dollars are
    used in the most value- and cost-informed manner possible.
    Businesses already understand this. Companies like Portland
    General Electric and Northwest Natural Gas have joined the BPA
    [Bonneville Power Administration], the Port of Portland, and
    ODOT [Oregon Department of Transportation] to form the Cascadia
    Lifelines Program at Oregon State University. These lifeline
    providers pool and direct their research dollars in a
    consortium aimed at finding solutions to the seismic challenges
    that they jointly face.
        Key legislature opportunities in the Congress that can
    facilitate effective public-private partnerships for applied
    research include the highway bill with university
    transportation centers, the National Earthquake Hazards
    Reduction Program, and seismic research funded by FEMA, NIST
    [National Institute of Standards and Technology], NSF [National
    Science Foundation], the USGS [U.S. Geological Survey], and the
    FHWA [Federal Highway Administration].
        In closing, the Cascadia Subduction Zone is estimated to be
    the single greatest natural threat facing the United States.
    Oregon is taking steps on its own to mitigate this threat.
    Other West Coast States and those in the New Madrid Fault Zone
    can follow our example.
        It will take decades and significant resources to improve
    our resilience, but we need to start now, and we need to all
    work together collaboratively across Governments, academia, and
    the private sector. The Federal Government is a critical
    partner in our ability as a State, a region, and a country to
    effectively prepare for this impending natural disaster.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the subcommittee, for the
    opportunity to appear before you today, and I stand ready to
    answer any questions that you might have.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you for your testimony, Dr. Ashford.
        Dr. Allen, you may proceed.
        Mr. Allen. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee.
        The Pacific Northwest must be ready for a magnitude 9
    earthquake. Recent magnitude 9 events around the world include
    the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake in Japan and the 2004 Sumatra
    earthquake. These are responsible for tens and hundreds of
    thousands of lives lost. The last magnitude 9 in the Pacific
    Northwest was just over 300 years ago, and we are now in the
    period when we should expect the next megathrust earthquake.
        My name is Richard Allen. I am the director of the UC
    Berkeley Seismological Laboratory and a professor of earth and
    planetary science. I am also one of the architects of the
    ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system, a new technology
    that we hope to roll out along the U.S. west coast to reduce
    the impacts of the next big earthquake. We would very much like
    to build this warning system before the next earthquake occurs,
    but to do that will require action from this legislature.
        The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning project is a
    collaboration between the University of Washington, the
    University of Oregon, the University of California, Berkeley,
    the California Institute of Technology, the U.S. Geological
    Survey, and several State agencies. We are now operating a
    demonstration earthquake early warning system that issues
    alerts to a group of test users for events throughout
    Washington, Oregon, and California.
        So what is earthquake early warning? By using networks of
    geophysical sensors distributed across the west coast, we can
    rapidly detect the beginnings of an earthquake. ShakeAlert then
    estimates the size of the event and predicts the shaking
    intensity that will follow. The warning time depends on the
    distance from the initiation point. In the case of the Pacific
    Northwest, if a magnitude 9 starts at the southern end of the
    Cascadia Subduction Zone, as research suggests, Portland could
    receive 3 minutes of warning and Seattle as much as 5 minutes.
        There are many things that can be done to reduce the
    impacts of earthquakes with a few minutes of warning. One of my
    colleagues, Professor Doug Toomey, at the University of Oregon,
    asked one of his local elementary school principals how long it
    would take to evacuate his 350-student school built in 1926.
    His answer: 1\1/2\ minutes. This is just 1 of 1,000 schools
    that a recent Oregon State survey concluded would collapse in a
    magnitude 9 earthquake.
        Studies of injuries caused by the 1994 Northridge
    earthquake show that more than 50 percent were caused by
    falling hazards, bookcases, ceiling tiles, lighting fixtures,
    et cetera. If everyone gets a warning, and if everyone drops,
    takes cover, and holds on, then we could reduce the number of
    earthquake injuries by 50 percent.
        Other applications of earthquake early warning include
    automated response of transportation systems, isolation of
    hazardous machinery and chemicals, opening elevator doors at
    the nearest floors to stop people from being trapped, and
    alerting surgeons to remove the scalpel from inside a patient.
        The existing west coast ShakeAlert demonstration system has
    proven the capabilities of this technology. In the recent
    magnitude 6 earthquake in Napa, California, ShakeAlert issued a
    warning across the San Francisco Bay area. Although this is
    only a demonstration system, it is of such value to the BART
    train system in the region that they have already implemented
    an automated train-stopping system.
        It takes BART just 24 seconds to bring a full-speed train
    to a stop, thereby reducing the likelihood of derailment.
    During peak hours at any point in time, there are between 40
    and 45 trains running at full speed, each carrying 1,000
    passengers.
        Earthquake early warning is not a panacea for the
    earthquake problem in the Pacific Northwest. It will not
    prevent buildings from collapsing, and we must continue to make
    progress improving our buildings so they will not collapse, as
    Dr. Ashford was just discussing. At the same time, ShakeAlert
    provides a new opportunity to reduce the impact of coming
    quakes.
        So what will it take to build an earthquake early warning
    system for the U.S. west coast? The U.S. Geological Survey is
    the Federal agency with the responsibility for issuing alerts,
    but there is a critical role for the private sector. Their
    expertise is needed to distribute the alerts broadly through
    cell phones, Internet providers, TV, and radio. Building a
    public warning system will also create new business
    opportunities to provide specialized alerts to specific users
    and the development of automated control systems.
        Building the system is not expensive. The U.S. Geological
    Survey has developed an implementation plan for the U.S. west
    coast. This system could be operational in 2 years if the
    necessary funding is made available. The cost of operating the
    system would be $16.5 million per year above what is currently
    spent.
        Last year, Congress appropriated $5 million to begin the
    process of transitioning from the current demonstration system
    to a full-blown public system. Thank you for that. The U.S.
    Geological Survey and west coast universities are now using
    those resources to improve the geophysical network
    infrastructure to make the current system faster and more
    robust. This is a great first step, but the full implementation
    plan needs to be funded.
        In closing, the earthquake threat along the U.S. west coast
    increases every day as the strain on the faults builds. It is
    not if, but when will the next earthquake strike, and we are
    due for an earthquake in multiple locations.
        Earthquake early warning is a new and important tool to
    have in our disaster preparedness kit. Japan has a warning
    system, Mexico has a warning system, China, Taiwan, Turkey, and
    Romania have systems.
        If there was an earthquake today, I believe we would build
    this warning system tomorrow. Let's not miss this opportunity
    and let's get ShakeAlert funded today.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Costello. Dr. Allen, thank you.
        Mr. Hooper, please proceed.
        Mr. Hooper. Vice Chairman Costello and distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, I am John Hooper, a senior
    principal and director of earthquake engineering with MKA in
    Seattle. On behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
    it is my pleasure to provide this testimony.
        In addition to designing building structures throughout the
    country, I have also participated in building code development
    and earthquake engineering research for over three decades. I
    have served in various capacities for these efforts, and am
    currently the chair of the American Society of Civil Engineers
    Seismic Subcommittee.
        This subcommittee is tasked with developing the seismic
    requirements for the vast majority of jurisdictions throughout
    the United States. Jurisdictions adopt these seismic
    requirements by voluntarily adopting the International Building
    Code, or IBC, a comprehensive code that provides requirements
    for building design and performance.
        The majority of State jurisdictions also adopt the IBC. The
    IBC then references ``ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
    and Other Structures'' for the design requirements for most
    natural hazards, including seismic.
        A major contribution to the evolution of seismic design,
    however, was development of ``NEHRP Recommended Seismic
    Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures,'' originally
    published in 1985. These seismic design guidelines were
    developed with the leadership and support from FEMA. These
    NEHRP provisions have been continually updated since that first
    version and with the next version due out at the end of this
    year.
        The provisions also serve as a resource document to the
    seismic design requirements currently found in ASCE 7, a
    collaboration that has been in existence for over 20 years.
        The potential of a Cascadia Subduction Zone was not really
    fully understood until USGS research occurred in the late 1980s
    and was presented to the structural engineering community in
    the Pacific Northwest. Based on this research, the seismic zone
    maps in the 1994 UBC [Uniform Building Code] were modified to
    include the effects of the Cascadia Subduction Zone for the
    first time. So buildings up to that point did not include that
    seismic hazard in the design of those structures.
        Policymakers, emergency planners, and engineers in the
    Northwest are very aware of the shaking that can result from
    Cascadia. Due to continued publicity regarding new research
    that is published in the newspapers throughout the Northwest,
    the public is fairly clear about the shaking that could occur,
    but not what the performance of buildings is really going to be
    like. They are not really aware of what we design to.
        So a quick summary of what performance goals we achieve or
    try to achieve. Given a rare event, we are out there to protect
    life, and doing so we may not necessarily achieve economically
    feasible repairs to a building in that case. For critical
    buildings like hospitals and fire stations, et cetera, we
    achieve a higher performance with the intent that these
    facilities will experience damage but will be functional
    following rare earthquake ground shaking.
        To provide more resilient designs, though, a change is
    required in these seismic performance goals. This change will
    come with increased construction costs, however. Some Federal,
    State, and local jurisdictions have provided or are considering
    providing enhanced performance for some of their projects. Some
    large companies that would be financially affected by extended
    shutdowns have already done so.
        Typically, though, private owners and developers are
    generally unaware of what the building code gives them. And the
    few that do would use enhanced performance designs if they
    could have a reasonable return on their investment.
        Changing the design approach for an entire community to
    increase resiliency will be a challenge. First, the turnover of
    building stock in a typical community is low, so enhancing the
    performance of existing buildings will require seismic
    upgrading. However, it is not necessary that all buildings
    achieve enhanced performance to achieve a resilient community.
    Careful planning is needed to determine which buildings and
    facilities should be subject to enhanced seismic design or
    seismic upgrade.
        Second, and equally important, for a community to be
    resilient, the remainder of the community's lifelines must also
    be seismically designed or upgraded to an enhanced level as
    well.
        Finally, to achieve a resilient community, the key element
    is to fund these capital costs. Regardless of these challenges,
    through policymaker leadership and careful community planning,
    the beginnings of resilient communities can and increasingly
    will be achieved.
        As previously mentioned, NEHRP has made significant
    contributions. NEHRP makes Americans safer and our Nation more
    secure, resilient, and financially stronger through research in
    the earth sciences, public policy, and engineering. ASCE and I
    urge you to work with the Science, Space, and Technology
    Committee to reauthorize this vital program.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share my views. I am able
    to answer any questions that you may have.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Hooper.
        I will now begin the first round of questions limited to 5
    minutes for each Member. If there are additional questions
    following the first round, we will have additional rounds of
    questions as needed.
        Given Ranking Member DeFazio's strong interest and
    leadership on this issue, I would like to yield my time for
    questions to him.
        Mr. DeFazio, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is very generous
    of you.
        First to FEMA, I note that the National Earthquake Hazard
    Reduction Program gets $7.8 million of funding. Given what you
    just heard today, don't you believe that we should perhaps be
    investing more money in that program to deal with both early
    warning and other things that have just been talked about in
    terms of mitigation?
        Mr. Fenton. Sir, the NEHRP program is one program among
    many programs and resources we have to assist in this issue. I
    went over a number of them in my opening. The planning that we
    provide, we probably have millions of dollars in planning each
    year. We have requested money for predisaster mitigation this
    year. There is also post-disaster mitigation.
        So all those together provide a significant number of
    resources. I think we need to continue to look at the issue and
    continue to work with them, our partners across this table,
    to----
        Mr. DeFazio. Right. Now, the early warning issue, I am
    looking at giving you specific authorization since it hasn't
    been given a priority. Why hasn't it been given a priority? I
    mean, you just heard here we can save thousands of lives,
    potentially mitigate billions of dollars--well, at least a lot
    of damage in terms of shutting down systems, et cetera, with
    warning.
        Mr. Fenton. Sir, we are looking into early warning systems.
    As you know, we have had early warning systems for years now.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. All right. Thanks. OK. That is good. We
    want to do more than look into them.
        I guess first I will go to Dr. Allen.
        You talked about the system, $38 million land-based. Would
    there be any advantage to having something that was based in
    the ocean? The Japanese have put sensors in the ocean. Does
    that give you more time?
        Mr. Allen. Absolutely it gives you more time. The piece I
    focused on is the onshore piece. So it is $16 million per year
    to run, plus $38 million capital investment to have it running
    in 2 years.
        Mr. DeFazio. Right.
        Mr. Allen. We have an implementation--we, the USGS, the
    west coast universities--have an implementation plan for that.
    It is a proven technology. So that is what we would like to do
    first.
        But in addition to that, as you say, if we were to put out
    additional sensors on the end of a cable, particularly in the
    Cascadia Subduction Zone, that would get us more sensors closer
    to the fault, and that would simply give us more warning time.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thanks.
        And then, Dr. Ashford, the work you have done, the $1
    billion just for key lifeline routes in the little State of
    Oregon, that is because of bridge collapse and other, maybe
    landslides, I guess.
        Mr. Ashford. Yeah. That was just the backbone route,
    actually east of the Cascades and down through part of the
    Willamette Valley, and that is for strengthening bridges and
    trying to mitigate the landslides.
        Mr. DeFazio. So what you are thinking is the east side of
    the Cascades will be less impacted, and then you would run
    lifeline routes down through the Cascades down to where all the
    people live.
        Mr. Ashford. That is right. But even with that, all of the
    routes to the coast would be shut down from bridge failure and
    landslides, and all of U.S. Highway 101 would also be shut
    down.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. That is a bit sobering.
        Give me that list again of countries that have early
    warning systems. I think you said Japan, China, Taiwan,
    Romania.
        Mr. Allen. That is right. Mexico and Taiwan.
        Mr. DeFazio. Mexico, yeah. I saw a very dramatic, actually,
    illustration of Mexico, which gives you the idea--I mean, the
    fault, I guess, is quite close to Mexico City, but it was in a
    TV station. Guy is broadcasting the news. He suddenly starts
    talking very quickly. My Spanish isn't that good, but I get the
    idea something is going on, and he talks for a full minute
    before things start falling down in the studio, and he is
    basically telling people to run for shelter. That is 1 minute
    with approximate, let alone what you could do with a longer----
        Mr. Allen. That is right. And the analogy to the Cascadia
    Subduction Zone is exactly the right one in that it is offshore
    subduction zone earthquakes that Mexico City is worried about.
    Mexico City is onshore, and they have a little bit over a
    minute's worth of warning, as you say.
        In the case of the Pacific Northwest, the warning time will
    increase with distance up or down, but the people who are
    closest to the event would have less warning time, that is
    right.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you.
        And if we had this offshore, I mean, do have an estimate on
    what an offshore? The Japanese are deploying offshore, so we
    must--I mean, there is a known technology. Is that correct?
        Mr. Allen. That is correct, yes.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. And, obviously, since you have to lay a
    cable, it is more expensive.
        Mr. Allen. That is right.
        Mr. DeFazio. And you have to put things on the sea floor.
    So----
        Mr. Allen. Yeah. I do not have a cost estimate that I can
    tell you.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK.
        Mr. Allen. It is significantly more expensive than onshore,
    and it is primarily because of putting out the offshore cable.
    But there is no question that what that would allow us to do in
    terms of early warning would be significant.
        Mr. DeFazio. Well, I note that a--I can't remember who it
    is--but some major cable company is going to lay a new super
    fiber optic cable from Bandon to Asia. Maybe we can just run a
    little splice off that, and maybe we should look into that and
    see if we can somehow get spliced into that.
        So I guess that is it, Mr. Chairman. I would just observe
    that this is very, very shortsighted that we won't partner. My
    State is ponying up a little money. We were gong to lose the
    little bit of land-based detection we had now. It was
    temporary, and it was going to be moved to Alaska, and I got
    the State to put up, I think, $440,000 to buy the sensor in
    place.
        So States will be willing to partner, but this should be a
    shared responsibility to build out a robust early warning
    system, save lives. And it will save manufacturing processes.
    It will potentially save the Metro system in Portland if they
    aren't running the light rail over the bridges when the bridges
    go down.
        There will be one bridge that survives in Portland, which
    happens to be the brand new light rail pedestrian bridge. It is
    the only one probably that will survive. And that was a
    substantial Federal investment partnering with the State.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. Mr. Carson.
        Mr. Carson. Thank you.
        I am curious. There was a recent article in Science
    magazine talking about the usage of GPS smart phones, to add on
    to Ranking Member DeFazio's question, assisting in detecting
    earthquakes essentially. Is it feasible that this technology
    could be incorporated into the existing warning system? And at
    what point, if you could project, when will our early
    earthquake detection systems be compatible with cell phones and
    other personal devices?
        Mr. Allen. So yes. The answer is yes. It is feasible that
    we could use the sensors in smart phones. The article that you
    are talking about was actually trying to use the GPS sensor in
    a smart phone.
        There are also projects, including one at Berkeley, to use
    the accelerometer in the cell phone. So now we are talking
    about using the seismometer component and the GPS positioning
    component.
        So there are multiple projects out there that are exploring
    this use. I lead one of them. So clearly I think that there is
    real value to these systems. But I think it is important to
    separate clearly the smart phone-based kind of systems from the
    ShakeAlert demonstration system that we are running today.
        The ShakeAlert demonstration system is using what we now
    call traditional geophysical networks, which are hardened. They
    are more robust. We know that they will work. We know that they
    deliver warnings. They delivered warnings in the Napa
    earthquake.
        Cell phones, I believe, will help us improve the system in
    the future, but that is very much a research undertaking at
    this stage. It is not ready to start delivering public safety
    alerts.
        Mr. Carson. OK. Next question. Have the lessons learned
    from the last year's National Level Exercise on the Alaska
    earthquake scenario been compiled and publicly released? And,
    generally, in your mind, what is FEMA's timeframe for compiling
    and even publicly issuing lessons learned from that exercise to
    ensure that plans can be improved and even tested in the next
    exercise?
        Mr. Fenton. Yes, sir. My understanding is the lessons
    learned from last year's earthquake exercise have not been
    fully released yet. However, we have released some summaries of
    some of those lessons learned.
        Just from the recent exercise last week with southern
    California, there are a number of things that we are looking at
    with regard to prioritization and movement of assets,
    operational coordination, working with the private sector more
    closely, international support, especially when it comes to
    USAR and some of the legal issues there, and then some of the
    planning issues that we have already seen.
        We haven't waited for the official after-action report to
    start taking action to improve on those lessons learned, and we
    continue to do that.
        Mr. Carson. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you.
        Mr. Perry.
        Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Ashford and Dr. Allen, what potential is there for
    public-private partnerships to improve earthquake preparedness
    and response? And do you have any examples of successful
    partnerships that have emerged surrounding your particular
    work?
        Mr. Ashford. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.
        I think one example is this Cascadia Lifelines Program that
    we have established at Oregon State University. This was where
    we have private companies together with State and Federal
    agencies pooling research funds to address joint challenges
    that all these lifeline providers face in the face of this
    Cascadia event. And it is funded and directed by these
    partners, both in the private sector as well as the public
    sector.
        Mr. Allen. And in the case of the earthquake early warning
    effort, very much to build the fully effective system is a
    public-private partnership. And what I mean by that is that we
    see the geophysical networks that are run by Federal agencies,
    State agencies, and universities, academic institutions,
    providing the kernel of the alert. But it is the private sector
    that is going to get that alert out to everybody most
    effectively.
        And so already we have partnerships with groups. Although
    this is a demonstration system and it is not public, there are
    groups who want to be participating in issuing the alerts,
    companies that have cell phone apps, companies that use
    dedicated radios like the NOAA weather radios, for example,
    things like that.
        And so the private sector is ready. When we have a public
    system, when we put out these sensors, when we issue these
    alerts, they are ready to then take it and deliver it to
    everybody in a multitude of ways. And so that is really the
    kind of private-sector part of the project.
        Mr. Perry. So in that vein, could there be a public-private
    partnership in terms of post-earthquake damage assessment
    regarding the use of unmanned aerial systems? Have you looked
    into that at all?
        Mr. Ashford. Yeah. That is something that we at Oregon
    State University, we have several experts on unmanned aerial
    systems, and one of the things that we are considering is doing
    post-earthquake evaluation of infrastructure using those UAVs.
        Mr. Perry. And they would be by private entities as opposed
    to, say, FEMA, for instance?
        Mr. Ashford. Yeah. They could be by private entities.
    Really, people would buy the UAVs to inspect their own
    infrastructure. So private companies like Portland General
    Electric, Northwest Natural Gas. I know that ODOT is also
    considering buying UAVs to do their own inspections. But it
    could be a private-sector company owns the UAVs and that they
    are subcontracted out to the agencies.
        Mr. Perry. Dr. Allen, any input?
        Mr. Allen. So not with UAVs, no. I focus on the early
    warning piece before the shaking. So that is not really
    something I have knowledge of.
        Mr. Perry. Thank you, gentlemen.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you.
        Mr. Sires.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing, and the ranking member.
        I live on the east coast and I have a stepdaughter on the
    west coast, and I wanted to be here to hear this. And I heard
    that you had in your research 140 recommendations that you were
    able to determine would help. I don't think you are going to be
    able to implement a lot of those recommendations because I
    don't think there is a lot of money here for that.
        But I was wondering, of those 140 recommendations, which
    are the ones that are more reasonable and, quite frankly, less
    costly to implement? And the reason I say that is because,
    although it is different, in New Jersey we got hit by Sandy,
    one of the things that we found out was that gas stations had
    gas but had no electricity to pump it.
        So I was wondering, a reasonable recommendation would be to
    require these gas stations to have a generator. Can you just
    talk a little bit about that?
        Mr. Ashford. Sure. In my task force we took those 140
    recommendations and we narrowed it down to about 15 that we
    thought were the most important. And I will just give you three
    examples.
        Our most important recommendation from our task force was
    for the Governor to appoint a chief resilience officer or
    policy adviser, someone that would really take the lead on
    resilience efforts in the State of Oregon. That is currently in
    our Ways and Means Committee in the State and pending funding.
        I think another example is one of our recommendations is to
    change hazard preparedness literature to extend the
    recommendation on how long people should be prepared to be on
    their own from 72 hours to 2 weeks. Because of the geographical
    distribution of the damage in these subduction zone events,
    people should really be prepared for a couple of weeks to be
    ready.
        And I think the last thing, while there is a big price tag
    on the retrofit of the transportation system, we are taking a
    50-year horizon. And I think by starting now and taking our
    time, I think that is not something we are trying to do all at
    once, but hoping that we can gain that resilience by the time
    that next earthquake hits.
        Mr. Sires. Anybody else went to join in on anything?
        What can we do to ensure that States are properly
    developing building codes and enforcing them? Because I see the
    Tornado Alley. I mean, these homes are made out of wood. I was
    just wondering, what can we do to force the States to do a
    better job with the building code?
        Mr. Hooper. The majority of States actually have a building
    code that they adopt voluntarily and then local jurisdictions
    do it. So the vast majority have it. The issue on tornadoes is
    that is a hazard that we do not design for. It is not one of
    those natural hazards that the ASCE 7 deals with because the
    return interval on a tornado hitting that house is, like,
    100,000 years. It is just literally that act of God.
        Mr. Sires. Yeah. But I was thinking in terms of where you
    have a school. I mean, we should really make those schools a
    place where the community gather if there is a catastrophe.
        Mr. Hooper. You can do that with schools. They have had
    some success in the Midwest in hardening schools and putting
    safe rooms, big safe rooms in schools. So that technology is
    available. But just the typical home or mobile home and things
    like that, that will never be able survive a tornado hit.
        Mr. Sires. But what I am looking for is what can we do to,
    let's say, tell the State: Look, you have to make these
    schools, that place where a community meets when there is a
    catastrophe or in anticipation of one, safer.
        Mr. Hooper. Why don't you go ahead.
        Mr. Allen. So I guess one comment that I would have to sort
    of both of these questions is that I think one of the real
    challenges we face when it comes to all natural hazards is that
    they don't come around very frequently. I mean, that is good
    news, right? But the bad news is that it is very difficult,
    therefore, to get people's attention when it comes to these
    houses. And that is why these things don't get enforced very
    effectively sometimes.
        And this is actually, I think, one of the areas where the
    earthquake early warning effort has a potential for a
    significant broader impact. I mean, we would build an early
    warning system in order to provide warnings. But early warning
    has a cache with people because they can envision: Now I am
    going to get a warning on my cell phone. This is something very
    real. And we can use that interest to then leverage broader
    preparedness for, in that case, the earthquake problem.
        So I think what we have to do is kind of look for ways to
    link together these various technology opportunities to also
    get people's interest and to encourage individuals to take
    responsibility to have the 2 weeks' worth of supplies or to
    have a tornado shelter.
        Mr. Sires. And, Dr. Allen, you said that you could evacuate
    a school in 1\1/2\ minutes? I was a teacher for 10 years. I
    would like to see that.
        Mr. Allen. That was what the principal of a certain
    school----
        Mr. Sires. Well, you tell that principal I would like to
    see that.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you.
        I will now recognize each Member for an additional 5
    minutes of questions.
        I will direct my question to Mr. Hooper, but then ask each
    of you to weigh in, and I think we are sort of scratching the
    surface of this question already.
        This subcommittee has held a hearing and hosted a
    roundtable discussion on the dramatic increase in disaster
    costs and losses. We are working to identify opportunities to
    drive down the costs of disasters, and particularly the burden
    on the American taxpayer.
        Mr. Hooper, I will start with you, but then open it up to
    everyone. How can some of the work you are doing potentially
    reduce disaster costs and losses in the United States?
        Mr. Hooper. Well, we are continually improving the
    knowledge and the design of how we deal with earthquakes and
    other natural hazards. The key thing there is to implement that
    correctly. The designers have to design the infrastructure and
    the buildings correctly. ASCE 7, the document that everyone
    uses can do that.
        Then we have to get it built correctly. And so there is
    also this side of making sure it gets constructed the way it
    needs to be done.
        But the other challenge we face, though, is the building
    turnover, guys, is really short. It takes a long time, meaning
    every year only one-half of 1 percent of the building stock
    turns over, so that it will take time to implement better
    design.
        As I mentioned in my testimony, Cascadia did not exist in
    our design world until 1994. That is probably less than 2 or 3
    percent of buildings in the Pacific Northwest that have been
    designed using that approach and that shaking hazard in mind.
    So over time we will get better designs as the 50-year window,
    as mentioned earlier, we will get better improvement just
    through that window of the length of time.
        And so there are a lot of different things happening, but I
    think time is on our side as long as we continue to implement
    good design and, very importantly, construction practices.
        Mr. Allen. So I think that in the case of earthquake early
    warning, the sort of cost-benefit argument of implementing a
    system is a very straightforward argument. Some of the examples
    of what you would save, I mentioned the Northridge earthquake,
    we know that 50 percent of the injuries were caused by falling
    hazards. If everybody was under a sturdy table having received
    a warning, then we would halve the number of injuries. It is
    estimated that the cost of just those injuries was $2 billion
    to $3 billion.
        When we think about the BART train system, each of the BART
    trains themselves is worth $30 million. So if you just save 1
    train, you have saved $30 million, never mind about the 1,000
    passengers that might be on the system.
        If we talk about schools that evacuate or other buildings
    that evacuate, we are talking about both reducing the number of
    fatalities and the number of injuries.
        The list goes on. So in terms of the cost-benefit for an
    early warning system, I think it is a real slam dunk.
        Mr. Hooper. I would like to add one more comment as well.
        I mentioned our performance goal is life safety. That is
    the major thing in event of an earthquake, protect the people
    within the building from being killed or seriously injured.
        To help improve what we do economically, we need to up the
    game. We need to shoot for enhanced performance above that
    level if we really want to try to reduce costs. But in doing
    that, that requires the building costs to go up as well for
    anything that gets built new, upwards to 5 or 10 percent more
    of the construction costs in a school or a highrise or
    something like that. It doesn't sound like much, but sometimes
    that is the tipping point between the developer saying yes to a
    project and no to a project.
        But that is something we should dialogue on because to be
    resilient, to be quite honest, we do need to have better
    performance in just the life safety that we target today.
        Mr. Costello. Anyone else?
        Mr. Ashford. Yeah. I think that if you look at earthquake
    research and you look at wise use of taxpayer dollars, I will
    give you a couple of examples where research has saved millions
    of dollars with a huge return on the investment.
        An example in Oregon. Oregon Department of Transportation
    invested in about a $2 million research program at Oregon State
    University ultimately saving $500 million in a bridge retrofit
    program carried out in the last decade.
        Another example, for our Cascadia Lifelines Program, we are
    looking at innovative ways to retrofit old buildings, old
    masonry structures, that we, rather than having to tear down a
    structure, we can retrofit it, leave it in place, and again
    save millions of dollars.
        Mr. Fenton. Sir, I would just add, codes and standards, I
    agree with. Through our NEHRP program we do a lot to establish
    standards to help improve the building codes across the
    country. There is an enormous amount of literature we provide
    that is used by the construction companies. This public
    education is used to make them aware of the threats and to show
    them what to do when these threats happen.
        Mitigation, whether it is building back stronger or moving
    individuals out of harm's ways, is critically important.
        I think some of the new authorities we got after Sandy with
    regard to 424 allow us to, when we build back, to go ahead and
    build mitigation into those projects at a higher rate than
    previously before to build more resiliency.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you for your answers there.
        Mr. Carson?
        Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman.
        My final question, is there anything that Congress can do
    specifically to encourage the private sector to incorporate
    seismic measures and infrastructure repairs and replacement?
        Mr. Ashford. I think that one of the things we are looking
    at in Oregon, especially with our private utilities, is
    allowing them to recover the cost in their rate base, allowing
    them to recover the costs not only of the risk assessment, but
    also their mitigation efforts. And that is some of our
    recommendations from our task force report, and those are
    things that are pending in front of the Oregon legislature.
        I would say that you could do the same thing for federally
    regulated utilities.
        Mr. Carson. OK. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you for your valuable testimony. Your
    comments have been helpful to today's discussion. If there are
    no further questions, I would ask unanimous consent that the
    record of today's hearing remain open until such time as our
    witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be
    submitted to them in writing and unanimous consent that the
    record remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and
    information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in
    the record of today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
        I would like to once again thank our witnesses for their
    testimony today.
        If no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee
    stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             [all]