[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM:
R&D FOR DISASTER RESILIENT COMMUNITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 11, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-32
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-967 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
HON. DAVID WU, Oregon, Chair
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
PAUL D. TONKO, New York W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
MIKE QUEAR Subcommittee Staff Director
MEGHAN HOUSEWRIGHT Democratic Professional Staff Member
TRAVIS HITE Democratic Professional Staff Member
HOLLY LOGUE PRUTZ Democratic Professional Staff Member
DAN BYERS Republican Professional Staff Member
VICTORIA JOHNSTON Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
June 11, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative David Wu, Chair, Subcommittee on
Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Adrian Smith, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Prepared Statement by Representative Harry E. Mitchell, Member,
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 11
Witnesses:
Dr. John R. Hayes, Jr., Director, National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP), National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Biography.................................................... 22
Mr. Kenneth D. Murphy, Immediate Past President, National
Emergency Management Association (NEMA); Director, Oregon
Office of Emergency Management
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 24
Biography.................................................... 27
Professor Thomas D. O'Rourke, Thomas R. Briggs Professor of
Engineering, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Cornell University
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 30
Biography.................................................... 37
Dr. Michael K. Lindell, Professor, Landscape Architecture and
Urban Planning; Senior Scholar, Hazard Reduction & Recovery
Center, Texas A&M University
Oral Statement............................................... 37
Written Statement............................................ 39
Biography.................................................... 49
Dr. James Robert Harris, President, J.R. Harris & Company,
Structural Engineers
Oral Statement............................................... 50
Written Statement............................................ 52
Biography.................................................... 56
Discussion....................................................... 58
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. John R. Hayes, Jr., Director, National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP), National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce................. 76
Mr. Kenneth D. Murphy, Immediate Past President, National
Emergency Management Association (NEMA); Director, Oregon
Office of Emergency Management................................. 83
Professor Thomas D. O'Rourke, Thomas R. Briggs Professor of
Engineering, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Cornell University............................................. 84
Dr. Michael K. Lindell, Professor, Landscape Architecture and
Urban Planning; Senior Scholar, Hazard Reduction & Recovery
Center, Texas A&M University................................... 87
Dr. James Robert Harris, President, J.R. Harris & Company,
Structural Engineers........................................... 90
THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION
PROGRAM: R&D FOR DISASTER RESILIENT COMMUNITIES
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:20 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. David Wu
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Reauthorization of the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program:
R&D for Resilient Communities
thursday, june 11, 2009
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
I. Purpose
On Thursday 11 June, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
of the Committee on Science and Technology will hold a hearing to
review the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) in
preparation for reauthorization. Funding currently expires at the end
of fiscal year 2009.
II. Witnesses
Dr. John Hayes is the Director of the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP) at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST).
Dr. Michael Lindell is the Director of the Hazards Reduction and
Recovery Center, and a Professor of Landscape Architecture & Urban
Planning at Texas A&M University.
Professor Thomas O'Rourke is the Thomas R. Briggs Professor of
Engineering at the School of Civil & Environmental Engineering at
Cornell University.
Dr. James Robert Harris, P.E., is the President of J.R. Harris &
Company.
Mr. Kenneth Murphy is the Director of the Oregon Office of Emergency
Management and the Immediate Past President of the National Emergency
Management Association (NEMA).
III. Hearing Issues
The last NEHRP reauthorization named NIST as the lead
agency. How well is NEHRP performing with NIST as the head
agency? Where are there opportunities to improve coordination
among the agencies? What are the priorities for NEHRP moving
forward?
Understanding the human element of hazard mitigation
is crucial to the implementation of mitigation measures. What
is the role of social science in creating disaster resilient
communities? How has social science research and knowledge been
integrated into NEHRP activities? Where are there opportunities
for improvement?
Hazard mitigation tools and products must meet the
needs of State and local officials who must prepare their
communities for disasters and help them respond. How well do
NEHRP activities meet State and local needs? How can these
needs be better aligned?
The damage from an earthquake could be catastrophic.
However, other natural hazards, such as hurricanes and
wildfires, also pose significant dangers. The Federal
Government has focused comparatively less R&D on those hazards.
How should the Federal Government address R&D for other natural
hazards and what opportunities exist to coordinate hazards R&D
across the Federal Government?
IV. Background
Natural Hazard Exposure in the U.S.
Americans' exposure to natural hazards is significant. If
populations continue to grow in areas prone to earthquakes, severe
weather, or wildfires, this exposure will only increase. Between 1990
and 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) paid out over
$39 billion in disaster relief. That amount is nearly five times
greater than the $7 billion paid out between 1978 and 1989. Although
more activities became eligible for funding during the later period,
the number reflects the sharp increase in natural disaster losses
experienced by Americans. And, as shown below, while the number of
casualties from natural hazards in the U.S. is comparatively lower than
in many other countries, the potential for loss of life and bodily
injury is still very high.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Loss of live and damage estimates from natural hazards vary
widely. The figures here are cited from a 2003 RAND study, Assessing
Federal Research and Development for Hazard Loss Reduction.
Earthquakes. Eighteen U.S. states are in highly
seismically active areas, though nearly all states have some
seismic risk. About 75 million Americans live in these
seismically active zones, many in growing urban areas. Though
infrequent, earthquakes are unique among natural hazards in
that they strike without warning. In addition, earthquakes in
the U.S. and worldwide illustrate that the effects can be
catastrophic. The 6.9 magnitude Kobe, Japan earthquake in 1995
killed more than 5,000 people and caused an estimated $200
billion in damages. The 1994 Northridge, California earthquake
(magnitude 6.7) resulted in over $40 billion in damage. The
fact that it took only 59 lives, in comparison to 5,000, is
widely attributed to building code advancements and other
mitigation measures. However, in a scenario run by the USGS as
part of the Great Southern California Shake Out, a 7.2 Southern
San Andreas Fault earthquake would result in an estimated 1,800
fatalities in the San Bernadino and a predicted $200 billion in
direct losses. Earthquakes are not a hazard confined to the
Western U.S. A report prepared by the Central U.S. Earthquake
Consortium showed that an earthquake on the New Madrid fault
could cause as many as 85,000 fatalities and injuries and over
$100 billion in direct economic losses in the States of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee and Missouri.
Tsunamis. U.S. coastal regions are vulnerable to
tsunamis generated from submarine earthquakes. The world saw
the catastrophic impact of tsunamis in 2004 when an earthquake
off the coast of Sumatra, Indonesia unleashed a tsunami that
killed approximately 170,000 people and generated $186 million
in damages. A high magnitude earthquake in the Cascadia
subduction zone off the Pacific Northwest would be devastating
to the coastal communities.
Severe Weather. High winds in hurricanes, tornadoes,
thunderstorms, and other weather phenomena cause significant
damage to buildings and infrastructure. Annually, such weather
is also responsible for an average of 124 American fatalities
and over 1,600 injuries each year.\2\ Total direct property
losses in the U.S. from 1996 to 2006 are over $160 billion (in
2006 dollars).\3\ Costs associated with wind-related natural
disasters have doubled or tripled each decade over the past 35
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Average calculated from National Weather Service data from 1996
to 2006, exclusive of the more than 1,000 hurricane deaths in 2005.
\3\ http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml
Wildfires. Construction of homes and communities at
the edge of wildlands is a growing practice. In the Western
U.S. alone, almost 38 percent of new construction is in the
wildland-urban interface (WUI). The most recent figures are
unavailable, but from 1985 to 1994, WUI fires destroyed more
than 9,000 homes. The Oakland Hill fire in 1991 that took 3,000
structures caused $1.2 billion in property losses.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Fire Administration, Topical Fire Research Series, Vol. 2,
Issue 16, March 2002.
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
Congress created NEHRP in 1977 with passage of the Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act (P.L. 95-124). Created largely in response to the
1964 Alaska Earthquake and the San Fernando Earthquake of 1971, the
original program called on 10 federal agencies to coordinate activities
to implement an earthquake prediction system, develop design and
construction methods for earthquake resilience, identify seismic
hazards and make model code and land-use recommendations, increase the
understanding of earthquake risks, and educate the public about
earthquakes. The 1980 reauthorization of the program designated FEMA as
the lead agency.
The 2004 reauthorization (P.L. 108-360) changed the lead agency
from FEMA to NIST. This change reflected concern that FEMA, newly in
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was no longer as focused on
natural hazards mitigation. In addition, the legislation established an
Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC) composed of the directors of
NIST, FEMA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the United States
Geological Survey (USGS), the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure the
coordination processes, the ICC is required to meet at least three
times annually and to develop a strategic plan and coordinated
interagency budget.
The four designated NEHRP agencies support the development of
earthquake hazard reduction measures, promote the adoption of these
measures, and improve understanding of earthquake phenomena and their
effects on structures, infrastructure, and communities, as explained
below:
NIST: In addition to serving as the lead agency, NIST
supports the development, evaluations, and testing of
earthquake resistant design and construction practices for
implementation in building codes and practices.
FEMA: FEMA develops earthquake risk modeling tools
and supports the development of disaster-resistant building
codes and standards.
NSF: NSF supports basic research and research
facilities in Earth sciences, engineering, and social sciences
relevant to understanding the causes and impacts of
earthquakes, and with a goal of developing practical tools to
reduce their effects. NSF supported earthquake engineering
facilities include the George E. Brown Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation (NEES).
USGS: The USGS supports research to better understand
earthquake causes and effects, produces national and regional
seismic hazards maps, monitors and rapidly reports on
earthquakes and their shaking intensities in the U.S. and
abroad, and works to raise public earthquake hazard awareness.
The USGS maintains the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS)
and the Global Seismic Network (GSN). Currently, ANSS is
approximately 15 percent deployed (820 out of 7,100 planned
stations). With money from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, USGS plans to modernize 800 analogue
stations, brining the network up to 1,620 sensors.
Over the past 30 years, NEHRP activities have been instrumental in
developing and advancing earthquake knowledge, seismic building codes,
and raising the awareness of officials and the general public about
earthquake hazards. These contributions include:
An improved understanding of earthquakes and their
effects, such as seismic wave propagation, through research and
seismic monitoring. Among other applications, this knowledge
has been used in the development of seismic hazard assessments,
building codes, and in tools for modeling the effects of an
earthquake disaster.
Improved seismic building codes through research,
mapping, and seismic monitoring. The National Seismic Hazards
Maps and other research produced the NEHRP Recommended
Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other
Structures, which is the basis for the seismic elements of
model building codes. NEHRP has also supported work to improve
the safety of existing structures, supporting work that lead to
the development of consensus-based standards to evaluate and
rehabilitating existing buildings for seismic safety.
NEHRP has supported the development of partnerships
with State and local governments, professional groups, and
multi-State earthquake consortia to raise public awareness and
support mitigation efforts. These groups, like the Central U.S.
Earthquake Consortium, receive funds from NEHRP and State,
local, and private partners.
USGS products provide real-time earthquake
notification, showing the magnitude and location of an
earthquake. These products include ShakeMaps and PAGER--Prompt
Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response. These products
provide near real-time information on the location,
distribution, and severity of ground-shaking. Officials can use
this information in mounting a more effective emergency
response and recovery.
Tables 1 and 2 below show the authorized and actual levels of
funding for NEHRP over the last reauthorization period.
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
From 1999 to 2004, NSF invested $83 million to build earthquake
engineering research facilities at 15 universities, linked by
information technology (IT) infrastructure that integrates the
facilities and makes them accessible from remote locations. In
addition, the last reauthorization authorized an average of $20 million
per fiscal year exclusively for operation and maintenance (nearly all
of which was received). NEES offers considerable potential to advance
earthquake engineering knowledge. However, as reported in a 2007 NSF
Site Visit Report, NEES had weak leadership and insufficient direction
and planning for its Education, Outreach, and Training activities. Most
critical, the Site Visit Committee noted the failure of the NEES IT
subcontractor to produce products that fit the needs of stakeholders.
Strategic Plan
In the required Strategic Plan for 2009 to 2013, the NEHRP agencies
laid out nine strategic priorities to accomplish the goals of
understanding earthquakes and their impacts, developing cost-effective
measures to reduce these impacts, and improve earthquake resiliency
nationwide. These nine priorities are:
Fully implement the ANSS
Improve techniques for evaluating and rehabilitating
existing buildings
Further develop performance-based seismic design
Increase consideration of socioeconomic uses related
to hazard mitigation implementation
Develop a national post-earthquake information
management system
Develop advanced earthquake risk mitigation
technologies and practices
Develop guidelines for earthquake-resilient lifeline
components and systems
Develop and conduct earthquake scenarios for
effective earthquake risk reduction and response and recover
planning
Facilitate improved earthquake mitigation at State
and local levels.
The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program
The last reauthorization of NEHRP also contained the National
Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP) in a separate title. The
legislation directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), NIST, NSF, and FEMA to support activities to improve the
understanding of windstorms and their impacts, and to develop and
encourage the implementation of cost-effective mitigation measures to
reduce these impacts. The statute charges an interagency working group
(IWG)--chaired on a rotating basis by FEMA, NSF, NOAA, and NIST--to
coordinate the R&D priorities, portfolio, and budget. The program was
authorized through FY 2008 (Table 3).
The NWIRP implementation plan submitted in April 2006 assessed
programs relevant to the goals of NWIRP across eight federal agencies
and identified important areas of research that were not covered by
current activities. The knowledge gaps covered the three broad
categories of research authorized in the Act: understanding windstorms;
assessing the impacts of windstorms; and mitigating the effects of
windstorms. The implementation plan also recommends that an IWG within
the National Science and Technology Council's (NSTC) Committee on
Environment, Natural Resources Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction
oversee the research portfolio outlined above, with representatives
from NSF, NIST, NOAA, and FEMA, as well as the National Aeronautics and
Space Agency (NASA), the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), and
the Army Corps of Engineers. The IWG would be responsible for
facilitating communication between the agencies on the best means of
allocating agency resources to meet NWIRP goals and for coordinating
this federal research portfolio.
The Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a hearing on
NWIRP in July, 2008.\5\ The witnesses testified that the funding levels
devoted by the agencies to wind hazard mitigation R&D were not adequate
to meet the growing need (approximately $7.5 million since FY 2004) and
that no coordinated program existed. It was also noted that in some
cases there were research findings that had yet to be translated into
practical applications due to a lack of funding. They identified a
number of priorities for wind hazard R&D, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://science.house.gov/publications/
hearings-markups-details.aspx?NewsID=2271
Developing a better understanding of wind phenomena
to better estimate maximum hurricane wind speeds, velocity
profiles, and turbulence characteristics needed for building
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
design
Better understanding of wind-structure interactions
Performance-based design for windstorm hazards
Fire R&D at NIST
In the Federal Fire and Prevention Control Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-
498) as amended, NIST has authority for ``performance and supporting
research on all aspects of fire with the aim of providing scientific
and technical knowledge applicable to the prevention and control of
fires.'' As NIST testified for the Technology and Innovation
Subcommittee in October of 2007,\6\ structure fires kill over 3000
people in the U.S. each year. They also cause approximately $10 billion
in damages each year according to the National Fire Protection
Association. Through its Buildings and Fire Research Lab (BFRL), NIST
supports research to reduce fire hazards within residences and
commercial buildings, and supports R&D to improve fire codes,
standards, and provisions. In its FY 2009 request, NIST also included
$4 million for a Disaster Resilient Structures and Communities
Initiative, which included R&D to mitigate fire damage for structures
in the WUI. NIST reports funding about $1 million each in FY 2008 and
FY 2009 on WUI related research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://science.house.gov/publications/
hearings-markups-details.aspx?NewsID=1961
Social Science
Because natural hazards affect people and communities, social
science is an integral part of understanding and mitigating society's
risk. A 2006 National Research Council (NRC) report\7\ identified the
contributions of NEHRP to this area, noting that social science related
knowledge on exposure and vulnerability to hazards expanded greatly
under NEHRP, enabling the development of loss estimation tools and
related decision support tools. However, the report noted that efforts
are needed to compare catastrophic events and to examine societal
responses in relation to variables such as warning time, magnitude,
scope, and duration of impact. More social science research is also
needed on understanding longer-term disaster recovery. The report also
highlighted the need for the management of social science data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Facing Hazards and Disasters: Understanding Human Dimensions,
NRC 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chair Wu. This hearing will come to order.
I want to welcome everyone to--oh, my gosh, how rude of me.
I am so focused on what is immediately in front of me, which is
the hazard of this line of work. Please, the witnesses may be
seated. Terrific. Welcome everyone.
This is the third in a series of hearings the Subcommittee
has held on programs that address threats to our communities,
including wind, fire, and earthquakes.
We will hear today that the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program, or NEHRP, has made many significant strides
in enhancing earthquake safety and is a valuable program.
However, the Subcommittee has also found that federal agencies
currently have a stovepipe approach to hazards mitigation
research activities. Separate and distinct programs exist for
earthquake, tsunami, fire, and wind threats, despite areas of
commonality such as prediction research, emergency preparedness
needs, and the potential for mitigation via enhanced
construction codes. Even more importantly, the key to
successful mitigation of any and all potential hazards is a
coordinated and effective public education program.
The statistics tell the story. In the United States, wind
and fire cause approximately $28 billion worth of damage and
kill an average of 4,300 Americans each year.
Earthquakes, while more episodic, can be devastating in
their impact. The 1994 Northridge Earthquake took 59 lives and
resulted in over $40 billion in damage. I think we can all
agree that we can, and must, do a better job of hazards
mitigation in order to protect our communities as much as
possible from the devastation of natural disasters.
One question we can raise is whether the current structure
of federal hazards research is optimal and how we could improve
it. The 2004 changes to NEHRP have been widely supported. NIST
[National Institute of Standards and Technology], via the
leadership of Dr. John Hayes, has received high marks for its
coordination of the program. We must note that research for
other hazards has yet to produce the similar advances. This lag
may exist because wind, fire, and tsunami mitigation do not
have the same federal R&D [research and development] structure
that has produced our many advances on the seismic front.
Today we will hear from experts on needs for the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. I hope to also learn if a
program structured like NEHRP might also improve wind, fire,
and tsunami research programs.
It is worth exploring whether a coordinated, comprehensive,
and fully funded hazards mitigation program could be a more
effective approach than the current stovepipe structure, where
different hazards communities fight for their own funding
priorities and lessons learned are less likely to be shared
between those researching different threats.
In the end, the goal of research on all hazards,
earthquakes, wind, fire, and tsunamis is the same, to save
lives, protect our communities and preserve property.
I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us
today, and now I would like to turn to the gentleman from
Nebraska, Mr. Smith, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chair Wu follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chair David Wu
I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing. This is the third in
a series of hearings the Subcommittee has held on programs that address
threats to our communities, including wind, fire, and earthquake
disasters.
I think we will hear today that the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program--or NEHRP--has made many significant strides in
enhancing earthquake safety and is a valuable federal program. However,
the Subcommittee has also found that federal agencies currently have a
stovepipe approach to hazards mitigation research activities. Separate
and distinct programs exist for earthquake, tsunami, fire, and wind
threats, despite areas of commonality such as prediction research,
emergency preparedness needs, and the potential for mitigation via
enhanced construction codes. Even more importantly, the key to
successful mitigation of any and all potential hazards is a coordinated
and effective public education program.
The statistics tell the story--in the United States, wind and fire
cause approximately $28 billion worth of damages and kill an average of
4,350 Americans each year. Earthquakes, while periodic, also can be
devastating in their impact. For example, the 1994 Northridge
Earthquake took 59 lives and resulted in over $40 billion in damages. I
think we can all agree that we can and must do a better job of hazards
mitigation in order to protect our communities as much as possible from
the devastation these disasters can cause.
One question we can raise is whether the current structure of
federal hazards research is optimal and how we could improve it. The
2004 changes to National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program have been
widely supported. NIST, via the leadership of Dr. John Hayes, has
received high marks for its coordination of the program. As we discuss
the successes in earthquake mitigation and priorities moving forward,
we must note that research for other hazards has yet to produce the
same advances. This lag may exist because wind, fire, and tsunami
mitigation do not have the same federal R&D structure that has produced
our many advances on the seismic front.
Today we will hear from experts on needs for the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. But, I hope to also learn if a
program structured like NEHRP might also improve wind, fire, and
tsunami research programs.
It is worth exploring whether a coordinated, comprehensive, and
fully funded hazards mitigation program could be a more effective
approach than the current stovepipe structure, where different hazards
communities fight for their own funding priorities and lessons learned
are less likely to be shared between those researching various threats.
In the end, the goal of research on all hazards--earthquakes, wind,
fire, and tsunamis--is the same--to protect our communities and save
lives.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for holding
this hearing today to consider reauthorization of the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, otherwise known as NEHRP.
All natural hazards, be they floods, wildfires, tornadoes,
hurricanes, earthquakes, and in my district close to home
yesterday, hail present a common mitigation challenge in that
while inevitable and potentially catastrophic events, they are
infrequent and certainly unpredictable. These characteristics
are particularly pronounced for damaging earthquakes which are
rare and impossible to predict on any practical time scale.
This infrequency has the tendency to drive stakeholders at all
levels to become complacent and allow attention to earthquake
hazards reduction efforts to fade in favor of more pressing and
urgent matters. Nonetheless, we know the damage from a major
U.S. earthquake could cost tens of billions of dollars or more
and that scientists are forecasting a 99 percent chance that
California will experience a major earthquake 6.7 magnitude or
greater within the next 30 years. These figures serve as a
stark reminder that we should remain committed to reducing our
vulnerability to earthquakes as an ounce of mitigation could be
worth a pound of cure in the form of reducing loss of life and
property when the so-called big one hits.
To this end I want to commend NIST and the participating
NEHRP agencies for their efforts to strengthen the coordination
and visibility of NEHRP in recent years. I thank Chair Wu for
initiating this review process this year in order to keep the
program authorized without interruption.
Our witnesses today represent a diversity of backgrounds
and expertise reflective of the breadth of the NEHRP program
and hazard mitigation in general, and I look forward to hearing
the recommendations on how to best further improve the program
and leverage its resources most effectively. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Adrian Smith
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today to consider
reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP).
All natural hazards--be they floods, wildfires, tornadoes,
hurricanes, or earthquakes--present a common mitigation challenge in
that, while inevitable and potentially catastrophic events, they are
infrequent and relatively unpredictable. These characteristics are
particularly pronounced for damaging earthquakes, which are rare, and
impossible to predict on any practical time scale.
This infrequency has a tendency to drive stakeholders at all levels
to become complacent and allow attention to earthquake hazards
reduction efforts fade in favor of more pressing and urgent matters.
Nonetheless, we know that damage from a major U.S. earthquake could
cost tens of billions of dollars or more, and that scientists are
forecasting a 99 percent chance that California will experience a major
earthquake (6.7 magnitude or greater) within the next 30 years.
These figures serve as a stark reminder that we should remain
committed to reducing our vulnerability to earthquakes, as an ounce of
mitigation could be worth a pound of cure in the form of reducing loss
of life and property when ``the big one'' hits.
To this end, I want to commend NIST and the participating NEHRP
agencies for their efforts to strengthen the coordination and
visibility of NEHRP in recent years, and I thank Chairman Wu for
initiating this review process this year in order to keep the program
authorized without interruption.
Our witnesses today represent a diversity of backgrounds and
expertise reflective of the breadth of the NEHRP program and hazard
mitigation in general, and I look forward to hearing their
recommendations on how best to further improve the program and leverage
its resources most effectively.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Wu. Thank you, Mr. Smith. If there are other Members
who wish to submit opening statements, your statements will be
added to the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Harry E. Mitchell
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today we will review the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program (NEHRP) and examine the performance of this program under NIST.
While earthquakes cause significant and catastrophic damage, other
natural hazards, including wildfires, also pose serious dangers.
However, these other natural hazards have received comparatively less
R&D.
Today we will also discuss the potential to increase R&D for other
natural hazards, such as wildfires, as well as what opportunities may
exist to coordinate hazards R&D on a federal level.
In Arizona, fires on the wildland-urban interface pose a
significant threat. As the construction of homes and communities at the
edge of wildlands increases, we are also seeing an increase in
wildfires that ignite close by homes and other community buildings.
I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses on how we can
improve our R&D efforts.
I yield back.
Chair Wu. Now it is my pleasure to introduce our witnesses.
Dr. John Hayes is the Director of the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program, or NEHRP, at the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, or NIST. Mr. Kenneth Murphy is the
Immediate Past President of the National Emergency Management
Association [NEMA] and the Director of the Oregon Office of
Emergency Management. Professor Thomas O'Rourke is the Thomas
R. Briggs Professor of Engineering at the School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at Cornell University. Dr. Michael
Lindell is the Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban
Planning at Texas A&M University. And finally, Dr. James Robert
Harris is the President of J.R. Harris & Company.
Dr. Hayes, if you would please begin. Your written
statement will be fully entered into the record and could you
please try to summarize your written statement into a five-
minute oral statement. Dr. Hayes.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN R. HAYES, JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM (NEHRP), NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY (NIST), U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE
Dr. Hayes. Thank you, Chair Wu, Ranking Member Smith, and
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to
testify on the reauthorization of the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program, or NEHRP, as you have said.
My testimony focuses on the four-agency NEHRP partnership:
FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency], NIST, NSF [National
Science Foundation], and USGS [United States Geological
Survey]. This partnership works closely with the earthquake
community including other federal agencies, State and local
governments, professional organizations, model building code
and standards organizations, and earthquake professionals in
the private sector and academia.
Seismologists strongly agree that damaging earthquakes in
the U.S. are inevitable and unpredictable. This April's 6.3
magnitude earthquake in Italy that cost 300 lives and the May
2008 magnitude 7.9 earthquake in China that cost tens of
thousands of lives are sobering reminders that unexpected
tragedies can occur.
The establishment of NEHRP was predicated on the belief
that earthquakes are inevitable but earthquake disasters are
not. As you know, the 2004 reauthorization of NEHRP directed
several changes in the program's organization. NIST was given a
new role as the NEHRP lead agency. To fulfill that role, NIST
established the NEHRP Secretariat that supports the activities
of the NEHRP Interagency Coordinating Committee and the
Advisory Committee on Earthquakes Hazards Reduction which were
also created by the last reauthorization. By involving the
leaders of the program agencies and of OMB [Office of
Management and Budget] and OSTP [Office of Science and
Technology Policy], the Interagency Coordinating Committee has
significantly improved program visibility, decision-making, and
coordination. The Advisory Committee provides nationally
renowned earthquake professional expertise to assist the
Interagency Coordinating Committee members in establishing
program direction.
In 2008, the NEHRP agencies released a new strategic plan
that sets a new program vision: ``A nation that is earthquake
resilient in public safety, economic strength, and national
security.'' The plan sets three broad program goals, adds
strategic priorities for the future, and describes a number of
guiding philosophical principles. One key principle is that
NEHRP will identify valuable areas of synergy with activities
associated with other hazards.
Recent NEHRP annual reports provide substantial information
regarding agency activities, and I shall cover a few
highlights.
The USGS is the applied Earth science component of NEHRP
and has made great strides in its delivery of comprehensive
earthquake information from monitoring systems both in the
United States and worldwide. In the United States, monitoring
relies upon the Advanced National Seismic System. The National
Earthquake Information Center assimilates monitoring the data
on a 24/7 basis and issues rapid reports of earthquakes and
their impacts.
In 2008, USGS released new national seismic hazard maps
that incorporate the most recent field observation and research
results and are being used to develop design maps for national
model building codes.
NSF is the basic research arm for NEHRP supporting research
that addresses Earth science, geotechnical and structural
engineering, lifeline engineering, and the social sciences.
NSF has established the George E. Brown Jr., Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation, or NEES, providing world-
class experimental facilities at 15 U.S. academic institutions
with the accompanying cyber infrastructure. NEES provides a
platform for collaborative earthquake engineering research,
education, and outreach.
NIST links NSF basic research with FEMA's implementation
activities. NIST is rebuilding its earthquake engineering
research capabilities to bridge the research-to-implementation
gap.
The NIST program supports earthquake engineering practice
and building code development, develops the technical basis for
performance-based seismic design, and makes technologies
available to the design and construction communities.
FEMA is NEHRP's primary implementation arm and works with
the practitioner community, the American Society of Civil
Engineers, and the International Code Council to support model
building code development. These codes have been adopted in
whole or in part in all 50 states. FEMA is developing the next
generation of the NEHRP recommended provisions for future use
in model building codes. In this work, FEMA works closely with
the Survey to incorporate new hazard mapping into recommended
building code provisions. FEMA also provides technical and
financial assistance to the states and to multi-State consortia
to increase earthquake awareness and support training for State
and local officials.
In summary, there is still much to be learned about
earthquakes and their impacts. This is true both in the
scientific fields and in the engineering disciplines. What we
know highlights the continuing need for greater preparedness
and mitigation if the NEHRP vision for the Nation is to be
realized.
The four NEHRP agencies have a strong partnership, both
among themselves and with the Nation's earthquake professional
community. We intend to strengthen these partnerships while
looking toward the future.
This concludes my remarks, sir, and I am happy to answer
any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hayes follows:]
Prepared Statement of John R. Hayes, Jr.
Introduction
Chairman Wu, Ranking Member Smith and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me to testify on the reauthorization of the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). My testimony
focuses not only on the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) but also on the four-agency NEHRP partnership. NEHRP's partner
agencies are NIST, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the
National Science Foundation (NSF), and the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). It is also very important to note that the NEHRP partnership
extends far beyond the four statutory federal agencies to include other
federal agencies, State and local governments, professional
organizations, model building code and standards organizations, and
earthquake professionals in the private sector and academia. Without
this extended network of organizations and individuals, NEHRP would not
fulfill its statutory responsibilities effectively.
In the five years since the last NEHRP reauthorization hearings
were conducted, the U.S. has experienced a relatively quiet period of
seismic activity. However, seismologists agree that large, damaging
earthquakes in the U.S. are inevitable and unpredictable. Globally it
has been anything but quiet, from the December 2004 magnitude-9
earthquake and ensuing tsunami that devastated the Indian Ocean region
to the May 2008 magnitude-7.9 earthquake in the Sichuan province of
China, in which tens of thousands of people lost their lives. Both
events followed decades or even centuries of quiescence on the faults
where they struck and are sadly sobering reminders of the unexpected
tragedies that can occur.
The USGS has recently issued updated assessments of earthquake
hazards in the U.S. that provide appropriate perspectives for us. In
2008, the USGS, the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), and
the California Geological Survey (CGS), with the support from the
California Earthquake Authority (CEA) jointly produced a forecast of a
99+ percent certainty of California's experiencing a magnitude-6.7 or
greater earthquake within the next 30 years. It is noteworthy that the
recent L'Aquila earthquake in central Italy, in which over 300 people
perished, had a magnitude of 6.3, slightly less than that which is
postulated for California.
While concern for future earthquake activity is always great in
California and elsewhere along the West Coast, earthquakes with
magnitudes ranging from 5 to 6 struck Nevada and along the Illinois-
Indiana border in 2008, the latter generating reports of shaking in
sixteen states and into Canada.
As you know, NEHRP was established by Congress in 1977, to ``reduce
the risks of life and property from future earthquakes in the United
States.'' The Program is predicated on the belief that earthquakes are
inevitable and will occur without warning, but that there is much the
Nation can do to minimize their consequences. The NEHRP agencies strive
to perform the needed research and then translate the research results
into actions that accomplish that goal. During the past five years, the
NEHRP agencies have worked diligently to ensure that United States
(U.S.) citizens are less threatened by devastating earthquakes.
NEHRP Organization
The last reauthorization of NEHRP (P.L. 108-360) directed that a
number of changes in program organization, leadership, and reporting be
made: establishing NIST as the Program Lead Agency, directing the
creation of the NEHRP Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC) and the
external Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazard Reduction (ACEHR), and
requiring a new Strategic Plan and annual Program reports.
Interagency Coordinating Committee
Prominent among these changes has been the creation of the NEHRP
ICC, which is composed of the Directors/Administrators of the four
Program agencies and the Directors of the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
The ICC is chaired by the NIST Director. The ICC has met on eight
occasions and has conducted informal exchanges of information on other
occasions--the ICC has been very actively engaged in Program
leadership. The creation of the ICC has resulted in a significant
increase in program visibility in each agency and in the Executive
Office of the President, and it has elevated key interagency decisions
to be discussed and agreed to at the agency leader level. While many
program decisions can be made at the working level, the direct
involvement of the agency leaders has greatly improved program
coordination and efficiency.
For example, as a part of the process of preparing a new Strategic
Plan for the program, the ICC asked the non-statutory working level
Program Coordination Working Group (PCWG) to assess the then-existing
Strategic Plan and ongoing program activities, so that ``gaps'' could
be identified for inclusion in the new plan.
The ICC has also actively overseen the development of NEHRP's
annual reports and, most importantly, the development of the new
Strategic Plan for the program that was released in October 2008. For
each of these documents, the PCWG has briefed the ICC formally at one
or more of its meetings. The ICC members viewed the significance of the
Strategic Plan to be so great that it remained fully engaged with its
development throughout the period of intense activity that went into
its preparation.
Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Paralleling the formation of the ICC was the requirement for the
establishment of the Program advisory committee. The ACEHR was formed
initially in 2007 and consists of 16 leading earthquake professionals
from across the U.S., from all walks of the non-federal sector. The
ACEHR has 15 appointed members and one ex officio member, the
Chairperson of the USGS Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory
Committee (SESAC), an advisory body established by the 2000 Fire
Administration and Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorizations (P.L.
106-503). While the ACEHR by statute provides its advice to the NIST
Director, the committee is truly engaged across NEHRP, from fundamental
seismological issues to building code implementation. In addition,
social scientists on the committee ensure that economic issues and
human factors are being considered by the NEHRP agencies. The ACEHR
submitted its first formal report to the ICC in 2008 and followed that
report with a May 2009 letter report. The ICC is committed to
thoughtful consideration of these reports.
Lead Agency
Accompanying the statutory requirements for creating the ICC and
ACEHR, the 2004 reauthorization designated NIST as the NEHRP Lead
Agency. To address this requirement, NIST established a formal NEHRP
Secretariat office in early 2006. The Secretariat is responsible for
supporting the activities of both the ICC and ACEHR. In addition, the
Secretariat coordinates the working-level activities of the agencies
and produces required reports in conjunction with the staff-level
Program Coordination Working Group (PCWG), which includes
representatives of the four program agencies. At this level, NEHRP also
links its activities to those of the broader National Science and
Technology Council Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction. While NIST
``leads'' NEHRP activities through the Secretariat, it is only with the
outstanding teamwork of all the agencies working together that NEHRP
accomplishments occur. There is a genuine camaraderie, sense of common
purpose, and dedication to improving earthquake safety among the agency
representatives.
NEHRP Strategic Plan
A major recent accomplishment of the program is its new Strategic
Plan that was released in late 2008 (http://www.nehrp.gov/pdf/
strategic-plan-2008.pdf). The new plan was
developed during two years of intense, thoughtful work by the PCWG. The
ICC and ACEHR provided review and input. The NEHRP agencies initiated
the plan development in 2006 by soliciting public comments on the
previous plan that had been released in 2003 and again, at the end of
the plan development period, solicited public comments on the pre-final
draft before publishing its final version.
Vision
The Strategic Plan sets a NEHRP vision:
A nation that is earthquake-resilient in public safety,
economic strength, and national security.
The NEHRP agencies see this vision as one that sets a fresh course
for NEHRP. This course recognizes the importance of not only improving
public safety in future earthquakes but also enhancing our economic
strength and national security through greater resilience. For example,
if a future southern California earthquake severely damaged the ports
of Los Angeles and Long Beach, as happened to the ports of Kobe, Japan,
in 1995, there would be national economic implications. Similarly, if a
future New Madrid-type earthquake in the Central U.S. severely damaged
one or more major Mississippi River crossings in the Saint Louis to
Memphis region, transcontinental highway and rail transportation, as
well as oil and natural gas transmission could be severely disrupted.
Working with its partners in both the federal and non-federal sectors,
NEHRP can and should provide tools to assist the government and
corporate entities who must address those challenges.
The new vision not only sets this broad focus beyond safety alone
but also recognizes the national need for improving our resilience in
the face of future damaging earthquakes. While many detailed
definitions of resilience exist, the NEHRP agencies can simply view it
as the Nation's capability to maintain its functions or recover from
future earthquakes. While NEHRP's best intentions are to provide State
and local governments, and the private sector, with the tools they need
to improve the survivability of their infrastructure and real property
in future earthquakes, future earthquakes will still inflict serious
damage. Even though response and recovery activities are not the direct
statutory focus of NEHRP, NEHRP does play a role in providing the means
for improving response and recovery capacity. For example, led by FEMA
and USGS, the NEHRP agencies are engaging in scenario demonstration
projects, such as the 2008 Great Southern California Shakeout activity.
These projects serve to catalyze both pre-earthquake mitigation
measures and post-earthquake response and recovery activities to State
and local leaders.
Plan Structure
The strategic plan sets three overarching program goals, each with
four or more key objectives--improve understanding of earthquake
processes and impacts; develop cost-effective measures to reduce
earthquake impacts on individuals, the built environment, and society-
at-large; and improve the earthquake resilience of communities
nationwide. The goals are not agency-specific. Indeed all three goals
involve synergies among the agencies. In addition to the goals and
objectives, the plan sets out nine areas of strategic priority for the
program, areas of great importance to the Nation that will be
emphasized as resources become available to address them.
The NEHRP strategic plan also outlines a number of significant
guiding principles. These principles are not so much specific
objectives as they are philosophies that the NEHRP agencies agree must
be employed as NEHRP advances to achieve the new vision. Three of those
principles are highlighted briefly here. First, the NEHRP agencies will
continue and enhance their cooperation with the earthquake professional
community, those professionals in all walks of life who deal with
earthquake-related issues. NEHRP has enjoyed the benefits of a long
partnership with this community, and attention to this relationship is
critical. Second, the NEHRP agencies will seek, within their designated
mission areas, closer ties to the international community. Not only can
the NEHRP-developed technologies be applied to help others, but also
the U.S. can also learn from advances that are being made abroad.
Finally, the NEHRP agencies will seek to foster synergies among
disciplines as well as with those who work with other hazards, such as
wind, flood, and fire. Current examples of such synergistic work
include:
NSF has pioneered numerous inter and multi-
disciplinary activities in its NEHRP-related programs.
FEMA has extended its earthquake loss estimation
program, Hazards U.S. (HAZUS), to include flood and other
hazards.
The USGS has launched multi-hazard demonstration
projects in southern California and the Pacific Northwest.
In looking at interactions with leaders in multi-hazard areas, the
NEHRP agencies are aware of both the similarities, significant
differences and linkages that exist among the hazards. Most of the
technical issues that are closely tied to monitoring hazard occurrence,
assessing the resulting risks, and developing tools, standards, and
guidelines for design and construction differ substantially from hazard
to hazard, making direct interactions at that level difficult. However,
there are opportunities for the coordination of some NEHRP activities
with those that are ongoing for other hazards. There are similarities
in disaster response that can and should be shared with those who work
in the other hazard areas (FEMA), and there are similarities in
structural response mechanisms that occur in earthquakes and in blast
or impact situations (FEMA, NIST, NSF). Some key linkages provide some
excellent opportunities for multi-hazard cooperation, e.g., tsunami
warnings for such events that are caused by earthquakes (USGS-provided
data used by the National Weather Service) and structural fire effects
from any source (NIST). The NEHRP agencies are also aware of the 30+
year history of organized NEHRP interaction with the earthquake
professional community and State and local governments; this provides
much organizational experience that can be shared with those working in
other hazards-related fields.
Recent NEHRP Accomplishments-Fostering Technology and Knowledge
Transfer
The NEHRP agencies have worked both individually and collectively
in recent years on initiatives that are intended to improve the
Nation's earthquake resilience. Recent NEHRP annual reports provide
substantial information regarding program activities. Examples are
highlighted below.
Workshops
In 2007 and 2008, the four partner agencies worked with the
national earthquake safety community, through a series of workshops, to
identify future research and implementation needs that support the new
strategic plan. The first such workshop addressed research and
implementation issues associated with evaluating and strengthening
existing buildings. Three subsequent workshops addressed research needs
to support the full implementation of Performance-Based Seismic Design,
which was mentioned prominently in the last reauthorization; the basic
scope of a national Post-Earthquake Information Management System that
would support both organized post-earthquake reconnaissance activities
and the development of a national electronic repository of information
gathered through such activities; and, guidance for communities of all
sizes on how to formulate and conduct earthquake scenarios that meet
community objectives. These workshop activities have effectively
fostered communication and cooperation among the agencies and between
them and the earthquake practitioner community. The agencies are
strongly committed to other such workshops in the future.
The NEHRP agencies form a team, with each member agency having key
roles in the successful development and transfer of new knowledge into
practice. Below are examples of successful implementation of knowledge
transfer from one NEHRP agency to others:
USGS
The USGS is the applied Earth science component of NEHRP. USGS
efforts are complemented by basic research projects that are supported
by NSF. USGS reports on earthquake size, location, and impacts;
develops seismic hazard assessment maps and related mapping products;
builds public awareness of earthquake hazards; and supports targeted
research to improve monitoring and assessment capabilities. USGS
carries out these responsibilities through partnerships with the other
NEHRP agencies, State and local governments, and university
researchers.
The USGS supports targeted research activities, working in concert
with NSF. As an example of its current research efforts, Light
Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) topographic imaging is being used to map
fault scarps that are hidden by vegetation and were previously unknown.
This activity has revolutionized our understanding of earthquake
hazards in the Pacific Northwest.
Monitoring
Since the last reauthorization of NEHRP, the USGS has made great
strides in its delivery of comprehensive earthquake information from
monitoring systems, both in the U.S. and worldwide. In the U.S.,
monitoring is accomplished via the developing Advanced National Seismic
System (ANSS), which has added enough modern seismic instruments to
rapidly deliver instrument-based shaking intensity information in five
high-risk metropolitan areas out of 26 planned and is now deployed at a
total of 822 stations. The ANSS is a partnership between the USGS and
its State and university partners. Internationally, USGS works in
partnership with NSF and the Incorporated Research Institutions for
Seismology (IRIS) to utilize the Global Seismographic Network for
earthquake monitoring. Complementing the field monitoring capability is
the USGS National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC), which
assimilates all monitoring data on a 24/7 basis and issues rapid
reports of potentially damaging earthquakes to key federal, State, and
local institutions, as well as to an electronic mailing list of over
100,000 users. Since the last reauthorization, USGS has implemented
full on-site 24/7 operations at NEIC and developed products such as the
Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) system
that provides rapid estimates of the population exposed to strong
shaking and delivers that to aid agencies, emergency managers, and
others who use it to prioritize response activities.
Mapping
In 2008, USGS released new national seismic hazard maps that
incorporate the most recent field observations and research results.
These maps show that earthquakes are serious threats in 46 states. The
maps are being used now to develop design maps for national model
building codes. FEMA and USGS closely collaborate on these activities,
ensuring that the most recent and technically sound hazard information
is considered by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the
International Code Council (ICC). The new maps differ from older maps
primarily in their incorporation of recent research results in areas
near significant known faults. The new research has resulted in ground-
motion models that increased expected shaking in western Washington and
Oregon, near the Cascadia subduction zone, but decrease expected
shaking in the Central and Eastern U.S. somewhat. In many areas of the
western U.S., the new models lower expected shaking levels for taller,
``long-period'' buildings. The USGS is also developing more detailed
urban hazard maps for various areas; such maps have been released
recently for Memphis and Seattle and are currently underway for St.
Louis and Evansville, Indiana.
Scenario Exercises
Also in 2008, the USGS, CGS, and SCEC produced a plausible scenario
of a rupture of the southern end of the San Andreas fault that could
result in about 1,800 deaths, 50,000 injuries, and economic losses
exceeding $200 billion in the greater Los Angeles area. This scenario
formed the basis for the Great Southern California Shakeout earthquake
preparedness and response exercise in late 2008. The Shakeout was
supported by FEMA, NSF, USGS, and numerous State and local
organizations. Over five million Southern California residents
participated in the Shakeout, making it the largest public preparedness
event ever held in the U.S. Plans are underway for a statewide version
in 2009.
NSF
NSF provides the basic research arm for NEHRP, supporting research
that addresses Earth science, geotechnical and structural engineering,
lifeline engineering, the social sciences, and integrating all these
disciplines.
NSF supports fundamental research related to earthquake processes:
seismology, geodesy, rock mechanics, paleoseismology (geologic studies
of prehistoric earthquakes), structural geology, and relevant
theoretical, modeling, and laboratory projects. Recent outcomes from
these programs range from explanatory mechanisms for episodic tremor
and slip observed along plate boundaries around the world to insight
into the slip differential across the southern San Andreas Fault using
interferometric synthetic aperture radar imagery, global positioning
systems, and seismic measurements. This work has substantially improved
the description and understanding of the strain building up along major
plate boundary faults such as the southern San Andreas Fault and the
San Jacinto Fault.
The Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) is a five-year
program funded by NSF and USGS. SCEC's main goal is to produce a
physics-based understanding of Southern California earthquake phenomena
through integrative study of tectonics, active fault systems, fault
zone processes, fault rupture and ground motions. SCEC scientific
accomplishments have been incorporated into practical products, such as
the USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps, as well as new seismic
attenuation relations developed by the Next Generation Attenuation
(NGA) Project at the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER)
Center. NSF supports SCEC to advance seismic hazard research using
high-performance computing, with the aim of utilizing petascale
computing facilities when they become available in the 2010-2011
timeframe. SCEC's Petascale Cyberfacility for Physics-based Seismic
Hazards Analysis (PetaSHA) project has goals to reach earthquake
simulations at frequencies up to 10Hz, including development of a
dynamic rupture platform (DynaShake) that can generate kinematic source
descriptions that emulate dynamic descriptions. DynaShake will be used
to develop kinematic rupture models for several observed earthquakes
(for validation), as well as several large San Andreas Fault ruptures
and a large reverse faulting earthquake.
NEES
Noteworthy among NSF activities since the last NEHRP
reauthorization has been the completion of construction and initial
operations of the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation (NEES). NSF completed the $82 million Major
Research Equipment and Facilities Construction for NEES in September
2004, developing world-class experimental facilities at 15 academic
institutions across the U.S. and accompanying cyberinfrastructure. The
testing facilities include seismic shake tables, geotechnical
centrifuges, a tsunami wave basin, large strong-floor and reaction-wall
facilities with unique testing equipment, and mobile and permanently
installed field equipment. The network's cyberinfrastructure technology
links the facilities via the Internet2 grid, forming the world's first
prototype of a distributed ``virtual instrument.'' The
cyberinfrastructure also provides a national repository for
experimental data, as well as numerical simulation and collaborative
tools.
NEES plays a major role in NEHRP. The NEES multi-user facility
concept serves a unique role among NEHRP agency investments for basic
earthquake engineering research, providing diverse experimental
capabilities, substantial user support, emphasis on education and
outreach, and a university environment characterized by openness for
academic, industry, and government use. NSF works with the other NEHRP
agencies to periodically update the NEES earthquake research agenda.
NEES has promoted change in the research culture for the earthquake
engineering community through open access to unprecedented experimental
capabilities, collaboration with experimental facility staff to develop
formal testing protocols, archival of all experimental data in a
community data repository for reuse by other investigators, and a new
generation of students trained in advanced experimentation techniques
and analytical modeling.
NSF supports research utilizing NEES through annual program
solicitations. Many of these NSF-supported projects include
practitioner and industry partners to help design experimental and
analytical investigations and to speed technology transfer. NEHRP
agency partners and other federal agencies support projects to transfer
NEES research findings into technical briefs for practitioners,
performance-based seismic design (PBSD) guidelines, and seismic
provisions. For example, NIST plans to utilize NEES research facilities
in any future earthquake-related testing that it conducts.
Research using NEES is creating the underpinning knowledge for PBSD
guidelines; expanding the knowledge base for incorporating high-
performance materials and advanced technologies in buildings, bridges,
and critical utility systems; and developing new concepts for
structural systems. NEES research also provides knowledge to mitigate
the effects of ground failure caused during earthquakes by
liquefaction, lateral spread, landslide, and soil failure at
foundations. NEES experimental data are leading to more comprehensive
analytical models for structures subject to near-collapse seismic
loading. Research at the tsunami wave basin has produced the largest
experimental data set to date for three dimensional granular landslide-
generated tsunamis.
NSF's Memorandum Concerning Cooperation in the Area of Disaster
Prevention Research with the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science, and Technology enables U.S. researchers to use both
NEES and Japan's Earth Defense (E-Defense) shake table, the world's
largest shake table, to simulate seismic performance on large- to full-
scale models with geotechnical and structural innovations. The first
NSF-supported NEES research project to use E-Defense, a project on
multi-story wood frame behavior, is commencing at E-Defense in summer
2009.
As of September 2007, the three NSF-supported research centers--the
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER)
led by the University at Buffalo, the Mid-America Earthquake (MAE)
Center led by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and the
PEER Center led by the University of California, Berkeley--completed 10
years of NSF support. The centers are continuing through various
combinations of university, State, and private sector support, and with
other federal funding. Through NSF support, these centers have made
major contributions to the development of performance-based seismic
design; improved fundamental understanding of seismic performance of
structures ranging from buildings, bridges, and acute care facilities
to critical utility lifelines; and developed advanced technologies to
improve earthquake mitigation and response.
NSF has continued to provide support, along with other federal
agencies, for the Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado,
Boulder. The Center's annual workshop each July brings together leading
U.S. natural hazards researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners.
This is the major national forum for linking the producers of research
with appropriate user communities.
NIST
In 2006 and 2007, NIST devoted significant attention to the task of
establishing the NEHRP Secretariat and initiating the various
organizational functions that have already been discussed. A critical
part of the NIST effort has been the establishment of the NEHRP web
site (www.nehrp.gov) that contains much information about the Program,
links to all of the NEHRP agency sites, and links to other
organizations that are involved with earthquake-related research and
implementation issues. Efforts are now underway to incorporate an
electronic clearinghouse of documents produced by NEHRP activities
within the web site. NIST also recently initiated a NEHRP-wide study by
the National Research Council (NRC) that will provide a broad roadmap
for the NEHRP agencies to consider as they implement the new Strategic
Plan. The NRC study assembles a broad panel of national experts in all
aspects of earthquake risk reduction to help identify and prioritize
possible activities that could be considered to achieve the objectives
set out in the NEHRP Strategic Plan.
NIST's technical role in the Program may be summarized as one of
linking the basic research products that come from NSF-supported
university research with the implementation activities that are largely
led by FEMA. Commencing in 2007, in a strong commitment to the Program,
NIST began to rebuild its capabilities in the earthquake research
arena, which had been largely dormant for a number of years, to bridge
the research-to-implementation gap. This rebuilding effort has been
enlarged for 2009. NIST has formed its research program around several
key theme areas: providing technical support for the earthquake
engineering practice and building code development process; developing
the technical basis for performance-based seismic design (PBSD);
supporting the development of technical resources that improve
earthquake engineering practice; and, making evaluated technologies
available to practitioners in the design and construction communities.
These activities are consistent with the NIST mission of serving the
measurement and standards needs of the building and fire safety
industries. NIST is a critical source of metrics, models, and knowledge
for predicting the extent of damage from natural and man-made hazards,
mitigating their impact, and helping to enhance the disaster resilience
of communities and the built environment.
In 2007, NIST established a partnership with the NEHRP Consultants
Joint Venture, which links NIST with the Nation's leading earthquake
engineering researchers and practitioners. The first product of this
effort was released in 2008, a short techbrief document for structural
engineers who design reinforced concrete frame buildings in areas of
high seismic activity. Several additional projects are ongoing. In
addition, NIST began to rebuild its in-house capabilities in 2008 by
hiring new earthquake research staff members; this process continues
today, with staff increases anticipated in 2009 and 2010, contingent on
available resources.
Given the unique nature of the necessary interaction between NIST
and FEMA in fulfilling their respective roles, the two agencies have
formed a special partnership with their programs that involves
complete, frequent exchanges of project information and in some
instances actual direct collaboration on projects that involve
complementary topic areas.
FEMA
FEMA acts as NEHRP's primary ``implementation arm,'' though the
other agencies contribute to Program implementation efforts. Similar to
NIST, FEMA has demonstrated its commitment to NEHRP through a
significant increase in support in 2009.
FEMA has a very prominent NEHRP leadership role in working with the
practitioner community, the ASCE, and the ICC to support the
development of model building code provisions. As it has done for many
years, FEMA is working with the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC)
to develop the next generation of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures that will be
available in 2010 for future use in model building codes. USGS supports
the development of the Recommended Provisions with its hazards mapping
activities.
While working on this document for the future, FEMA is also working
directly with the model building code organizations to assist in the
development of new seismic provisions for the 2009 editions of the
International Codes, or ``I-Codes,'' that are promulgated by the ICC.
The I-Codes have been adopted in part or whole by all 50 states,
standardizing safe design practices nation-wide. At the ICC's initial
code change hearings for the 2009 edition, FEMA staff and contractors
attended various portions and provided testimony on many proposed code
changes for the International Building Code (IBC), the International
Existing Building Code (IEBC) and the International Residential Code
(IRC). This testimony included supporting proposed code changes
submitted by FEMA, proposed code changes where FEMA worked with the
proponents, and proposed code changes that other parties submitted. In
some instances, FEMA spoke in opposition to proposed code changes that
weakened the code.
While working with the national model building code and standards
organizations on issues that are sufficiently mature to be considered
for building code adoption, FEMA also continues to support projects to
develop guidelines for designers. It is in this area that FEMA is
working very closely with NIST, and this partnership and the resulting
development, publication, dissemination, and promotion of building
design and construction materials are signature elements of the NEHRP.
In the past 30 years, FEMA has developed and published over 200
earthquake design guidance publications on all aspects of earthquake
mitigation, including: seismic design and construction of new
buildings; the retrofitting of existing hazardous structures, including
the need for affordable seismic retrofitting techniques; and other
related structural and non-structural issues. FEMA also conducts or
supports related outreach activities to promote training courses and
publications.
Existing buildings pose a much greater risk than new buildings, as
most were constructed prior to current building codes and many are
collapse hazards. FEMA has published an entire series of publications
on existing buildings, from rapid screening of many buildings to
guidance on seismic rehabilitation of an existing hazardous building.
In another example, in 2008, FEMA completed the 50 percent draft of
the Guidelines for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, and an
accompanying Performance Assessment Calculation Tool (PACT), which is
the first phase of the multi-year project to develop the Next-
Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design (PBSD) Guidelines for New
and Existing Buildings. The project is based on the Next-Generation
Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines, Program Plan for New and
Existing Buildings, published by FEMA as FEMA 445. As part of the PBSD
project, FEMA also recently published a document that provides
methodologies on how to test the performance of building components,
Interim Protocols for Determining the Seismic Performance
Characteristics of Structural and Nonstructural Components (FEMA 461).
This publication was developed in concert with the three national
earthquake engineering research centers that NSF supported through the
end of 2007.
A prominent new FEMA public outreach effort began in 2008 with the
new QuakeSmart initiative, which is designed to encourage business
leaders and owners in areas that are at risk from earthquakes to take
actions that will mitigate damage to their businesses, provide greater
safety for customers and employees, and speed recovery if an earthquake
occurs. The goal of QuakeSmart is to build awareness within the
business community of earthquake risks and to educate businesses,
particularly small and emerging ones, on the relatively simple things
they can do to reduce or mitigate the impacts of earthquakes, thus
supporting community preparedness. The effort began with a series of
Community Forums in four cities in the Midwest and on the West Coast.
Further forums are scheduled for late 2009.
To support and increase the adoption of their earthquake resiliency
measures, the NEHRP agencies, led primarily by FEMA, maintain strong
partnerships with other earthquake and hazards-related agencies, State
and local governments, academia, the research community, code
enforcement officials, design professionals, and the remainder of the
private sector.
FEMA provides technical and financial assistance to states and
multi-State consortia to increase awareness of the earthquake hazard
and to foster plans to reduce seismic vulnerability. To provide State
financial assistance, FEMA administers the all-hazards Pre-Disaster
Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program for states and communities; the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), an all-hazards post-disaster grant
program; and the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG)
Program, which provides grants to states to improve emergency
management performance and is administered by FEMA's Preparedness
Directorate.
FEMA also supports a series of multi-State consortia and
organizations, including the Cascadia Regional Earthquake Working Group
(CREW), which serves states in the Pacific Northwest affected by the
Cascadia Subduction Zone and related faults; the Central United States
Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC), which serves the states impacted by the
New Madrid seismic zone; the Northeast States Emergency Consortium
(NESEC), which serves northeastern states on a multi-hazard basis; and
the Western States Seismic Policy Council (WSSPC). FEMA's support to
these organizations is in the form of grants to support earthquake-
related outreach and educational activities that promote earthquake
mitigation and awareness.
FEMA also funds the National Earthquake Technical Assistance
Program (NETAP), a program to support earthquake mitigation training
for State and local officials. Through the National Earthquake
Technical Assistance Program (NETAP), FEMA supports development of
training curricula on earthquake mitigation topics and provides courses
for State and local officials and businesses throughout the U.S.
To improve education and awareness, FEMA has co-sponsored series of
informational conferences, including the National Earthquake Conference
held in St. Louis, MO in September 2004 and in Seattle in April 2008,
as well as the 100 Year Anniversary of the 1906 San Francisco
Earthquake. In total, several thousand individuals attended numerous
presentations on earthquake-related topics.
In a project closely related to its other NEHRP efforts, FEMA
completed development and publication of its Guidelines for Design of
Structures for Vertical Evacuation from Tsunamis. This document was
jointly funded by FEMA and NOAA. Tsunami safety is a critical issue for
several coastal communities along the West Coast of the U.S. that are
vulnerable to tsunami. The States of Oregon and Washington have already
expressed interest in using this publication.
Conclusion
Damaging earthquakes, while infrequent in the U.S., can be among
the costliest natural disasters, measured both in terms of economic
impact and lives lost or disrupted. There is still much to be learned
about earthquakes and their impacts. This is true both in the
scientific fields and in the engineering disciplines. What we do know
highlights the continuing need for greater preparedness and mitigation,
if the NEHRP vision for the Nation is to be realized. The four NEHRP
agencies have a strong partnership, both among themselves and with the
Nation's earthquake professional community that continues to focus on
that vision.
Chairman Wu, thank you again for the opportunity to testify on
NEHRP activities. This concludes my remarks. I will be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Biography for John R. Hayes, Jr.
John Hayes joined the Building and Fire Research Laboratory in
early 2006. He is the Director of NEHRP. NEHRP is the Federal
Government's program to reduce risks to life and property from
earthquakes. NEHRP consists of four federal agencies: FEMA, NSF, USGS,
and NIST. As Director, Hayes provides overall program management,
coordination and technical leadership; strengthens program
effectiveness by facilitating implementation of earthquake risk
mitigation measures; and builds and maintains effective partnerships
with NEHRP agencies and stakeholders in industry, academia and
government. Specific duties include strategic and management plan
development and implementation; program evaluation and performance
measurement; budget review, guidance and coordination; preparation and
submission of coordinated annual program budgets; submission of an
annual report to Congress on consolidated program priorities, budget
and results, including an assessment of program effectiveness;
information dissemination on earthquake hazards and loss-reduction
measures; and related interagency programs and policies.
Hayes joined NIST after serving since 1988 as leader of seismic and
structural engineering research at the U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center's Construction Engineering Research Laboratory
(CERL) in Champaign, IL. At CERL, Hayes was actively involved in
earthquake engineering research for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
He also collaborated extensively with the earthquake engineering
program at NSF, including work within the Mid-America Earthquake
Center, and has been directly involved with a number of significant
earthquake mitigation projects for FEMA. Working with key personnel at
USGS, Hayes helped develop the seismic provisions for the American
Society of Civil Engineers' ASCE 7-05 standard and a new Department of
Defense tri-services seismic design manual.
Prior to his tenure at CERL, Hayes was Research Civil Engineer and
Senior Scientist at the Engineering Research Division of the U.S. Air
Force Engineering and Services Laboratory (1984-1988); Structural
Engineer at the U.S. Air Force Armament Division (1982-1984); Assistant
Professor of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Military Institute
(1980-1982); Civil Engineer and NATO Infrastructure Staff Officer at
the Headquarters U.S. Air Forces in Europe (1977-1980); and Civil
Engineer Officer at Tinker AFB, OK (1975-1977).
Hayes is a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Air Force
Reserves and is a registered Professional Engineer in Florida and
Virginia.
Education:
Ph.D., Civil Engineering, 1998, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign
M.E., Civil Engineering, 1975, University of Virginia (Tau Beta Pi)
B.S., Civil Engineering, 1973, Virginia Military Institute
(Distinguished Graduate)
Chair Wu. Thank you, Dr. Hayes. Mr. Murphy, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MR. KENNETH D. MURPHY, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (NEMA); DIRECTOR,
OREGON OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Chair Wu and Ranking Member Smith,
and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee for allowing me
to testify today. In my statement, I am representing the
National Emergency Manager's Association who are members of
State emergency management directors in the states. As the
Committee considers reauthorization of the NEHRP program, NEMA
supports the program's reauthorization as a vital program that
helps states prepare for earthquake specific hazards.
There are four key areas that I want to highlight today,
challenges faced by emergency managers in preparing communities
for earthquakes and other natural hazards, support for
reauthorization of the NEHRP program, differences in preparing
for hazards, and tools and technology for emergency managers.
The challenges we face as emergency managers are numerous
challenges at each level of government and the private sector.
I would be remiss if I did not state for the record that
financial assistance to address earthquake hazards has been,
and always will be, a challenge. Each state, city, county,
tribal nation, and territory must deal with either consistent
disasters, such as hurricanes or wildfires, which usually
provide greater emphasis and support to be prepared for these
type of events, or they have to deal with very infrequent
disasters which lead to a lack of preparedness, which usually
directs emphasis to other issues that are relevant and must be
dealt with. Earthquakes are high consequence infrequent events
that are often difficult to gain attention.
As you stated, Mr. Chair, the Northridge Earthquake, with
the deaths, the injuries, and the billions of dollars, just
happened in a few minutes.
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program provides
funding allowing for effective practices and policies to
earthquake loss-reduction and accelerates their implementation.
This program is currently authorized at $191 million for fiscal
year 2009 and authorization expires in September of this year.
However, according to the Central United States Earthquake
Consortium, NEHRP funding has remained level since 1992, so we
have lost considerable value over time for the investments made
to build preparedness capability and research tools. NEHRP
improves techniques to reduce seismic vulnerability of
facilities and systems. NEHRP improves seismic hazard
identification and risk assessment methods and their use and
improves the understanding of earthquakes and their effects. We
think the program must remain singularly focused on
earthquakes. FEMA should maintain the NEHRP program uses for
all four phases of emergency management, preparedness,
response, recovery, and mitigation. FEMA should also ensure the
program maintains both a State focus and a multi-State focus
since earthquakes could hit multi-State regions, and as we have
learned from recent hurricanes that our Nation relies on mutual
aid assistance in response to disasters.
NEMA supports the creation of the Advisory Committee for
NEHRP that was created in the reauthorization of 2005 and
appreciates that emergency management is represented on that
Committee and hope that the Committee continues.
The NEHRP plan and activities do align with local
governments. As NEHRP has evolved during this reauthorization,
thought should be given to focus on specific geographic areas,
which would be of great benefit to the local needs and
preparedness activities. While NEHRP is a valuable program for
emergency managers, it is difficult sometimes to track the
program's funding year to year, since the program is shared by
four separate agencies and often buried in operational accounts
for these agencies. Having a clear line item for NEHRP would
assist in tracking the funds for the program and gaining more
visibility before Congress, the Administration, and
stakeholders at the State and local level who are charged with
preparing for earthquakes or providing technological expertise
for the program.
The most significant issue concerning earthquakes is that
earthquakes are no-notice disasters. Many other disasters do
provide some types of advanced notice and warning, not all.
Similar to other disasters, emergency managers really do not
know how severe or how long an earthquake will last.
Earthquakes must be planned for in the worst-case scenario, as
emergency responders will not know exactly who is alive, who is
injured, how large an area is affected initially, and how much
damage you have really suffered. Emergency managers also have
to be prepared for after-shocks, and on the coastal areas we
have to plan for tsunamis. All of these factors make planning
for earthquakes unique and specific for different geographical
areas.
In preparing for earthquakes it is important to have tools
such as HAZUS, which is a modeling tool from FEMA, but I
believe that this tool needs more refinement and to be specific
to earthquakes and tsunamis allowing more specific modeling for
each jurisdiction allowing governments to better implement
preparedness response and recovery and mitigation programs.
Geologists and seismologists need more research into the
prediction of earthquakes and more sensors in the ground to
give us warning and scientific data on Earth's movement during
earthquakes.
Applied research that is sponsored in part by NEHRP and its
agencies may eventually lead to advancements in exciting new
technologies, such as early warning earthquake systems which
are vitally important to protecting human life and critical
infrastructure as well as guiding response efforts.
In conclusion, NEMA supports NEHRP reauthorization and
looks forward to working with the Committee to enhance the
program. If you have any questions, Mr. Chair, I will be
available.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth D. Murphy
Introduction
Thank you Chairmen Wu and Ranking Member Smith, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee for allowing me the opportunity to provide
you with a statement for the record. I am Ken Murphy, the Immediate
Past-President of the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA)
and the Director of the Oregon Office of Emergency Management. In my
statement today, I am representing NEMA, whose members are the State
emergency management directors in the states, the U.S. territories, and
the District of Columbia. NEMA's members are responsible to their
Governors for emergency preparedness, homeland security, mitigation,
response, and recovery activities for natural, man-made and terrorist
caused disasters. In my state, the emergency management office is
responsible for earthquake preparedness, response, recovery, and
mitigation and we are actively engaged with the National Earthquake
Hazards Mitigation Program (NEHRP).
As the Committee considers reauthorization of the NEHRP program,
NEMA supports the program's reauthorization as a vital program that
helps states prepare for earthquake specific hazards. The NEHRP program
works in concert with critical preparedness functions at FEMA, such as
the newer Regional Catastrophic Grant Program and the Emergency
Management Performance Grant Program, the only all-hazards preparedness
program. Better integration of NEHRP in key activities like mitigation,
all-hazards gap analysis, and all-hazards preparedness activities would
benefit State preparedness activities and building the capabilities
nationally and at the State and local level for catastrophic
preparedness.
There are four key areas that I want to highlight today:
1. Challenges faced by emergency managers in preparing
communities for earthquakes and other natural hazards;
2. Support for reauthorization of the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program;
3. Difference in preparing for the hazards; and
4. Tools and technology for emergency managers.
CHALLENGES FACED BY EMERGENCY MANAGERS
Emergency managers are faced with numerous challenges at each level
of government and the private sector. I would be remiss if I did not
state for the record that financial assistance to address earthquake
hazards has been and always will be a challenge. Each state, city,
county, tribal nation, and territory must deal with either consistent
disasters, such as hurricanes or wildfires, which usually provide
greater emphasis and support to be prepared for these type events or
they have to deal with very infrequent disasters which lead to a lack
of preparedness, which usually directs emphasis to other issues that
are relevant and must be dealt with. Earthquakes are high consequence
infrequent events and are often difficult to gain attention. I want to
highlight some of the larger events so you get a picture of how
earthquakes measure up to other disasters.
During the Nisqually Earthquake of 2001, one of the
largest recorded earthquakes in Washington State history, one
casualty and 407 injuries were reported along with the
disruption of business, transportation, and government
functions for a number of days for extensive inspection,
repair, and clean-up efforts. The earthquake was Washington's
most expensive and widespread disaster, according to State and
federal coordinating officers for the disaster recovery
program, totaling over $322 million in federal disaster
recovery costs and not including damages to bridges or roadways
covered by the Federal Highway Administration System;
The Northridge Earthquake in California in 1994 was
responsible for 72 deaths and over 9,000 injuries and left
25,000 people homeless. The earthquake caused an estimated $25
billion in damage, making it one of the costliest natural
disasters in U.S. history. An outbreak of Valley Fever also hit
the affected area directly following the earthquake due to the
large amount of dust and land movement during the quake and was
responsible for three deaths;
The Loma Prieta Earthquake of 1989 killed 63 people,
injured 4,000, and left over 8,000 people homeless. The
earthquake caused between $8 billion and $12 billion in damages
to critical infrastructure, businesses, and homes;
The 1906 San Francisco earthquake was estimated as a
magnitude 8.3 event, lasting 45 seconds. The casualties as a
result of the earthquake and resulting fire are estimated to be
above 3,000 and to this day is the greatest loss of life from a
natural disaster in California's history; and
The 1812 New Madrid Earthquake and after-shocks,
though not officially recorded is often believed to be the
largest seismic activity in U.S. history, and induced shaking
strong enough to alarm the general population over an area of
2.5 million square kilometers, affecting territory that is now
occupied by over 10 states.
NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM (NEHRP)
NEHRP provides funding allowing for effective practices and
policies for earthquake loss-reduction and accelerates their
implementation. The program is currently authorized at $191 million for
FY 2009 and authorization expires on September 30, 2009. However,
according to the Central United States Earthquake Consortium, NEHRP
funding has remained level since 1992, so we have lost considerable
value over time for the investments made to build preparedness
capabilities and research tools. NEHRP improves techniques to reduce
seismic vulnerability of facilities and systems. NEHRP improves seismic
hazards identification and risk-assessment methods and their use and
improves the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.
The program must remain singularly focused on earthquakes. FEMA
also should maintain the NEHRP program's uses for all four phases of
emergency management--preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation.
FEMA should also ensure the program maintains both a State focus and a
multi-State focus, since earthquakes could hit multi-State regions and
as we have learned from recent hurricanes that our nation relies on
mutual aid assistance in response to disasters. NEMA supports the
creation of the Advisory Committee for NEHRP that was created in the
reauthorization in 2005 and appreciate that emergency management is
represented on the Committee. We hope that the Committee and emergency
management representation will continue.
In addition to NEHRP's scientific and research driven efforts, the
program provides coordination with FEMA's Emergency Management
Performance Grant (EMPG) that enables states to develop preparedness
and response plans as well as increase earthquake awareness. A primary
objective of NEHRP is to provide outreach and public education and NEMA
strongly supports these efforts at a national, State, and local level.
Some of the key NEHRP objectives include development of cost-effective
measures to reduce earthquake impacts on individuals, the built
environment, and society-at-large; providing guidance and
recommendations on codes and ordinances to enhance seismic safety; and
improving earthquake resilience of communities nationwide through
effective policies.
Some of the key accomplishments by states through NEHRP and FEMA,
include preparedness, mitigation, training, and public education.
Training:
With support from FEMA/NEHRP Washington State EMD trains 250+
personnel annually on mitigation techniques, such as Rapid Visual
Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards as well as
response and recovery techniques that include Post Earthquake Safety
Evaluation of Buildings.
Exercises:
Major functional exercises have been conducted with the
support of FEMA/NEHRP funds. Based on the Seattle Fault Earthquake
Scenario, the Sound Shake 2008 exercise examined serious impacts to the
region's transportation and communications systems. This exercise also
allowed the state, counties, and cities in the greater Puget Sound
region to test their emergency plans and systems. The exercise also
provided an opportunity for the region as a whole to continually
improve its readiness.
Public Education and Outreach:
Emergency management continues to promote public awareness of
the State earthquake hazards through the annual preparedness month
campaigns. Statewide ``Drop, Cover and Hold'' drills are conducted
during both months in an effort to educate citizens on how to respond
during an earthquake.
Awareness and educational videos, including Earthquake . . .
Preparing Your Classroom--How Safe is Your Classroom? and Preparing
Your Office for an Earthquake, have been developed and are utilized
statewide to inform educators and business owners of non-structural
mitigation techniques that can be employed with little or no cost.
These instructional videos have been posted online for greater
dissemination.
The NEHRP plan and activities do align with local governments. As
NEHRP has evolved, during this reauthorization thought should be given
to focus on specific geographic areas, which would be of great benefit
to the locals needs and preparedness activities.
While NEHRP is a valuable program for emergency managers, it is
difficult to track the program's funding from year to year, since the
program is shared by four separate agencies and often buried in
operational accounts for these agencies. Having a clear line item for
NEHRP would assist in tracking the funds for the program and gaining
more visibility before Congress, the Administration and stakeholders at
the State and local level who are charged with preparing for
earthquakes or providing technological expertise for the program.
EARTHQUAKES VERSE OTHER HAZARDS
The most significant issue concerning earthquakes is that
earthquakes are no notice disasters. Many other disasters do provide
some types of advanced warning, not all. Similar to other disasters,
emergency managers really do not know how severe or how long an
earthquake will last. Earthquakes must be planned for in the worst case
scenario, as emergency responders will not know who is alive, injured,
how large an area is affected, and how much damage you have suffered.
Emergency managers also have to be prepared for after-shocks and on the
coastal areas we have to plan for tsunamis. All of these factors make
planning for earthquakes unique and specific for different geographical
areas.
TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGIES
In preparing for earthquakes it is important to have the tools such
as HAZUS, which is a modeling tool from FEMA, but I believe that this
tool needs more refinement to be specific to earthquakes and tsunamis
allowing more specific modeling for each jurisdiction allowing
governments to make and implement better preparedness actions.
Geologist and seismologist need more research into the prediction of
earthquakes and more sensor systems in the grounds to give us some
warning and scientific data on the Earth's movement during earthquakes.
Additionally, even though I stated that earthquakes are no notice
events it is still important to have technologies that allow
jurisdiction to warn their citizens and visitors. NEMA has supported
authorization for FEMA's Integrated Public Alert and Warning System
(IPAWS) as a component of the warning systems for the emergency
management tool-kit. IPAWS is an important technology which is designed
to warn individuals through various systems such as text messaging and
reverse 911 warnings for an impending event. As emergency managers, we
have to be able to tell people what to prepare for, how to react, and
what is important when disasters are eminent or have occurred. Having
warning systems in place is not enough, if we don't tell them what to
do with that information.
Applied research that is sponsored in part by NEHRP and its
agencies may eventually lead to advancements in exciting new
technologies, such as early earthquake warning, which are vitally
important to protecting human life and critical infrastructure as well
as guiding response efforts.
CONCLUSION
NEMA supports NEHRP reauthorization and looks forward to working
with the Committee to enhance the program. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify and we appreciate your support for our nation's
emergency management system.
Biography for Kenneth D. Murphy
Currently the Director of Oregon Emergency Management (OEM),
Kenneth D. Murphy has been with OEM since July 1999. Early assignments
at OEM involved functioning as the Administrative Operations Manager
and the Deputy Director for the agency. These initial positions were
integral to the overall organizational structure and management of
administrative, operational processes and systems for the agency. Mr.
Murphy has dealt with legislative issues, human resource management,
public information and media liaison, as well as managing the
development and implementation of projects to support and enhance the
statewide emergency services system infrastructure. Murphy has been the
Director of Oregon Emergency Management since April 1, 2003, and was
also appointed Director of Oregon's Office of Homeland Security on June
1, 2005.
In 1980, Mr. Murphy left retail furniture business to pursue a
full-time career with the United States Army as an active duty Guard/
Reserve officer assigned to the Oregon National Guard. Over a period of
nineteen years, Mr. Murphy held numerous positions on Company,
Battalion, Brigade, Corps and Army staffs. Mr. Murphy's final two
assignments included: Chief of the U.S. Army's European Crisis Action
Team stationed in Heidelberg, Germany, which had the responsibility to
react, manage, coordinate and control emergency situations for 83
European countries; and Director of Military Support to Civilian
Authorities for the Oregon National Guard, responsible for the Oregon
Guard's coordination and response procedures to State and national
emergencies. Murphy retired from active military service in April 1999
as a Lieutenant Colonel with twenty-nine years of service.
Mr. Murphy currently serves on the Governor's Homeland Security
Council and Governor's Statewide Inter-operability Executive Council
for Oregon. Additionally, he serves as a member of the Board of
Director's for the Western States Seismic Safety Policy Council, member
of the Board of Directors for the Oregon Regional Maritime Security
Coalition, FEMA Region Ten Regional Advisory Council; FEMA Headquarters
National Advisory Council and is the immediate past President of the
National Emergency Management Association for the United States.
Chair Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy. Professor
O'Rourke, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR THOMAS D. O'ROURKE, THOMAS R. BRIGGS
PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING, SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING, CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Prof. O'Rourke. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, and also
Ranking Member Smith and Members of the Subcommittee, I am very
happy to be here to testify today.
[Slide]
This first slide, by the way, illustrates Balboa Boulevard
after the 1994 Northridge Earthquake in Los Angeles, and you'll
see in this picture that ground failure here has ruptured high-
pressure gas and water transmission pipelines, and those houses
that you are looking at were literally burned from the top and
flooded from the bottom. Twenty-five percent of the water
supply was lost in Los Angeles as a consequence of that
earthquake, and as you have mentioned before, there were
billions of dollars of damage.
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program is the
backbone of U.S. seismic protection, and the risks are high.
The risks are high because the population and assets in
earthquake vulnerable areas are growing in the United States.
NEHRP provides the support base for seismic monitoring,
mapping, research, testing, code development, mitigation,
emergency preparedness, but I think what is also equally
important is that it served as an incubator for technology, for
procedures and policy that go beyond earthquakes to reduce risk
from all natural hazards and human threats. It has become a
very important contributor to the technologies and the
reduction of risks in all natural hazards.
The 2004 reauthorization of NEHRP called for a number of
changes in the program. NIST is the lead agency, Interagency
Coordinating Committee, Advisory Committee for Earthquake
Hazards Reduction and Strategic Plan. All of these have really
supported and enhanced the interagency coordination, and I am a
member, as is Michael Lindell to my left, and Jim Harris--are
members of the Advisory Committee for Earthquake Hazards
Reduction. I think we all feel that the interagency
coordination with the new reauthorization has really gone
forward and is looking very good.
Support for NIST, which is the lead agency, because it is a
lead agency. It is really in control and overseeing a vast
portfolio, a large portfolio, of different programs, yet the
support for NIST right now only accounts for about 1.4 percent
of the enacted-year budget for fiscal year 2008. I think, and
many other people do, too, that increased effort at NIST and
additional support is a very important part of supporting the
interagency coordination because as lead agency, they need the
support and the resources to be able to do their job
effectively.
Engineering, research and development priorities include
lifeline systems. These are the systems that really distinguish
modern communities. They bring us energy, they bring us
transportation, water supply, telecommunications, particularly
looking at the interdependencies and the national impact,
social and behavioral aspects of community response to
earthquakes is actually important for engineering because
actually the real infrastructure are the communities that the
physical infrastructure serve. So getting the proper
coordination there is important, performance-based seismic
design, non-ductal concrete and other buildings with life
safety threats.
There are also two important programs, one of them is the
Advanced National Seismic System operated by the U.S.
Geological Survey calling for 6,000 new stations to monitor
strong motion, concentration in urban areas, and defining urban
risks and then real-time shake maps.
The George A. Brown Jr., Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation represents a tremendous opportunity for improving
civil infrastructure, for being able to show new and emerging
technologies and to be able to provide the evidence that is
necessary for their implementation. With 15 sites across the
United States, access worldwide, and by a whole number of
different users, this is one of the gems of the earthquake
program and certainly deserves support.
Technology transfer: NEHRP has been very effective in
developing codes and standards, and FEMA has been the key
agency for tech transfer and implementation. It is important to
recognize that FEMA again has only been enacted for about 26
percent of its authorization, and so as the key agency for tech
transfer implementation, we think that support should be
increased so they could do their job more effectively. It is
also, I think, important to revitalize the FEMA State
earthquake programs and provide for mitigation fund. Supporting
FEMA at authorized levels is the most effective way to promote
technology transfer.
And then natural hazards R&D.
[Slide]
There has been a recent report by the Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute which is shown here--I have
copies for both Chair Wu and Mr. Smith--but this report
documents the strong NEHRP as the best way to support natural
hazards mitigation. There are many, many contributions from
NEHRP to hazards mitigation which are listed here and explained
in detail in the report.
And then finally, natural hazards R&D. One of the things to
do to bring an R&D program for natural hazards that would
include all hazards is to seek expert advice from the National
Academies to the National Research Council [NRC]. This is a
complex area with lots of different disciplines, and a study by
the National Academies could be very effective in providing
guidance on a good program.
Multi-hazards demonstration projects, some of them are
being led by USGS in Southern California. A further development
of those would be very useful, and then interaction between
NEHRP and the National Windstorm Impaction Reduction Program
with NIST perhaps as the lead agency would be a good step
toward being able to develop more coordination among the
different hazards.
So the way forward is a strong NEHRP support, NEHRP support
that is consistent with authorized levels, and that we think is
the highest priority investment in disaster resilient
communities. And then of course the improved hazards
coordination through an NRC (National Research Council) study,
multi-hazards demonstration projects, and interaction between
earthquake and windstorm communities perhaps with NIST as the
lead agency. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Prof. O'Rourke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas D. O'Rourke
The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) is the
backbone for seismic protection in the United States. It provides
federal support for research, information dissemination, development
and implementation of technology, and the application of planning and
management procedures to reduce seismic risk. It provides the resources
and leadership for understanding and reducing U.S. vulnerability to
earthquakes, and supplies the support base for seismic monitoring,
mapping, research, testing, code development, mitigation and emergency
preparedness. This support is critically important because the United
States faces serious earthquake risk. This risk is growing because
population density, property, and infrastructure are increasing in
locations affected by earthquakes. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) estimates that 45 states and territories are destined to
experience earthquake damage. This exposure equals an annualized loss
exceeding $6 billion dollars per year, with a single event loss
potential of $100 to $200 billion dollars and tens of thousands of
casualties. (FEMA, 2001, adjusted to 2009 dollars).
NEHRP is administered through four government agencies, with the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as the lead
agency and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Science
Foundation (NSF), and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the
other partnering agencies. The USGS is the applied geosciences arm of
NEHRP. It has successfully developed a procedure for translating Earth
science into the information needed for seismic design. It reports on
earthquakes worldwide, produces seismic hazard maps for use by design
professionals, monitors for earthquake motions and effects, and helps
develop public awareness, planning, and response preparations through
coordination with the other NEHRP agencies and local communities. The
NSF is the basic research arm of NEHRP, which supports research in
engineering, Earth sciences, and the social sciences. It provides the
engine that drives fundamental discoveries related to earthquake
processes; seismic response and failure mechanisms of the ground,
buildings, and lifeline networks; and human behavior, social response,
and the economic conditions pertaining to earthquakes. FEMA is the
primary implementation arm of NEHRP. It sponsors the development of
guidelines and standards for the seismic evaluation and rehabilitation
of existing buildings and for the design of new structures. It also
provides technical and financial support to states, multi-State
consortia, and individual communities to improve earthquake mitigation
with grants to enhance public awareness, adopt earthquake resiliency
measures, and support local projects. In addition to its role as lead
agency, NIST supports the development of seismic codes and standards,
and thus provides a critical link between the basic research supported
by NSF and the implementation of that research, led largely through
FEMA.
NEHRP is an incubator for technology and policy that extend well
beyond seismic risk to improve the security and economic well-being of
U.S. citizens through the reduction of risk from other hazards, such a
floods, windstorms, hurricanes, and human threats. The contributions of
NEHRP affect our lives through improvements in the perception,
quantification, and communication of risk (EERI, 2008). They involve
advanced technologies for strengthening the built environment, loss
assessment methodologies, emergency response procedures, and a process
for achieving disaster preparedness. They also involve a unique,
multidisciplinary culture that integrates basic and applied research
into design codes, construction methods, and public policy (EERI,
2008).
Not only does NEHRP protect lives and property from earthquake
hazards, it contributes markedly to improvements in U.S. civil
infrastructure. For example, research supported by NEHRP has
substantially improved the modeling of complex lifeline systems,
structural health monitoring, protective systems for buildings and
bridges, and remote sensing for response and recovery from extreme
events (EERI, 2008). Lifeline systems, including electric power, water
supplies, gas and liquid fuel delivery, and telecommunications, are
essential for the proper functioning and economic stability of modern
communities. NEHRP sponsorship of lifelines research has led to break-
through discoveries about the functionality and interdependence of
critical infrastructure systems, and has stimulated interdisciplinary
work among social scientists and engineers to quantify and reduce the
community and economic impacts of lifeline losses after extreme events.
U.S. civil infrastructure is made all the more vulnerable to
earthquakes and other natural hazards by its poor state of repair.
Grades issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers (2009) are
barely passing for every element of the built environment at a time
when conditions have underscored the importance of infrastructure for a
viable and competitive economy. NEHRP, through its basic research and
implementation agencies at NSF, NIST, and FEMA, is ideally positioned
to provide proof of concept for emerging technologies as well as the
evidence needed to sustain their implementation. For example, the
George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(NEES) supported by NSF provides a national resource for demonstrating
the cost-effectiveness of performance-based design, new materials to
reduce the impact of earthquakes and other extreme events, and improved
retrofit strategies that improve infrastructure performance on a daily
basis as well as under conditions of unusual stress. The current
reconstruction of the Nation's transportation networks has
significantly benefited from NEHRP-sponsored research, including the
USGS mapping program. The newest design guidelines and codes for bridge
design include advanced seismic design and characterization provisions.
Thus, 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.
NEHRP 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.
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
There are several distinguishing features of the last NEHRP
reauthorization (Public Law 108-360), including the establishment of
NIST as Program Lead Agency, creation of the NEHRP Interagency
Coordinating Committee (ICC), and appointment of an external committee
of experts, known as the Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards
Reduction (ACHER), to provide recommendations to the NEHRP agencies on
implementing the program. The last NEHRP reauthorization also requires
the preparation of a strategic plan by the ICC to guide and coordinate
interagency activities within the program. All these aspects of NEHRP
have been helpful in stimulating interagency coordination.
The establishment of the ICC has worked especially well. The ICC is
composed of the Directors/Administrators of the four partner agencies
plus the Directors of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and
Management and Budget. The ICC met on numerous occasions since its
inception in 2006. The meetings have been regularly attended by the
National Science Advisor and prominent leaders of the other agencies,
including the Directors of NSF and USGS. Such high level, active
involvement has given NEHRP significant program visibility among agency
leaders, which in turn has encouraged interagency coordination.
Increased coordination has been achieved through ICC oversight of the
NEHRP Strategic Plan, annual reports, and exchange of partnering agency
budget preparation plans well in advance of the President's annual
budget request.
NIST has provided focused and positive leadership for NEHRP. It has
been active in developing a sound Strategic Plan, coordinating with the
partnering agencies and the external earthquake community, and
convening the ACEHR for guidance on the program.
Sixteen experienced earthquake professionals were first convened as
members of the ACEHR in 2007. Biannual meetings of ACEHR have been held
with representatives of the partnering agencies. The meetings have been
held at the NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg, MD, and also at key
locations around the U.S., such as the USGS National Earthquake
Information Center in Golden, CO and the Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center at the University of California at Berkeley, CA. In
addition, there have been several conference calls, in which the ACHER
members have exchanged views and made recommendations about program
content. All meetings and conference calls have been open to the
public. Frequent meetings and interchange with ACEHR have fostered
interagency cooperation by providing a forum for collective agency
reporting, collective dialogue with the external advisory committee,
and the circulation of ACHER recommendations on NEHRP to all agencies.
In its first annual report ACEHR (2008) observes that NEHRP ``benefits
from a high level of interagency coordination and a common focus.'' An
excellent example of this collaboration is the NEHRP Strategic Plan for
FY 2009-2013 (ICC, 2008). The plan outlines strategic priorities, each
with a designated agency lead, and provides a template for coordinated
and collaborative efforts among the NEHRP partner agencies.
A key opportunity to improve coordination is to increase the level
of effort at NIST in NEHRP. The previous NEHRP reauthorization
envisioned leadership at NIST that would grow from 2004 to 2009 with
increasing levels of funding authorized to support expanding managerial
and technical activities. This makes sense. As lead agency, NIST has
stewardship for the entire program and requires a level of support
commensurate with oversight of the sizable NEHRP portfolio of projects
and activities. As of FY 2008, NEHRP support enacted for NIST was only
1.4 percent of the enacted budget.
As discussed previously, NIST plays a pivotal and integrating role
in NEHRP by acting as the vehicle for channeling basic research from
NSF projects to implementation with the assistance of FEMA. Enabling
this role with the support that was envisioned in the last NEHRP
reauthorization would help greatly to foster increased coordination by
tying together more effectively the programs at NSF, FEMA, and USGS.
The funds enacted for NIST account for only 12.8 percent of its support
authorized for FY 2008. This is too low, and presents an opportunity to
increase the productivity of NEHRP. Increasing support for NIST to be
consistent with current authorized levels is perhaps the most effective
way to improve interagency coordination as well as increase the overall
effectiveness of NEHRP.
Enhanced interagency coordination and support is needed for
earthquake reconnaissance. Because earthquake occurrences are rare, it
is imperative to invest substantial resources in learning from them.
Reconnaissance of an earthquake affected area within a short time after
the event will capture unique, time-sensitive and perishable data of
great value for improved understanding of earthquake effects and a
real-world test bed for existing models. There should be coordinated
support for earthquake reconnaissance activities from all NEHRP
agencies.
Recommendations by ACEHR (2008) call for a transfer of leadership
from USGS to NIST for coordinating post-earthquake reconnaissance
efforts. ACEHR recommends that ``NIST should serve as the single point
of coordination, without any discipline-specific individual
responsibility, to ensure that all key aspects of an event are captured
in a balanced manner.'' This change is recommended for incorporation in
the current reauthorization cycle.
Preparing for earthquake reconnaissance and coordinating missions
is time-intensive and demanding work. Adequate staff and funding are
required for successful reconnaissance, thus emphasizing further the
need for additional resources to NIST to fulfill its NEHRP leadership
role.
Care and coordination needs to be exercised in the collection and
archiving of data from earthquake reconnaissance. ACEHR (2008)
recommends archiving reconnaissance data in a Post-Earthquake
Information Management System (which is introduced in the new Strategic
Plan), where data would be available in a set of discipline oriented
interactive media with information related to the short- and long-term
effects of earthquakes.
PRIORITIES FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING R&D
Earthquake engineering R&D must be judged in context of the earth
science quantification of design hazards and the societal impact
associated with the engineering and construction that are proposed for
the real world. Hence, a robust engineering R&D program must be
integrated with strong earth and social science R&D activities.
USGS is 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 enhance our
understanding of earthquake ground motion throughout the country so we
can identify areas that need concentrated mitigation activities,
recognize those areas where conservatism can be reduced (thus realizing
considerable savings), and refine our modeling and design procedures
for seismic soil-structure interaction. This problem is so large and
expensive that we cannot afford to rely solely on the current
information to guide our engineering approaches and policy decisions.
The ANSS is currently deployed at about 15 percent of its planned
capacity. The deployment of ANSS needs to be accelerated with a strong
commitment to achieving the completion of this program in a timely
manner.
NSF is operating the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation (NEES), which consists of state-of-the-art
experimental facilities distributed across the U.S. working in unison
through advanced telecommunications and high performance Internet. The
network is focused on the large-scale behavior of critical facilities
under complex earthquake loadings and the validation of analytical and
computer models needed for effective engineering. NEES links 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. If we are to arrest the growth of earthquake
risk in the U.S., we must discover how large-scale structures and
lifelines actually respond to earthquake effects and develop more cost
efficient methods for reducing their vulnerabilities to acceptable
levels. NEES is critically important for accomplishing this. As
discussed previously, NEES is a national resource for advancing
technologies to improve U.S. infrastructure. Recent ACEHR (2008)
recommendations include developing support from other federal agencies
to leverage NSF investments in NEES.
The resilience of communities and the built environment are
interrelated, and thus research into the social and behavioral aspects
of community response to earthquakes is a natural complement to
research that increases the resiliency of the built environment. The
National Research Council report, Facing Hazards and Disasters:
Understanding Human Dimensions (National Research Council, 2006)
identifies a number of research priorities, including the effects of
changes over time in hazard-related laws, policies, and programs; human
dynamics and incentives for adopting mitigation measures; and the
challenges of catastrophic events. The most recent ACEHR report (2008)
calls attention to this report and encourages an integrative R&D effort
into the political, social, and economic circumstances that motivate
society to achieve community resilience to earthquakes.
As discussed previously, lifeline systems are critically important
parts of the built environment. They deliver the resources and services
necessary for the health, economic well-being, and security of modern
communities, which are susceptible to malfunctioning under the effects
of severe hazards, such as earthquakes. Thus, a strong R&D effort
focused on lifeline systems is important for NEHRP. Research and
development in lifeline earthquake engineering was supported within
NEHRP by FEMA under the American Lifelines Alliance. Unfortunately,
this program was discontinued in 2007 with no replacement. Future R&D
within NEHRP should place more emphasis on lifelines. To accomplish
this, it would be appropriate to ask NIST, the lead agency, to convene
a workshop of experts from academia, public and private utility
companies, practicing engineers, social scientists, and economists to
advise the NEHRP partner agencies on the most promising areas of R&D
and the most effective process for achieving and implementing the
needed research. Greater emphasis on lifelines is recommended by ACEHR
(2008), which points out that there has not been sufficient attention
given to the interdependencies among lifeline systems or the national
impact that a single outage can have. ACEHR recommends that all NEHRP
agencies expand their activities related to lifeline systems.
R&D support should be increased for Performance-Based Seismic
Design (PBSD). A recent report by NIST (2009) provides a blueprint for
the needed research. PBSD is a process that supports the design of new
buildings or upgrades to existing buildings, with a realistic
understanding of the risk of life, occupancy, and economic losses that
may occur as a result of future earthquakes. The design of the building
is adjusted so that the projected risks of loss are deemed acceptable,
given the cost of achieving the intended level of performance. With
PBSD, buildings are designed with an explicit understanding of the risk
of loss (physical, direct economic, and indirect economic). The PBSD
concepts can be applied readily to other hazards, such as wind, flood,
and blast effects.
A serious life safety threat exists with respect to non-ductile
concrete, soft story, and unreinforced masonry buildings. A non-ductile
concrete building is one that does not contain sufficient reinforcing
steel to accommodate deformation during earthquake shaking with the
result that failure of concrete structural members can occur
catastrophically with loss of life. Catastrophic failure can also occur
in buildings with soft stories, unable to accommodate the transient
distortion imposed by earthquake motion, and in unreinforced masonry
buildings. Additional work is needed to identify and either remove or
retrofit such buildings. Thousands of non-ductile concrete structures
exist in various parts of the U.S. with more than 2000 in southern
California alone. Research is needed both to identify such structures
and to develop cost-effective methods to rehabilitate them.
A research and outreach plan was developed by the Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute (EERI, 2003), called Securing Society
Against Catastrophic Earthquake Losses. The plan was developed by a
broad and multi-disciplinary cross-section of experts. It includes both
practical and basic research, and contains an outreach component that
addresses implementation, education, and technology transfer. The plan
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,
with a recommended level of funding of $330 million per year to achieve
national resiliency against earthquakes within a 20-year time frame.
Enacted NEHRP funding for FY 2006 through 2008 has averaged $119.5
million, which is only 64 percent of the FY 2008 authorized level.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
A major component of technology transfer in earthquake engineering
is the promulgation of codes and standards. Much has been accomplished
by the earthquake engineering community under NEHRP with respect to the
development of codes and standards, including methods for predicting
earthquake damage, evaluating the seismic capacity of existing
buildings, rehabilitating buildings to improve their seismic
resistance, and evaluating and repairing earthquake-damaged buildings.
The bridge community has developed seismic design specifications
through the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials. Earthquake-resistant design procedures have been
incorporated into the International Building Code (ICC, 2006), which is
promulgated by one recognized building code authority, and into the
standard, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,
issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE, 2006).
As previously discussed, FEMA is the NEHRP agency with primary
responsibility for implementation. Its roles include sponsorship of
guidelines and standards for the design of new structures and for the
seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of existing buildings, as well as
the support of states, multi-state consortia, and individual
communities to improve earthquake mitigation. It is a critically
important agency for technology transfer.
Until 2001, FEMA had a dedicated program to provide assistance to
states with high earthquake risks through direct support to their State
earthquake program managers. Since 2003, that assistance has been
subsumed into other State and local Department of Homeland Security
grant programs. The net effect has been to reduce markedly the overall
preparedness of many of the State earthquake programs as well as the
visibility and effectiveness of the earthquake managers of those State
programs. Numerous State earthquake program managers have lost there
identity and very few can gain access to the resources they previously
received. It is important now to re-establish support for the State
programs so they can be ready to respond in a future earthquake. There
are indications that this is beginning to occur in 2009, which is a
promising development that needs encouragement and continued support.
In FY 2008 NEHRP funds enacted for FEMA were only 26 percent of
their authorized level. ACEHR (2008) recommends revitalizing the State
earthquake programs and support for pilot studies to mitigate
earthquake risk in communities. In addition to the continued
development of guideline documents for code preparation and practice,
ACEHR further recommends funding for FEMA at authorized levels.
Additional support for FEMA and restoration of the State programs is
the most effective way to promote technology transfer and assure
support dedicated to risk reduction.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR NATURAL HAZARDS
One of the best ways to support natural hazards mitigation is to
support a strong and effective NEHRP. Investments in earthquake
engineering through NEHRP make a significant impact on life safety and
the protection of property from all kinds of natural hazards such as
wildfires, flood, wind, and hurricanes, and from human threats such
terrorism and severe accidents. The Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute (2008) has produced a report, Contributions of Earthquake
Engineering to Protecting Communities and Critical Infrastructure from
Multi-hazards, which documents the ways by which NEHRP has been the
incubator for new ideas, advanced technologies, emergency management
practices, and public policy affecting multi-hazard reduction and
improvements in critical civil infrastructure. The report was assembled
with input from a multi-disciplinary team of experts, representing
practicing engineers, geoscientists, applied social scientists, and
academic researchers.
The contributions of NEHRP are legion, and have had a substantial
impact on public perception and assessment of seismic risk, advanced
technologies for reinforcing and monitoring the built environment, loss
assessment methodologies, emergency preparedness and response
procedures, and a culture for integrating basic and applied research
into design codes, construction methods, and public policy. Among the
notable achievements of NEHRP with significant impact outside
earthquake engineering are the modeling methods for probabilistic
seismic hazard assessment, which are used worldwide by the insurance
industry to distribute risk associated with all types of natural
hazards. NEHRP is responsible for advanced remote sensing technologies,
initially developed for post-earthquake reconnaissance, but also
applied to damage assessment and recovery after hurricanes, such as
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Other examples include methodologies for
modeling and managing interdependent lifeline systems, active and
passive control systems to protect buildings and bridges during
transient loading, seismological contributions to nuclear test and
explosion monitoring, developments in the Incident Command System for
multi-agency response to earthquakes and other natural disasters and
human threats, and post-earthquake building inspection protocols that
were adapted to evaluate New York City buildings after the World Trade
Center Disaster.
NEHRP has been a cornerstone program for technologies and
methodologies applied to natural hazards. At the same time, it has
generated a culture of multi-disciplinary innovation through the
collective enterprise of architects, emergency managers, engineers,
geoscientists, and social scientists. The multi-disciplinary character
of NEHRP is one of its most enduring legacies, providing a model for
future mitigation of natural hazards and human threats.
As pointed out by EERI (2008), the reauthorization of the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act in 2004 was used as the legislative
vehicle for introducing and passing the National Windstorm Impact
Reduction Act of 2004. The multi-agency oversight of NEHRP was used as
the model for the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP).
Both programs are administered with the assistance of a federal
interagency committee for coordination and an external national
advisory group that provides guidance and recommendations for program
activities.
Designating NIST as the lead agency for NWIRP would provide NIST
with oversight of both NEHRP and NWIRP. Common leadership would provide
an opportunity to promote dialogue and coordination between the
earthquake and windstorm research communities. There should be separate
funding sources for NEHRP and NWIRP. Strong and secure funding for
NEHRP is needed to build on the foundation of a successful, multi-
disciplinary earthquake program to support multi-hazard R&D.
Coordinated hazards R&D is being promoted through USGS with a
Multi-hazard Demonstration Project in Southern California (USGS
California Water Science Center, 2009). The objective of this project
is to increase resiliency to natural hazards by using southern
California as a testbed. Partners include State, county, and city
governments, public and private utilities, private businesses, academic
researchers, emergency response agencies, and representatives of USGS,
FEMA, and NOAA. The hazards involved in the project are earthquakes,
floods, wildfires, landslides, coastal erosion, and tsunamis. Similar
projects in other locations would help develop better coordination of
hazards R&D across the Federal Government.
Coordinated hazards research involves diverse research communities
and constituencies associated with earthquakes, windstorms, floods,
coastal hazards, wildfires, etc. Each hazard involves scientific
causes, modeling processes, and engineering practices that differ from
those related to the other hazards. Coordinating hazards research must
accommodate different institutional cultures and stakeholders as well
as a multitude of different government agencies, all of which need to
be carefully integrated in an effective collaboration. Given the
complexity of this undertaking, expert advice should be sought from the
National Academies through the National Research Council (NRC). A
comprehensive, multidisciplinary study by the NRC should be convened to
explore the barriers, opportunities, and most promising strategies for
coordinated hazards research within the Federal Government.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) provides
the underpinning for the resilience of U.S. communities to earthquakes.
It provides federal support for research, information dissemination,
development and implementation of technology, and the application of
planning and management procedures to reduce seismic risk. This support
is critically important because the United States faces serious
earthquake risk. NEHRP also serves as an incubator for technology,
practices, and policy for the reduction of risk from other hazards,
such a floods, windstorms, hurricanes, and human threats. A strong
NEHRP not only protects U.S. citizens from seismic hazards, but
provides a cornerstone program for the multi-hazard resilience of U.S.
communities.
The most recent reauthorization of NEHRP has brought about changes
that have been effective in promoting interagency coordination as well
as a more integrated and cohesive program. An excellent example of
interagency collaboration is the NEHRP Strategic Plan for FY 2009-2013,
which outlines strategic priorities, and provides a template for
coordinated and collaborative efforts among the NEHRP agencies. One of
the best ways to promote interagency coordination is to increase
support for NIST to be consistent with current authorized levels. NIST
plays a pivotal and integrating role in NEHRP, and enabling this role
with the support envisioned in the last NEHRP reauthorization would
help greatly to foster increased coordination and effectiveness of the
program.
Priorities for earthquake engineering R&D include enhanced support
for ANSS and NEES. They include a strong and collaborative research
effort on lifeline systems, with emphasis on the interdependencies of
critical infrastructure and the national impact of critical lifeline
losses on regional and national economies. Priorities involve research
on the social and behavioral aspects of community response to
earthquakes and other natural hazards, and the interaction of social
and political factors with engineering design and construction. R&D
emphasis should be given to Performance Based Seismic Design and the
identification and development of cost-effective retrofitting
technologies for non-ductile concrete and other life-threatening
buildings.
To promote technology transfer and implementation of research
findings in U.S. communities, it is vitally important to increase
support for FEMA. There has been serious erosion in FEMA's dedicated
program to provide assistance to states with high earthquake risks
through direct support to their State earthquake program managers. The
FEMA State earthquake programs and community pilot studies to mitigate
earthquake risk should be re-vitalized during this reauthorization.
Of critical importance is the enactment of support for NEHRP that
was envisioned in the last reauthorization. As expressed in the first
annual report of the Advisory Committee for Earthquake Hazards
Reduction (ACEHR), there is concern for the withering of enacted funds.
Funding for the program has either been flat or below inflation levels
for the last 30 years. Many effective NEHRP projects important for life
safety and community resilience have been successfully undertaken
within the limits of the enacted budgets. These successes show the
potential for greater impact and effectiveness if the authorized levels
of support can be realized. Support consistent with authorized levels
represents the highest priority investment in developing disaster-
resilient communities.
REFERENCES
Advisory Committee for Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR) (2008)
``Effectiveness of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program,'' May, available through the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
American Society of Civil Engineers (2009) ``2009 Report Card for
America's Infrastructure,'' American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA http://www.asce.org/report card/2009/
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2006) ``Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,'' ASCE/SEI 7-05,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) (2003), ``Securing
Society Against Catastrophic Earthquake Losses,'' Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, March.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) (2008),
``Contributions of Earthquake Engineering to Protecting
Communities and Critical Infrastructure from Multi-hazards,''
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, Nov.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2001), ``HAZUS 99 Estimated
Annualized Losses for the United States,'' Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Mitigation Directorate, FEMA 366.
Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC) (2008) ``Strategic Plan for
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, Fiscal Years
2009-2013,'' Oct., available through the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
International Code Council (ICI) (2006), International Building Code,
International Code Council, Falls Church, VA.
National Research Council (2006) ``Facing Hazards and Disasters:
Understanding Human Dimensions,'' National Academies Press,
Washington, DC.
National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) (2009),
``Research Required to Support Full Implementation of
Performance-Based Seismic Design,'' NIST GCR 09-917-2, Apr.,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,
MD.
Public Law 108-360 (2004), ``Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of
1977,'' Public Law 95-124, 42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. as amended by
Public Law 108-360.
USGS California Water Science Center (2009), ``Urban Earth: A Multi-
hazards Demonstration Project in Southern California,'' http://
ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/hazards.html
Biography for Thomas D. O'Rourke
Professor O'Rourke is the Thomas R. Briggs Professor of Engineering
in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Cornell
University. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering
and a Fellow of American Association for the Advancement of Science. He
has received several awards from professional societies, including the
Collingwood, Huber Research, C. Martin Duke Lifeline Earthquake
Engineering, Stephen D. Bechtel Pipeline Engineering, and Ralph B. Peck
Awards from American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Hogentogler
Award from American Society for Testing and Materials, Rankine Lecture
sponsored by the British Geotechnical Association, Trevithick Prize
from the British Institution of Civil Engineers, and Japan Gas and
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) Awards for outstanding
papers. He served as President of EERI, as a member of the National
Academies Committee for New Orleans Regional Hurricane Protection
Projects, and currently as a member of both the Advisory Committee for
Earthquake Hazards Reduction, which provides oversight advice the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, and the National
Academies Board on Water Science and Technology. He has authored or co-
authored over 340 technical publications. He has served as Chair or
member of the consulting boards of many 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 been involved in numerous earthquake reconnaissance missions.
His research interests cover geotechnical engineering, earthquake
engineering, underground construction technologies, engineering for
large, geographically distributed systems, and geographic information
technologies and database management.
Chair Wu. Thank you very much, Professor O'Rourke. Dr.
Lindell, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL K. LINDELL, PROFESSOR, LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN PLANNING; SENIOR SCHOLAR, HAZARD
REDUCTION & RECOVERY CENTER, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
Dr. Lindell. Good morning. My remarks today in support of
the NEHRP reauthorization will be based substantially on
recommendations of the National Science Foundation's Second
Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards and the National
Academy of Sciences Committee on Disaster Research in the
Social Sciences.
I would like to address the first question, what is the
role of social science research in making communities hazard
resilient, by noting that one of the Second Assessment
committees concluded that households and businesses typically
are unaware of the risks they face, underestimate the risks of
which they are aware, and overestimate their ability to cope
when disaster strikes. These limitations lead them to encroach
into high hazard areas, underutilize pre-impact hazard
mitigation and preparedness and rely too much on post-impact
emergency response and disaster relief.
Thus, the role of social scientists is to better understand
the psychological, social, economic, and political causes of
community hazard vulnerability. Second, we want to
scientifically test possible ways to increase hazard
resilience. Third, we seek to work with other disciplines to
disseminate administrative as well as technological innovations
that increase community hazard resilience.
Regarding the second question, how has social science been
integrated into NEHRP activity and other federal hazards R&D, I
want to say that the cornerstone of NEHRP support for social
science hazards research over the past decades has been the
NSF's Engineering Directorate, either alone or in collaboration
with its Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate.
In addition, USGS and FEMA have supported research and
dissemination of social science findings.
Regarding the third question, what are the priorities for
social science for a reauthorization of NEHRP and other federal
hazards R&D programs, I want to discuss priorities in three
areas, hazard and vulnerability analysis, pre-impact actions,
and post-impact actions.
Regarding hazard vulnerability analysis, the major social
science question is which population segments and economic
sectors are most vulnerable to disasters, what are their points
of vulnerability, and what can government and non-governmental
organizations do to reduce this vulnerability? We have already
identified vulnerable population segments, but we need to learn
more about the specific difficulties they have in hazard
mitigation, emergency preparedness, disaster recovery, and
insurance purchase. Similarly, we need to know more about
businesses and how their vulnerability varies by economic
sector and what specific difficulties they experience.
Addressing these questions through longitudinal studies that
track households and businesses over time will tell us how
government and non-governmental organizations can more
effectively provide assistance.
With regard to pre-impact actions, we know that households
and businesses are not taking adequate levels of pre-impact
action, and we have some explanations for why this is so. In
some cases the solution is to invest in risk communication
programs, but we still have much to learn about how to persuade
people to prepare for low-probability, high-impact events such
as earthquakes. In addition, research is needed to determine
how to design extrinsic inducement programs--incentives and
sanctions--so they provide the greatest increase in community
resilience for the minimum cost to government and non-
governmental organizations. In particular, we need large-scale,
coordinated field experiments that involve collaboration
between communities that are willing to adopt innovative
programs and social scientists who will evaluate these
programs.
With regard to post-impact actions, this country made a
major commitment after 9/11 to implement the Incident Command
System [ICS]. ICS is a major improvement over the multiplicity
of idiosyncratic systems that it is displacing, but it deserves
systematic evaluation to assess its limitations and identify
improvements. In the more than 30 years since its inception,
there have only been a handful of empirical studies on its
effectiveness; a program that the Federal Government mandates
for local governments to qualify for disaster reimbursement
should be examined more thoroughly than that.
We know that communities recover more rapidly if they
engage in pre-impact recovery planning, but most wait until
after disaster strikes to plan for the recovery. As a
consequence, recovery is slow, stakeholders are frustrated, and
hazard mitigation is poorly integrated into the recovery
process. Thus, systematic social science is needed in this area
also.
Finally, I strongly endorse efforts to promote a multi-
hazard approach to increasing community resilience. Over the
past 30 years, I have done research in floods, volcanic
eruptions, volcanic hazards at fixed-site facilities and
transportation, toxic chemical facilities, earthquakes,
hurricanes, and tsunamis. Although there are findings that are
specific to each of these hazards, there are many commonalities
that would provide multi-hazard research with an opportunity to
achieve extremely beneficial outcomes that would reinforce the
findings in different hazards. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lindell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael K. Lindell
Good morning. My name is Dr. Michael K. Lindell; I am a Professor
at Texas A&M University and conduct emergency management research in
the Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center. I want to thank you for the
opportunity to speak on behalf of the many social scientists who are
conducting research supported by NEHRP agencies. My remarks today will
be based substantially on the analyses and recommendations of the
National Science Foundation's Second Assessment of Research on Natural
Hazards and the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Disaster
Research in the Social Sciences (see Attachments 1 and 2).
1. What is the role of social science research in making communities
hazard resilient?
One of the committee reports from the NSF's Second Assessment
concluded that households and businesses typically are unaware of the
risks they face, underestimate the risks of which they are aware, and
overestimate their ability to cope when disaster strikes. In addition,
they have competing demands for their attention, short planning
horizons, bounded rationality, and limited economic resources. These
limitations increase communities' hazard vulnerability because they
lead households and businesses to encroach into high hazard areas,
underutilize pre-impact hazard mitigation and preparedness, and rely
too much on post-impact emergency response and disaster relief.
Thus, the role of social scientists is threefold. First, we seek to
better understand the psychological, social, economic, and political
causes of community hazard vulnerability. Second, we want to
scientifically test possible ways to increase hazard resilience. Third,
we seek opportunities to work with emergency managers, architects,
engineers, planners, and public administrators to disseminate
administrative and technological innovations that increase community
hazard resilience.
2. How has social science been integrated into NEHRP activity and
other federal hazards R&D?
The cornerstone of NEHRP support for social science hazards
research has been NSF's Engineering Directorate either alone or in
collaboration with its Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
Directorate. NSF has primarily supported unsolicited proposals
submitted by individual investigators and solicitations in response to
domestic and international disasters. In addition, USGS has supported
social science evaluations of some of its hazard awareness programs
(Mileti & Darlington, 1995; Mileti & Fitzpatrick, 1993; Perry, 1990;
Perry & Lindell, 2008) and FEMA has supported dissemination of social
science research findings through its Higher Education Initiative
(training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/). Most of the social science projects
funded by federal research programs have involved investigators from a
single discipline. However, there have also been projects involving
collaboration among multiple social science disciplines and, sometimes,
social scientists collaborating with engineers and physical scientists.
There have also been a few interdisciplinary efforts such as NSF's
Human and Social Dynamics Program and its Earthquake Engineering
Research Centers. As yet, these efforts are only beginning to develop
the kinds of interdisciplinary cooperation that is needed to increase
community hazard resilience.
3. What are the priorities for social science for a reauthorization of
NEHRP and other federal hazards R&D programs?
I will discuss priorities in three major areas--hazard and
vulnerability analysis, pre-impact actions (hazard mitigation and
disaster preparedness) and post-impact actions (emergency response and
disaster recovery). I will conclude with a discussion of the utility of
an all-hazards approach in social science research.
Hazard/vulnerability analysis
Although it is something of an oversimplification, we can say that
physical scientists identify which geographic areas are exposed to
hazards and engineers address which structures are most likely to fail.
The corresponding social science question is ``Which population
segments and economic sectors are most vulnerable to disasters, what
are their points of vulnerability, and what can government and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) do to reduce this vulnerability?'' Of
course, we know that ethnic minorities, female-headed households,
poorly educated, low income, physically or mentally disabled, and
socially isolated citizens are disadvantaged--even under the best of
circumstances. Thus, we expect them to be most vulnerable to disasters
(e.g., Bolin & Stanford, 1998; Peacock, Morrow & Gladwin, 1997).
However, we need to learn more about the specific difficulties they
have in hazard mitigation, emergency preparedness, and insurance
purchase. We also know in broad terms that small businesses are more
vulnerable to disasters. However, we need to know more about how
businesses' vulnerability varies by economic sector and what specific
difficulties they experience (Alesch, Taylor, Ghanty, & Nagy, 1993;
Webb, Tierney & Dahlhamer, 2000). For both households and businesses,
we need to know more about how government and NGOs can more effectively
provide assistance. Answering these questions will require longitudinal
studies that track households and businesses over extended periods of
time.
Pre-impact actions
In general terms, we already know what needs to be done to make
communities more disaster resilient. At the household level, pre-impact
actions include hazard mitigation (bolting structures to their
foundations and strapping water heaters to walls) and disaster
preparedness (storing food and water, purchasing first aid kits and
learning how to treat minor injuries, and purchasing hazard insurance).
For emergency response organizations, pre-impact actions include
developing plans, acquiring resources, and conducting training and
exercises to support emergency response--as well as engaging in
mitigation actions to ensure their buildings and material resources
survive a disaster. At the community level, pre-impact actions include
land use plans that discourage intensive development of high hazard
areas and prohibit the siting of highly vulnerable facilities such as
hospitals, nursing homes, and schools in high hazard areas. They also
include programs such as building codes and standards to increase
buildings' elevation (for flooding) and structural resilience (for wind
and earthquakes) if they are built in high hazard areas.
At all levels--households, businesses, and communities--we know
that the level of pre-impact action is inadequate. Social scientists
have published many small-scale studies that suggest why this is so
(Lindell, Arlikatti & Prater, in press; Lindell & Perry, 2000). We know
that people will voluntarily adopt hazard adjustments that are high in
efficacy--ones that protect persons and property and are useful for
other purposes. We also know that they will not voluntarily adopt
hazard adjustments that are high in resource requirements--ones that
are expensive, or require substantial time and effort, specialized
knowledge and skill, specialized tools and equipment, or substantial
amounts of cooperation with others. A major obstacle to improving
community hazard resilience is that some of the most promising hazard
adjustments--hazard insurance for example--have very low rates of
adoption. In some cases, the problem is that people have erroneous
beliefs about these hazard adjustments. That is, people underestimate
efficacy or overestimate resource requirements. Worse yet, people often
don't know about the existence of many of the hazard adjustments that
are available. In such cases, the level of hazard adjustment adoption
might be increased by investing in risk communication programs.
Although we know much more about risk communication than we did thirty
years ago, we still have much to learn about how to persuade people to
prepare for low-probability events such as earthquakes (Lindell &
Perry, 2004). Especially when people fail to adopt hazard adjustments
because the personal cost of a hazard adjustment exceeds the short-term
personal benefits, extrinsic inducement programs--incentives and
sanctions--may be needed. However, research is needed to determine how
to design these inducements so they provide the greatest increase in
community resilience for the minimum cost to government and NGOs.
Current research provides an adequate base of small-scale studies
for designing comprehensive research on the effects of incentives,
sanctions, and risk communication. What we most need to do next is to
conduct large-scale coordinated field experiments. We know that there
are many communities that are willing to undertake--and in many cases
have actually implemented--innovative programs to promote hazard
resilience. Unfortunately, only a few of these programs are documented
and fewer still have been scientifically evaluated. This is a major
disappointment because every one of these situations represents a
squandered opportunity to learn from experience. As noted earlier, USGS
has supported some small studies that begin to address this issue.
However, we can do much more if NEHRP will support collaboration
between communities that are willing to adopt innovative programs and
social scientists who will collect and analyze data from these programs
to evaluate their effectiveness.
Post-impact actions
Although household actions are important, some of the most
important emergency response and disaster recovery actions are taken by
community organizations. Coordination has repeatedly been identified as
a major problem in emergency response and the challenges seems to
increase with the magnitude of the disaster. This country made a major
commitment after 9/11 to adopting the Incident Command System (ICS) as
a mechanism for coordinating disaster response. ICS is a major
improvement over the multiplicity of idiosyncratic systems that it is
displacing, but it deserves systematic evaluation to assess its
limitations and identify improvements. In the more than thirty years
since its inception, there have been only a handful of empirical
studies on ICS effectiveness (see Lutz & Lindell, 2008). A program that
the Federal Government mandates for local governments to qualify for
disaster reimbursement should be examined more thoroughly than that.
We have textbooks (Phillips, 2009) and planning guidance (Natural
Hazards Center, 2001; Schwab, Topping, Eadie, Deyle & Smith, 1998) that
identify problems and recommend solutions for a timely and effective
disaster recovery. There is evidence that communities recover more
rapidly if they engage in pre-impact recovery planning (Wu & Lindell,
2004) but most communities wait until after a disaster strikes to plan
their recovery. As a consequence, the pace of recovery is slow,
stakeholders (especially vulnerable populations) are frustrated, and
hazard mitigation is poorly integrated into disaster recovery plans,
causing communities to recreate their pre-existing hazard
vulnerability. Thus, systematic social science research is needed on
communities of different sizes and different economic bases to
determine what can be done to improve post-disaster recovery planning.
This will help all population segments and economic sectors recover
more rapidly and completely and reduce the problem of repetitive
losses.
All-hazards social science research
Finally, I would like to conclude by presenting some reasons why
NEHRP agencies should support social science research on a variety of
hazards. A basic premise for hazards researchers is that we have
limited opportunities to study earthquake emergency response and
recovery in the U.S. because major earthquakes are, thankfully, rare.
We can learn much by studying societal response to earthquakes in other
countries and numerous Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
studies have done so. However, we also need to take advantage of the
lessons that can be learned from studying other, more frequent, hazards
in this country. Indeed, most environmental hazards are relevant and
there are two reasons why this is so. First, earthquakes can themselves
generate secondary threats--including tsunami, landslides, dam
failures, urban conflagrations, and hazardous materials releases. In
fact, earthquakes and their secondary hazards cover most of the
spectrum of disaster impacts to which the U.S. is vulnerable.
Second, there appear to be significant similarities in societal
responses to different hazards. Specifically, even though a hazard
agent might be caused by physical mechanisms that are quite different
from those that cause earthquakes, the two hazards can still have
critical impact characteristics in common (see Lindell, Prater & Perry,
2006, for further discussion of cross-hazard similarities). For
example, tornadoes are generated by quite different physical systems
than are earthquakes. However, both are rapid onset disasters that
provide minimal or no warning. The similarity in the impact
characteristics of the two events produces similar societal responses.
As a consequence of this principle, hazard mitigation functions (such
as land use planning and building codes) and emergency preparedness
functions (such as planning, training, and exercising) are similar for
most environmental hazards. The same is true for disaster recovery
functions such as debris removal, donations management, temporary
housing. Even the needs for emergency response functions such as search
and rescue, emergency sheltering, interagency coordination, and
emergency public information are similar across disasters. It is true
that there are some emergency response functions such as pre-impact
warning and evacuation that are not possible with current earthquake
detection technology. However, earthquakes' secondary hazards such as
dam failures and tsunami can be detected far enough in advance to
support even these functions. Consequently, what social scientists can
learn from mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery associated
with seemingly dissimilar hazards--such as hurricanes, floods, and
tornadoes--can be effectively applied to reducing community
vulnerability to earthquakes.
REFERENCES
Reports from the National Science Foundation
Second Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards
Burby, R.J. (ed.) (1998). Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural
Hazards with Land Use Planning for Sustainable Communities.
Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Cutter, S.L. (2001). American Hazardscapes: The Regionalization of
Hazards and Disasters. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Kunreuther, H. & Roth, R.J., Sr. (1998). Paying the Price: The Status
and Role of Insurance Against Natural Disasters in the United
States. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Lindell, M.K., with Alesch, D., Bolton, P.A., Greene, M.R., Larson,
L.A., Lopes, R., May, P.J., Mulilis, J-P., Nathe, S., Nigg,
J.M., Palm, R., Pate, P., Perry, R.W., Pine, J., Tubbesing,
S.K. & Whitney, D.J. (1997). Adoption and implementation of
hazard adjustments. International Journal of Mass Emergencies
and Disasters Special Issue, 15, 327-453.
Mileti, D.S. (1999). Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural
Hazards in the United States. Washington DC: Joseph Henry
Press.
Sorensen, J.H. (2000). Hazard warning systems: Review of 20 years of
progress. Natural Hazards Review, 1, 119-125.
Tierney, K.J., Lindell, M.K. & Perry, R.W. (2001). Facing the
Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United
States. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Report from the National Academy of Sciences
Committee on Disaster Research in the Social Sciences
Committee on Disaster Research in the Social Sciences. (2006). Facing
Hazards and Disasters: Understanding Human Dimensions.
Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Other References
Alesch, D.J., Taylor, C., Ghanty, S. & Nagy, R.A. (1993). Earthquake
risk reduction and small business. In Committee on
Socioeconomic Impacts (eds.) 1993 National Earthquake
Conference Monograph 5: Socioeconomic impacts (pp. 133-160).
Memphis TN: Central United States Earthquake Consortium.
Bolin, R.C. & Stanford, L. (1998). The Northridge earthquake:
Vulnerability and disaster. London: Routledge.
Lindell, M.K., Arlikatti, S. & Prater, C.S. (in press). Why people do
what they do to protect against earthquake risk: Perceptions of
hazard adjustment attributes. Risk Analysis.
Lindell, M.K. & Perry, R.W. (2000). Household adjustment to earthquake
hazard: A review of research. Environment & Behavior, 32, 590-
630.
Lindell, M.K. & Perry, R.W. (2004). Communicating Environmental Risk in
Multiethnic Communities. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Lindell, M.K., Prater, C.S. & Perry, R.W. (2006). Fundamentals of
Emergency Management. Emmitsburg MD: Federal Emergency
Management Agency Emergency Management Institute. Available at
www.training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/fem.asp
Lutz, L.D. & Lindell, M.K. (2008). The Incident Command System as a
response model within emergency operation centers during
Hurricane Rita. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,
16, 122-134.
Mileti, D.S. & Darlington, J.D. (1995). Societal response to revised
earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay area.
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 13,
119-145.
Mileti, D. & Fitzpatrick, C. (1993). The Great Earthquake Experiment:
Risk Communication and Public Action. Boulder CO: Westview
Press.
Natural Hazards Center. (2001). Holistic Disaster Recovery: Ideas for
Building Local Sustainability After a Natural Disaster. Boulder
CO: University of Colorado Natural Hazards Center.
Peacock, W.G., Morrow, B.H. & Gladwin, H. (1997). Hurricane Andrew:
Ethnicity, Gender and the Sociology of Disaster. London:
Routledge.
Perry, R.W. (1990). Volcanic hazard perceptions at Mt. Shasta. The
Environmental Professional, 12, 312-318. 1990.
Perry, R.W. & Lindell, M.K. (2008). Volcanic risk perception and
adjustment in a multi-hazard environment. Journal of
Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 172, 170-178.
Phillips, B.D. (2009). Disaster Recovery. Boca Raton FL: CRC Press.
Schwab, J., Topping, K.C., Eadie, C.C., Deyle, R.E. & Smith, R.A.
(1998). Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction,
PAS Report 483/484. Chicago IL: American Planning Association.
Webb, G.R., Tierney, K.J. & Dahlhamer, J.M. (2000). Business and
disasters: Empirical patterns and unanswered questions. Natural
Hazards Review, 1, 83-90.
Wu, J.Y. & Lindell, M.K. (2004). Housing reconstruction after two major
earthquakes: The 1994 Northridge earthquake in the United
States and the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan. Disasters,
28, 63-81.
Attachment 1
Committee on Disaster Research in the Social Sciences
Summary of the Current State of Social Science Research
The [Committee on Disaster Research in the Social Sciences]
assessment of the current state of social science research is based on
a detailed review of scientific literature in the field. The report's
authoring committee also benefited from presentations and discussions
that took place during two workshops held in conjunction with committee
meetings, one in Washington, DC and the other in Irvine, California.
Participants in the first workshop included researchers from the multi-
disciplinary hazards and disaster research community, practitioners,
and representatives from various agencies. All participants in the
second workshop were practitioners. Based on this input, the report
draws the following conclusions about the current state of social
science research:
1. Social science hazards and disaster research has advanced in the
United States and internationally.
Under NEHRP social science knowledge has expanded greatly with
respect to exposure and vulnerability (physical and social) to natural
hazards in the United States, such that the foundation has been
established for developing more precise loss estimation models and
related decision support tools for hazards and disasters generally. The
contribution of NEHRP to social science knowledge on natural hazards is
less developed internationally as is its contribution nationally and
internationally on exposure and vulnerability to technological and
willful threats.
2. Social science knowledge about the responses of U.S. households to
natural hazards and disasters is well-developed.
There is a solid knowledge base at the household level of analysis
on vulnerability assessment, risk communication, evacuation and other
forms of protective action, and expedient disaster mitigation
activities--for example, how people in earthquake or flood prone
regions communicate about risks and warning messages, and how they
respond to warning messages. The knowledge base and related explanatory
modeling under NEHRP are skewed toward natural hazards (most notably
earthquakes) as opposed to technological and willful hazards, and so
far they have been confined primarily to national rather than
international contexts.
3. Far less is known about how the characteristics of different types
of hazards affect disaster preparedness and response.
There has been little systematic comparative work on the special
characteristics of natural, technological, and willful disasters (e.g.,
predictability and controllability; length of forewarning, magnitude,
scope, and duration of impact) and their relationships with physical
and social impacts. For example, how does the variation in warning
time--little or no warning for an earthquake, short-term warning for
tornadoes, longer-term warnings for hurricanes, and indeterminate
warnings for terrorist attacks--affect preparedness and response?
Greater understanding of event/impact relationships would directly
facilitate the adoption of more effective disaster preparedness and
mitigation practices.
4. More is known about immediate post-disaster responses of groups,
organizations, and social networks than about mitigation or disaster
recovery policies and practices.
While less so than the post-World War II studies that preceded
NEHRP's establishment in 1977, NEHRP-sponsored social science research
has still tended to focus more on the immediate aftermath of disasters
(post-disaster responses) and related emergency preparedness practices
than on the affects of pre-disaster mitigation policies and practices,
disaster recovery preparedness or longer term recovery from specific
events. Research over several decades has contradicted myths that
during disasters panic will be widespread, that large percentages of
those who are expected to respond will simply abandon disaster roles,
that local institutions will break down, that crime and other forms of
anti-social behavior will be rampant, and that psychological impairment
of victims and first responders will be a major problem. The more
interesting and important research questions have become how and why
communities, regions, and societies leverage expected and improvised
post-impact responses in coping with the circumstances of disasters.
While much of organizational response to disaster is expected and
sometimes planned, improvisation is an absolutely essential complement
of predetermined activities.
5. The circumstances of terrorist threats could alter societal
response to disasters.
The possibility exists that some future homeland security
emergencies could engender responses that are different from those
observed in previous post-disaster investigations of natural and
technological disasters. Particular attention is being given post-
September 11, 2001 to vulnerability assessment of national energy,
transportation, and information systems, terrorist threat detection and
interdiction, the special requirements of nuclear, biological, and
chemical agents, and the organizational requirements of developing
multi-governmental preparedness and response systems. Fortunately these
concerns are readily subsumed within the historically mainstream topics
of hazards and disaster research depicted in Figure 1 above.
6. NEHRP has made important contributions to understanding longer-term
disaster recovery.
Prior to NEHRP relatively little was known about disaster recovery
processes and outcomes at different levels of analysis (e.g.,
households, neighborhoods, firms, communities, and regions). While
research on disaster recovery remains somewhat underdeveloped, NEHRP
funded projects have refined general conceptions of disaster recovery,
made important contributions in understanding the recovery of
households (primarily) and firms (more recently), and contributed to
the development of statistically based community and regional models of
post-disaster losses and recovery processes. Moreover, interest in the
relationship between disaster recovery and sustainable development has
become sufficiently pronounced in this field that the committee has
allocated an entire chapter of the report to its consideration.
7. The management and accessibility of data needs immediate attention.
Thus far social scientists have not confronted systematically
issues related to the management and accessibility of data--from its
original collection and analysis, to its longer-term storage and
maintenance, and to ensuring its accessibility over time to multiple
users. What the committee has termed the ``hazards and disaster
research informatics problem'' is not unique to this research
specialty, or to the social sciences, natural sciences, and engineering
generally. But the informatics problem demands immediate attention and
resolution as a foundation for future research and application of
findings.
8. How research is communicated and applied is not well understood.
More systematic research is needed on how hazards and disaster
information generated by the social sciences and other disciplines is
disseminated and applied. Such research will provide clearer
understanding of what can be done within hazards and disaster research
to further the dissemination of knowledge, thereby advancing sound
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery practices.
9. A more diverse, interdisciplinary, and technologically
sophisticated social science workforce is needed in the future.
Given the national and international importance of natural,
technological, and willful disasters, the next generation of social
scientists studying these events should become larger, more diverse,
and more conversant with interdisciplinary perspectives and state-of-
the-art research methods and technologies than the previous generation.
Recommended Improvements to Hazards and Disaster Research
Grounded in the above conclusions, the report offers 38 separate
recommendations for improving how hazards and disasters research in the
social sciences is conducted and used to inform policy and decision-
making. The recommendations, the majority of which relate to the need
for comparative studies of societal responses to natural, technological
and willful hazards and disasters, are encapsulated in the following
three summary recommendations.
Summary Recommendation 1:
Comparative research should be conducted to refine and measure core
components of societal vulnerability and resilience to hazards of all
types, to address the special requirements of confronting disasters
caused by terrorist acts, and to advancing knowledge about mitigation,
preparedness, response, and recovery related to disasters having
catastrophic physical and social impacts. The recommended comparative
research is essential for isolating common from unique aspects of
societal response to natural, technological, and willful hazards and
disasters. A key contribution of NSF through NEHRP over the years has
been that, while necessarily emphasizing earthquakes, since its
inception the program has encouraged and supported comparisons of
societal responses to earthquakes with other natural as well as
technological hazards and even with terrorist induced events, though
less so. This historical emphasis within NEHRP dictates that a rigorous
approach should prevail in making generalizations to terrorism and that
there is a continuing need for systematic comparisons of all societal
hazards and disasters using the conceptual and methodological tools
summarized in this report. A comparative perspective should be
sustained within NSF and also prevail in the new DHS.
Summary Recommendation 2:
Strategic planning and institution building are needed to address
issues related to the management and sharing of data on hazards and
disasters (hazards and disaster informatics), sustain the momentum of
interdisciplinary research, advance the utilization of social science
findings, and sustain the hazards and disaster research workforce. Of
particular importance because of its direct relationship to Summary
Recommendation 1 is the call for strategic planning to address issues
of data management and data sharing. A Panel on Hazards and Disaster
Informatics should be created to guide these efforts. The Panel should
be interdisciplinary and include social scientists and engineers from
hazards and disaster research as well as experts on informatics issues
from cognitive science, computational science, and applied science. The
Panel's mission should be, first, to assess problems of data
standardization, data management and archiving, and data sharing as
they relate to natural, technological, and willful hazards and
disasters, and second, to develop a formal plan for resolving these
problems to every extent possible within the next five years.
Summary Recommendation 3:
NSF and DHS should jointly support the comparative research,
strategic planning, and institution building called for in Summary
Recommendations 1-2. The proposed leveraging of NSF with DHS support is
critical because these two agencies are focal points of federal funding
for research on all types of extreme events. The two agencies should
take advantage of opportunities to leverage their resources by jointly
funding social science hazards and disaster research whenever possible.
This could lead to a better understanding of the similarities and
differences between natural, technological, and human-induced hazards
and disasters. It could also provide the foundation for sound science-
based decision-making by policy-makers and practitioners, whether they
are developing measures to counter a major natural disaster like
Hurricane Katrina or a terrorist-induced event like the September 11th
attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Social science research
on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as well as more limited
observations that have been made thus far on Hurricane Katrina
indicate, first, that many previous findings about societal response to
hazards and disasters remain valid, and second, that there is still
much to be learned about responses to truly catastrophic events.
Source: http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt-briefs/
facing-hazards-brief-final.pdf
Biography for Michael K. Lindell
Dr. Lindell has a Ph.D. in Social Psychology from the University of
Colorado (1975) with a specialty in disaster research and has completed
hazardous materials emergency responder training through the Hazardous
Materials Specialist level. During his 35 years in emergency
management, he has conducted research on the processes by which
individuals and organizations respond to natural and technological
hazards. In addition, he has provided technical assistance to
government agencies, industry groups, and private corporations in
development of emergency plans and procedures. His recent teaching
duties have included one emergency management course at the
undergraduate level (Introduction to Emergency Management) and three at
the graduate level (Community and Organizational Response to Disasters,
Disaster Recovery and Hazard Mitigation, and Disaster Response
Planning). He has also served as an adjunct faculty for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's National Emergency Training Center,
lecturing on disaster psychology and public response to warning.
Dr. Lindell has made over 170 presentations before scientific
societies and in short courses for emergency planners in this country
and abroad. He organized and chaired an American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) Specialty Conference on Hazardous Facilities, served
on the ASCE Task Committee on Natural Disaster Reduction, and served
twice as Secretary of the Executive Committee of the ASCE Council on
Natural Disaster Reduction. He co-chaired the organizing committee for
a conference on protective action decision-making in nuclear power
plant accidents and was a member of the steering committee for a
similar conference on protective action decision-making in chemical
emergencies. He participated in the NSF's Second Assessment of Research
and Applications on Natural Hazards, serving as a member of the
committee on Preparedness and Response, and chairing the committee on
Adoption, Implementation, and Evaluation of Hazard Adjustments. He has
served seven times as a consultant to the International Atomic Energy
Agency in developing planning guidance for response to nuclear and
radiological incidents, has made three presentations to National
Academy of Sciences panels, and was a member of two National Academy of
Sciences panels--Disaster Research in Social Sciences and Assessing
Vulnerabilities Related to the Nation's Chemical Infrastructure. He
recently served as an external reviewer for the National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration's National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation
Program and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Center for
Studies of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, and currently is a
member of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program's Advisory
Committee on Earthquake Hazard Reduction. He has conducted research or
provided technical services to 40 different organizations in the public
and private sectors. In addition, Dr. Lindell has reviewed research
proposals for 20 different foreign, federal, and State agencies as well
as performing manuscript reviews for over 40 different journals in the
social, environmental, and engineering sciences. He has written
extensively on emergency management and is the author of 70 technical
reports, 90 journal articles and book chapters, and ten books. He
recently published a book on risk communication in multiethnic
communities (Sage, 2004) and a textbook on community emergency planning
(Wiley, 2006). He also completed an introductory textbook on emergency
management under contract to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a
condensed version of which has been published by Wiley (2006). Dr.
Lindell is currently the editor of the International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters.
Chair Wu. Thank you very much, Dr. Lindell. Dr. Harris,
please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES ROBERT HARRIS, PRESIDENT, J.R. HARRIS &
COMPANY, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
Dr. Harris. Thank you, Chair Wu, and Members of the
Committee. Good morning. My name is James Harris, and I am
pleased to be here as you consider reauthorization of the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. By the way, I
will typically refer to it as NERRP [National Earthquake Risk
Reduction Program] because old habits die hard, and that is a
fact of life.
I am a structural engineer. My business is designing
structures, mainly buildings, to be useful and economical for
their owners and to be safe for their users and the general
public. NEHRP impacts what I do, and how well I achieve those
objectives of my services. I am also a member of and affiliated
with several other organizations that are deeply interested in
the success of NEHRP, including the Structural Engineering
Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the
Applied Technology Council, The Masonry Society, the American
Concrete Institute, the American Institute of Steel
Construction, the Building Seismic Safety Council [BSSC], and
the Advisory Committee that Tom O'Rourke mentioned earlier.
My opinions are certainly informed and affected by all of
those affiliations, but my opinions should be taken as my own
statements. They are not really endorsed by any organization.
With regard to how the program has fared since the last
reauthorization and the changes that were made, I believe the
level of interagency coordination has improved and the
effectiveness of the program is beginning to show the result of
that improvement. In large measure this is due to the work of
Dr. John Hayes, the man that NIST selected to become the
director of the program in their agency, but of course he could
not succeed without the backing of senior management at NIST. I
have observed the agencies working together on the new
Strategic Plan for NEHRP, and I have been impressed that they
did collaborate strongly in putting that plan together.
It appears to me that the Interagency Coordinating
Committee is a key element of making that cooperation
effective, and I encourage Congress to maintain the emphasis
that the highest levels of management in each of the NEHRP
agencies be committed to the program. I do want to note my
appreciation for the leadership that FEMA offered to the
program in the past. Their focus on implementation of
mitigation measures is very close to my central focus, and I
think NEHRP has been singularly successful over the years.
There are opportunities for improvement. One obvious issue
is that the appropriated funding of the program should reach
the authorized levels. I appreciate that arriving at a federal
budget is an awesome task, but I do want to note that the
appropriated funds are less than either the authorized amounts
or the proposed funding in the President's budget for fiscal
year 2009. The Strategic Plan lays out a very ambitious
program, but it does not contain budgets. The authorized
funding levels provide a base level to work towards the goals
of that plan, and any smaller amounts will simply delay
progress. Another opportunity for improvement is to either
deepen the commitment of DHS [Department of Homeland Security]
to NEHRP or to enhance the ability of the earthquake program at
FEMA to carry out its mission within the large and developing
organization that is DHS.
With regard to the priorities for R&D funding, I certainly
support the priorities set forth in the recent Strategic Plan
for improving earthquake resilience of communities that is one
of the overarching goals of that plan. It is not possible to
achieve that goal without effective technology transfer. That
is certainly close to my heart. The continued implementation of
an expanded, coordinated program of problem-focused research
and development in earthquake engineering, started at NIST in
2008 in response to strong recommendations from industry, is a
key feature of NIST technology transfer. The recommended
program includes systematic support of the seismic code
development process, development of resources and tools to
improve seismic design and construction productivity.
Another high priority item is continuing the FEMA-funded
program to develop next-generation performance-based seismic
design guidelines for new and existing buildings, and there is
a program plan--I want to make reference to a NIST publication
prepared with the assistance of BSSC called Research Required
to Support Full Implementation of Performance Based Seismic
Design. I want to highlight that to you as high priority R&D.
About the multi-hazard issue, as a structural engineer I am
required to consider many natural hazards in the conduct of my
practice. Earthquake, wind, snow, flood, ice and expansive
soils all can have significant effects on the designs that I
prepare. The role of the Federal Government in R&D is quite
varied across these areas. Earthquakes are a prime example of a
situation that requires a strong federal effort to make
progress towards disaster resilience, and NEHRP is a shining
example of a successful federal program. In my view the needs
are not the same across this spectrum of hazards, but there are
certainly unfulfilled needs.
On the engineering design side, earthquakes are unlike
wind, snow, flood, or ice. That calls for a lot more support of
engineering R&D in the earthquake area. On the natural hazard
definition side the differences do not appear to me to be as
significant, and the whole idea of predicting the future from
observation of the past is in the best tradition of strong
science. The rarity of earthquake events certainly make it an
interesting problem there.
I want to note that a recent survey of practicing engineers
pointed to the wind load provisions of the standard that I am
deeply involved, and which is the root of the building code
provisions for structural safety. It is called ``Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.'' It is published
under the designation ASCE/SEI 7. The survey pointed to the
wind load provisions being very difficult to understand, more
so than the seismic design provisions, even though conceptually
they are considerably more difficult, the seismic design
provisions are. I attribute at least a part of that discrepancy
to NEHRP because there is no equivalent of BSSC out there for
wind engineering, and BSSC in no small measure has made our
seismic design provisions all that much better.
So overall, I want to compliment the Congress for keeping
NEHRP going. I want to encourage you to continue to do that,
and I certainly support the idea of expanding into other
hazards. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Harris follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Robert Harris
Chairman Wu and Members of the Committee:
Good morning. My name is James Harris, and I am pleased to be here
as you consider reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP). I am a consulting structural engineer
employed at J.R. Harris & Company in Denver, Colorado. My business is
designing structures, mainly buildings, to be useful and economical for
their owners and to be safe for their users and the general public.
NEHRP impacts what I do, and how well I achieve the objectives of my
service.
I am also a member of and affiliated with several other
organizations that are deeply interested in the success of NEHRP:
I am currently the President of the Board of
Governors of the Structural Engineering Institute of the
American Society of Civil Engineers. SEI endeavors to serve the
structural engineering profession and the public by
continuously improving technical and professional practices. I
am also a member and past Chair of the committee that produces
the standard ASCE/SEI 7 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures, which is directly impacted by NEHRP.
I am the immediate Past President of the Board of
Directors of the Applied Technology Council. ATC is a nonprofit
organization specializing in technology transfer to improve
engineering practice to resist natural and other hazards. A
majority of ATC's work is relevant to NEHRP and is performed
under contract with FEMA and NIST.
I am a member of the Board of Directors of The
Masonry Society. TMS is a professional, technical, and
educational association dedicated to the advancement of the
knowledge of masonry. It produces standards for design and
construction that are directly impacted by NEHRP.
I am a member of standards development committees of
the American Concrete Institute and the American Institute of
Steel Construction, both of which produce standards for design
and construction that are directly impacted by NEHRP.
I am a member of various committees of the Building
Seismic Safety Council, an arm of the congressionally-chartered
nonprofit National Institute of Building Sciences. BSSC brings
together nearly all the national, State, and regional
organizations concerned with improving resistance to the
effects of future damaging earthquakes.
I am a member of the Advisory Committee on Earthquake
Hazard Reduction, convened over the past two years by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, in response to
the most recent reauthorization of NEHRP.
I cite all these activities and relations for two reasons: my
testimony is certainly informed by each and every one of these
affiliations, as well as others in the past, but my opinions are my own
and must not be interpreted as the official position of any one of
these organizations.
In your invitation, you asked me to answer four questions, and I
will organize my testimony in that fashion.
Please comment on the level and effectiveness of interagency
coordination and program performance since the previous reauthorization
of NEHRP. Where are there opportunities for improvement?
I believe the level of interagency coordination has improved and
the effectiveness of the program is beginning to show the result of
that improvement. In large measure this is due to the work of Dr. John
Hayes, the man that NIST selected to become the Director of the program
in their agency, but of course he could not succeed without the backing
of senior management at NIST. I have observed the agencies working
together on the new Strategic Plan for NEHRP, and I have been impressed
that they did collaborate strongly in putting that plan together.
Thirty years ago I was an employee at the (then) National Bureau of
Standards (now NIST) as NEHRP was being created. I know that
cooperation of agencies across major departments of the Federal
Government to jointly achieve programmatic objectives is not nearly as
simple as might be desired. It appears to me that the Interagency
Coordinating Committee is a key element of making the cooperation
effective, and I encourage the Congress to maintain the emphasis that
the highest levels of management at each of the NEHRP agencies be
committed to the program.
I will cite two examples of recent interagency coordination with
which I am personally involved:
USGS and FEMA have worked together to prepare a
significant update to the maps of seismic ground shaking hazard
used for design of most structures. The activity began at least
three years ago in a committee of the BSSC, and it incorporates
results of the newest research on attenuation of ground motion
waves with distance and a more sophisticated method of
considering both the nature of the hazard and the nature of
structural response to produce what we call ``risk-targeted''
ground motions. The new maps have been approved at BSSC and are
well on their way to approval within ASCE 7. If all goes well
the new maps will be the basis of building codes in cities and
states within two to three years. This would simply not be
possible without true cooperation between USGS and FEMA.
FEMA and NIST are targeting their funds for the
support of applied research in a coordinated fashion to move
forward as rapidly as feasible a potentially promising method
for systematic quantification of parameters used by structural
engineers in design to resist earthquakes. In the past these
parameters have been established mostly on the basis of
professional judgment, which is a political process and subject
to powers of persuasion. This new work offers the opportunity
to exchange some of the subjective judgment with objective
analysis. It appears to be eagerly sought by professionals in
the field, and the accelerated testing of the methodology would
not be possible without the cooperation of FEMA and NIST.
I do want to note my appreciation for the leadership that FEMA
offered to the program in the past. Their focus on implementation of
mitigation measures is very close to my central focus, and I think
NEHRP has been singularly successful over the years. It appeared to me
that FEMA's ability to lead the program was being impaired by the
change from being an independent agency to being a part of the new
Department of Homeland Security, and thus I supported the change
directed by Congress to make NIST the lead agency.
In addition to the enhanced cooperation that I mentioned earlier, I
believe that the change to NIST has truly made the program a four
agency program. Even though NIST was listed as one of the four agencies
in the past, their budget, and therefore their commitment to and
effectiveness within the program became so small as to be
inconsequential.
There are opportunities for improvement. One obvious issue is that
the appropriated funding of the program should reach the authorized
levels. I appreciate that arriving at a federal budget is an awesome
task, but I do want to note that the appropriated funds are less than
either the authorized amounts or the proposed funding in the
President's budget in FY 2009. The Strategic Plan dated October 2008
lays out a very ambitious program, but it does not contain budgets. The
authorized funding levels provide a base level to work towards the
goals of that plan, and any smaller amounts will simply delay progress.
Another opportunity for improvement is to either deepen the commitment
of DHS to NEHRP or to enhance the ability of the earthquake program at
FEMA to carry out its mission within the large and developing
organization that is DHS.
What are the priorities for earthquake R&D to increase community
resiliency? How well does NEHRP address these priorities? What would
you recommend to ensure these priorities are addressed by NEHRP?
Please assess the technology transfer efforts supported by NEHRP. What
would you recommend to improve the adoption of earthquake mitigation
measures?
I will answer these two sets of questions together. I certainly
support the priorities set forth in the recent Strategic Plan, and
improving earthquake resilience of communities is one of the
overarching goals of that plan. It is not possible to achieve that goal
without effective technology transfer. Given my interest in design and
construction, I will take this opportunity to highlight the activities
necessary to support the objectives pertinent to those fields.
The productivity and effectiveness of the Nation's seismic design
and construction community is affected by a variety of factors (see the
ATC 57 report, The Missing Piece: Improving Seismic Design and
Construction Practices, prepared in a project supported by NIST). These
include
the makeup of the industry, which consists of a large
number of small design offices, clients, vendors, and
contractors, who do not have the resources or business models
for supporting research and development in seismic risk
reduction;
the complexity and wide variety of construction
types, including buildings of varying height, size, and
construction materials, and a wide range of transportation and
utility infrastructure facilities;
the ever expanding number of buildings and structures
in the Nation's inventory, which naturally and routinely
increases our exposure to seismic risk; (4) the availability of
modern tools to improve efficiency; and
the availability of new technology and information
for reducing the effects of earthquakes on the built
environment.
Future NEHRP plans must recognize and acknowledge these factors,
and identify, promote, and fund actions that not only promote the
development of new knowledge and methods for earthquake risk reduction,
but also halt the ever widening gap between knowledge development and
its application. The gap is one of the major factors affecting the
decline in productivity of the U.S. design and construction industry
over the last two decades (ATC-57). To this end, a wide variety of
recommended actions are necessary, some of which are already underway.
These include:
The continued implementation of an expanded,
coordinated program of problem-focused research and development
in earthquake engineering, which was started by NIST in 2008 in
response to strong recommendations from industry. The
recommended program includes:
Systematic support of the Seismic Code Development
process:
Provide technical support for the
seismic practice and code development process,
including research to support development of
more rational methods for determining critical
design variables;
Support the development of
performance-based seismic engineering through
the conduct of research to develop fragility
information on the broad range of structural
and nonstructural components for which such
information is not available;
Improve seismic Design Productivity:
Support the development of technical
resources (e.g., guidelines and manuals) to
improve seismic engineering practice, focusing
on structure types (e.g., infrastructure) for
which guidelines are not currently available or
no longer reflect the state of practice, or the
state of research;
Make evaluated technology available
to practicing professionals in the design and
construction community through the development
of technical briefs and other means;
Develop tools to enhance the
productivity, economy and effectiveness of the
earthquake resistant design and construction
process, including improved processes for
computer aided design.
Continued support of the FEMA-funded program to
develop next-generation performance based seismic design
guidelines for new and existing buildings, following the
program plan that has been established for this purpose;
Continued support of FEMA-funded programs for
supporting mitigation activities necessary to improve technical
quality in the field of earthquake engineering, including the
investigation of seismic and related multi-hazard technical
issues as they are identified by FEMA, the development and
publication of technical design and construction guidance
products, the dissemination of these products, and support of
training and related outreach efforts based on these products;
Expanded support of research being carried out under
NSF-funded NEES Program, which was established to conduct
research to improve the seismic design and performance of our
nation's civil and mechanical systems, with improved
coordination and planning of research to support the major
development programs being carried out by FEMA and NIST;
Expanded support of efforts to identify research
needs from the perspective of design professionals and of
efforts to coordinate research to enhance its effectiveness;
New programs to encourage local communities to adopt
and enforce programs to identify and reduce the numbers of
seismically hazardous structures in their community;
Involvement in international cooperative efforts,
such as the Global Earthquake Model (GEM), to better understand
and evaluate how seismic hazard, structural vulnerability, and
seismic risk are characterized and determined by other
countries, thereby enhancing the potential for improving our
competitiveness world wide.
I am particularly hopeful about the performance based seismic
design program. NIST has published Research Required to Support Full
Implementation of Performance-Based Seismic Design (NIST GCR 09-917-2)
making use of the assistance of BSSC that defines the needs. To me the
work appears to be ground-breaking, and I believe there will be many
ancillary, or spinoff, benefits to this research.
How should the Federal Government address R&D for other natural
hazards? What opportunities exist to coordinate hazards R&D across the
Federal Government?
As a structural engineer I am required to consider many natural
hazards in the conduct of my practice; earthquake, wind, snow, flood,
ice and expansive soils can all have significant effects on the designs
that I prepare. The role of the Federal Government in R&D is quite
varied across these areas. Earthquakes are a prime example of a
situation that requires a strong Federal effort to make progress
towards disaster resilience, and NEHRP is a shining example of a
successful federal program. In my view the needs are not the same
across this spectrum of hazards, but there are unfilled needs.
On the engineering design side, earthquake is unlike wind, snow,
flood or ice. The nature of the action upon the structure couple with
the extreme rarity and severity of strong earthquakes makes realistic a
design strategy to accept significant damage to ordinary structures
while still protecting against large loss of life. This brings a
complexity to the engineering design and analysis that is simply
unmatched in design for wind, snow, flood or ice. And this is the
strongest underlying reason why so much R&D is necessary in earthquake
engineering.
On the natural hazard definition side the differences do not appear
to me to be quite as significant. Predicting the future from
observation of the past is in the best tradition of strong science. The
rarity of earthquake events does make seismology a challenging field,
in my opinion, but I am sure there are comparable difficulties in
meteorology.
I have long had a research interest in snow loads on roofs, and I
think a contrast with the information available for definition of the
hazard between earthquake and snow is instructive here. The USGS has
done a very commendable job as the central focus for the applied
science of defining the ground shaking hazard across the U.S. Their
program does strongly benefit from the earth sciences research at NSF,
and the USGS is very cooperative with the engineering community,
especially in their interactions with BSSC. In ASCE/SEI 7, and
therefore in the building codes used across the Nation, we directly
incorporate the maps that are produced by USGS. ASCE/SEI 7 also has
hazard maps for snow, wind, and ice. These hazard definition maps are
all produced by committee members in what amount to volunteer efforts.
The map for snow has a federal relation; the committee member most
responsible was Wayne Tobiasson, an engineer now retired, who worked
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at their Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory. It was not central to the role of the Corps; it
was this man's professional convictions that led him to wade through
available data from the Weather Service and the (former) Soil
Conservation Service to prepare these maps. Even though the maps are
extremely useful and the basis of our legal building codes, they have
huge voids in mountainous regions where the snow loads are the largest,
and the most difficult to discern. There is very little private sector
incentive to collect, archive, and analyze the data necessary for the
improved definition of the snow load hazard. In my opinion it is most
appropriate for the Federal Government to fulfill at least the data
collection and archiving of the information, if not the analysis. Yet
the Weather Service has in recent years reduced their collection of
information vital to predicting the weight of accumulated snow. The
amount of money necessary is minor compared to the NEHRP budget, but
there should be some way to accomplish the mission. The ASCE/SEI 7 map
for ice has a similar story and a similar champion, Kathy Jones a
scientist who also works for the Army Corps at CRREL.
The ASCE/SEI 7 map for wind speed is also produced by a volunteer
committee. I know that this committee has heard testimony in the past
concerning national needs for reducing the risk associated with high
winds, and I will not attempt to repeat that here. But I will state
that I certainly support increased federal support for R&D to reduce
the consequence of high winds, including support for technology
transfer. I previously stated that the engineering side of the
earthquake problem is complex. I want to note that a recent survey of
practicing engineers pointed to the wind load provisions of ASCE/SEI 7
as being very difficult to understand or apply (more so than the
seismic design provisions of the same standard). I attribute at least a
part of this discrepancy to NEHRP. There is no wind equivalent of BSSC,
which FEMA has supported for nearly three decades. The critical mass
assembled and the continuity at BSSC have in no small measure made our
seismic design provisions better. We need similar help in the wind
area.
I am confident that Katrina has focused the attention of the
Federal Government on coastal flood issues. It appears to me that there
are large public policy issues that need to be resolved, included the
proper level of safety and the appropriate means for funding
protection. I will say that the level of safety from flooding is
considerably lower that the level of safety provided against other
natural hazards. There are very likely benefits to be gained from
coordinated social science, engineering, and physical science research
on these public policy issues.
Overall, I believe that NEHRP stands as an example of how to
assemble a critical mass of expertise to move the Nation forward. This
has involved developing consensus on R&D priorities among all
stakeholders, funding a wide group of interests to develop the
expertise and to carry out the work, and focusing on implementation.
These lessons can and should be applied to other natural hazards, but
not at the expense of diluting the critical mass necessary for the
synergy that has been realized.
Biography for James Robert Harris
Experience
Jim is well versed in structural engineering practice and research.
He has designed or evaluated hundreds of structures ranging from
dwellings to high-rise buildings including industrial facilities, long
spans, buildings in the highest seismic zones, excavation bracing, pile
and pier foundations, vibration issues, and renovations of historic
buildings. This background spans nearly all types of construction and
structural materials and includes responsibility for management of all
design disciplines. His experience includes six years of full-time
research. His research has focused on the loading and response of
structures, particularly earthquake and snow loadings. A second focus
is on improving the formulation and use of engineering standards. He
has written over 30 reports and journal articles on the results of his
research and practice. He is an active member of several committees
that produce national standards for structural engineering practice,
and his expertise there was recognized by his election to the National
Academy of Engineering.
Education
Ph.D.--University of Illinois, 1980, Structures and Foundations
MSCE--University of Illinois, 1975, Structures
BSCE--University of Colorado, 1968, Structures
Registration
Colorado: Professional Engineer #11118
Idaho: Professional Engineer #10309
California: Civil Engineer #34192; Structural Engineer #2640
National Council of Engineering Examiners Record #8449 (currently
inactive)
Professional Employment
1984--J.R. Harris & Company, Principal, Denver
1981-84--Structural Consultants, Inc., Principal, Denver
1975-81--National Bureau of Standards, Center for Building Technology,
Research Structural Engineer, Gaithersburg, MD
1973-75--University of Illinois, Graduate Research and Teaching
Assistant
1969-73--Zeiler and Gray, Engineer and Associate, Denver
1968-69--Ken R. White Company, Engineer, Denver
Awards
Distinguished Engineering Alumnus, University of
Colorado, Boulder, 2007
National Academy of Engineering, elected 2005
Structural Engineering Inst. of the Am. Soc. of Civil
Engineers, Walter P. Moore, Jr., Award, 2002
Building Seismic Safety Council of the Nat'l Inst. of
Bldg Sci, BSSC Honor Award, 1997
Colorado Engineering Council, Certificate of Honor,
1997
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency Outstanding
Public Service Award, 1986
U.S. Department of Commerce Bronze Metal Award for
Superior Federal Service, 1981
District of Columbia Council of Engineering and
Architectural Societies National Capital Award for Special
Achievement, 1981
Univ. of Colorado Department of Civil Engineering,
Ketchum Award for outstanding graduate, 1968.
Professional Society Membership
American Concrete Institute; Fellow
American Consulting Engineers Council
American Institute of Steel Construction
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society for Testing and Materials
American Welding Society
Coalition of American Structural Engineers
Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering
International Code Council
The Masonry Society
National Society of Professional Engineers
National Trust for Historic Preservation
The Post Tensioning Institute
Structural Engineers Association of Colorado
Professional Committees and Activities (current)
Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazard Reduction
(for the National Institute for Standards and Technology),
Member
American Concrete Institute: Member, Committee 318,
Standard Building Code, and subcommittees on Seismic Provisions
and on Prestressed and Precast Concrete
American Institute of Steel Construction: Member of
Task Committee on Seismic Provisions, Emeritus Member of
Specification Committee; Former Chair, Committee for the Design
for Blast Resistant Steel Buildings
American Society of Civil Engineers: Member and Past
Chair, Standards Committee for Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7); formerly Chairman,
Task Committee on Earthquake Loads; also Member and
Subcommittee Chair, Standards Committee for Loads on Structures
During Construction
American Society of Civil Engineers: Member, core
team for the Pentagon to study building performance in the wake
of the September 11, 2001, attacks
Applied Technology Council: President, Board of
Directors
Building Seismic Safety Council: Member, Provisions
Update Committee, Technical Subcommittee on Structural Design;
Code Resource Support Committee; formerly chair of committee
that produced 1985 edition of NEHRP Recommended Provisions
(first edition), plus activity on several other technical
subcommittees
International Standards Organization, Past Chair of
U.S. Technical Advisory Group for TC 98, Bases for the Design
of Structures
Mid-American Earthquake Engineering Research Center:
Member, Executive Advisory Board (Chair 2002-3)
Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE: President
of Board of Governors; also former Chair, Executive Committee
for Codes and Standards Activities Division
Structural Engineers Association of Colorado:
Chairman, Committee on Seismic Standards and Member, Committee
on Snow Loads; President, 1990
The Masonry Society: Member, Board of Directors
Discussion
Chair Wu. Thank you very much, Dr. Harris, and I just want
to assure you that hearings are important. Concepts disseminate
quickly, and Congress can respond. I think that we are going to
call NEHRP, NERRP from now on, and we will just immediately
make that change.
Dr. Hayes, many bouquets and accolades have been thrown
your way and NEHRP's way in this hearing and through other
reports, so let me ask you about something that you may or may
not be doing correctly which is that there has been some
testimony that the level of support for managerial and
technical activities at NIST, that expanding that level of
support would be integral to strengthening NEHRP. Why hasn't
NIST requested the fully authorized funding levels and what
other priorities might be met? And this is a question for the
rest of the panel, and for you, Dr. Hayes. What other
priorities could be met if those functions did have full
funding at NIST?
Dr. Hayes. Sir, first, let me thank you for the accolades,
but they are not that well-deserved. This is a teamwork
operation that we have, and it involves partners from the other
three agencies that are sitting behind me now. And without
them, this wouldn't be successful.
Insofar as your question is concerned, the President's
budget the last couple of fiscal years has requested increased
funds for NIST, and we are really happy that this year in the
2009 budget we did see a very meaningful increase of about $2.5
million--$2.4 million to be exact--in the NIST research budget
for supporting earthquake research. And we are in the process
now of doing a couple of things. One is that we are working
very diligently to rebuild the earthquake engineering workforce
at NIST, and we have hired a couple of folks already and are
looking to hire other people this summer and fall. We also have
contract support that has been very helpful for us as well, and
I think we are making really good headway toward improved size
and scope for the program through the funding that came this
year, and we anticipate seeing a gradual growth process. I
think it would be unwise to do it all overnight, if you will,
anyway. I think we have to be smart about the way we grow back
into things, and we are very diligently doing that as we speak
right now, interviewing people, trying to find good people for
the team. So we are definitely making headway in that area,
sir.
Chair Wu. Well, Dr. Hayes, I think just between the lines,
what I am saying is we are from the Congress, we are here to
help, and consider the question asked about what expansions in
this particular budget would help the functions of all of
NEHRP.
Dr. Hayes. Thank you, sir.
Chair Wu. Dr. Lindell, you stated that social scientists
learn in one disaster things that can be applied across
different kinds of disasters and to different disasters of the
same kind. Could you address this a little bit for us, a couple
of examples about lessons learned and whether this might argue
for bringing different hazards together because of some
commonality and avoiding some of the stove piping and
replication of function?
Dr. Lindell. Sure. I could provide a very large number of
examples over the past 30 years, but I want to focus on one
that is ongoing right now. About four years ago, my wife and I
submitted a project proposal to the National Science Foundation
in collaboration with Professor Harry Yeh and Cherri Pancake at
Oregon State University. Their background was in tsunamis and
in engineering. Ours was in social science and hurricanes. The
four of us saw that there were substantial commonalities in our
research because both of those are hydrological hazards, the
storm surge in the case of hurricanes and the tsunami wave.
There are some differences, but there are some similarities as
well. And so the objective of a project that was funded by the
National Science Foundation was to integrate some of the ideas
that we had learned about how to evacuate from hurricanes.
There has been a lot of research on hurricane evacuation over
the years, not so much in the case of tsunamis. This project
provided an opportunity to take what had been learned on
hurricanes and apply that to tsunami research. And so that was
a very profitable research area for us to engage in.
Other areas are ones where we have learned from research
that we did on the accident at Three Mile Island in
radiological emergency preparedness, as well as the toxic
chemical accident in Bhopal and the subsequent toxic chemical
emergency preparedness initiatives after that. Many lessons
were learned, particularly in response to the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act--the Emergency Planning
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986--which established local
emergency planning committees. I did a study of local emergency
planning committees in Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan that
provided a lot of ideas about how to improve community
emergency preparedness for earthquakes as well.
So those are just two examples, but like I said, there are
many others as well.
Chair Wu. Thank you, Dr. Lindell. My time has expired. I
will come back with further questions.
The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the panel
for sharing your expertise. I stand here or sit here as a
Nebraskan who has experienced, believe it or not, an earthquake
in the mid-'80s. Fortunately, there was not a great deal of
damage, but we have obviously other hazards. You know, perhaps
there is overlap in some of the mitigating or planning
circumstances, whether it is snow load, wind resistance, what
have you, so some codes that help in one area probably helped
in another.
When it comes to adoption of building codes, though, I am
wondering if you could maybe give us an update, Dr. Harris, on
the acceptance of the recommended building codes and maybe what
we need to work on. I would also submit that sometimes building
codes find their way into the law so to speak that maybe have
other interests other than public safety and the value of
property and so forth. But we do want to have the utmost of
requirements or the intent to protect human lives and property.
How would you respond?
Dr. Harris. Actually, the program has been very successful,
but that doesn't mean it is universally successful in terms of
affecting the building codes in cities and states across the
Nation. The path to those building codes is a somewhat
torturous path if you will. Almost all building codes are laws
of cities or in some cases of states, and now almost all of
those make reference to a model building code. There is one
predominant model building code in this country called the
International Building Code. With respect to the seismic safety
issue as well as most other structural concerns, that model
building code makes reference to lots of structural engineering
standards. In other words, the safety provisions aren't really
in the building code. They are in the referenced standards. The
standard I mentioned earlier, the ASEC-7 standard, sets forth
the loading side of it, and then there are lots of standards
produced by other entities that set forth how you design in a
given material, whether it be steel, concrete, masonry, or
timber, for example.
The great success of the NEHRP program with respect to
implementation, I think, has been FEMA's long and consistent
support of the Building Seismic Safety Council, which is a
forum that brings together all of these stakeholders that are
interested in how seismic safety is promulgated through
building codes.
It turns out that one national organization with 50 or 60
organizational members doesn't necessarily assure--when that
group agrees that something ought to be done, it doesn't
necessarily assure that every city is going to adopt it. And
there are cities here and there that are, I think, for good
reasons dragging their feet on moving into the best current
practice for seismic safety. These are cities where the seismic
hazard is high. Therefore, the cost of compliance is high. But
the experience of earthquakes in a human lifetime isn't there
because the event is such a rare event, and specifically I am
talking about the Middle Mississippi Valley area. And it is a
serious concern as to how we best protect places like this
where the event is so rare that, you know, a person of a
decision-making age has never experienced an earthquake, nor is
he related by blood to anyone who has, who is still alive. You
are talking about the interplay then of social science with
technical sciences, physical sciences, and it is a difficult
sell. I think the program is doing a good job. It is not heavy-
handed. It is relying upon consensus in these standards bodies.
The model code building process has a semblance of consensus to
it also. By the time it comes down to adoption in a particular
city, the art of persuasion is particularly important, and it
becomes a very political process.
But all I can say is that I think the NEHRP program has
been more successful than any other federal program I am aware
of in terms of bringing improved safety levels to bear more or
less generally across the Nation. It is not a battle that is
won, it has to continue to be fought.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you. My time has expired, so I will
wait for the next round. Thank you.
Chair Wu. The gentleman from New York is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our
panel. Professor O'Rourke, we are both fortunate to claim New
York as our work ground, and I just had a question of you as
one in the area of civil engineering as to how you interact
with researchers who are dealing with the social sciences of
the research that needs to be done? How is that interaction put
together?
Prof. O'Rourke. I can give you some examples. For a number
of years, we actually had support from the National Science
Foundation to work with social scientists at the Wagner School
of Public Service in New York City. This was a group of
engineers but primarily social scientists who were in city
planning, the applied social sciences with respect to decision-
making, and that I think led to a lot of very interesting
insights and some excellent opportunities to reach out to
people in urban environments and begin to formulate approaches
that would allow us to, number one, from the engineering and
scientific side become aware and informed about the social
dimensions of our technologies.
You know, it is one thing for us to be able to invent a new
process or propose a new development or piece of
infrastructure, but it is quite another thing for the
communities to accept that because there is quite a lot of
disruption. There is quite a lot of interference with the
normal activities, and frankly, the lack of this coordination
between social science and engineering and science, hard
science, was actually getting in the way of getting important
civil infrastructure projects put into place in a timely
fashion. And as there has been a number of more effective ways
of approaching this dialogue.
Just being able to support a continuing dialogue between
the engineering professions and the social science professions
has been extraordinarily important for enlightening both groups
because you have to pay some serious translational fees when
you try to find common language across both sides. But the
final product has been, I think, exceptional, and I think very
helpful for putting civil infrastructure into play. I made a
comment before that real civil infrastructure are the
communities, the actual people, that benefit from the physical
infrastructure. So unless we can bring those two together, we
are not really doing it in the holistic and correct way.
Mr. Tonko. And are there major impediments to that
interaction that you believe we need to address in order to
make the work more effective?
Prof. O'Rourke. Yes, there are. For example, there are
institutional impediments. If you look at civil infrastructure,
it is actually, if you want to use the word, Balkanized. You
will have water supply and power and telecommunications with
entirely different corporate cultures, different reward
systems, different agenda. And so getting everybody to sort of
sing in the same choir and getting everybody to coordinate
properly on the process is an extraordinarily important part of
getting this job done. We don't depend on just one system at a
time, we don't just rely on water supply for fire following a
major disaster like an earthquake or a World Trade Center
disaster, we don't just depend upon electric power, we depend
upon them all concomitantly and at the same time; and
therefore, dealing with the interdependencies, both physical,
interoperational, and institutional, becomes a very, very
important part of how we proceed.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Dr. Harris, you had, in earlier
questioning, spoken to disasters that have huge amounts of
wind-related to them. I am assuming that wind speed maps become
critical when it comes to design. Who do you rely upon? Is
NEHRP there to provide these bits of data or how simply do you
get the details that you need, the maps that you may need for
wind speed?
Dr. Harris. Thank you for your question. NEHRP actually
doesn't have anything to do with the maps that we use for wind
speed. They are produced in a committee by volunteers, a
committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers. These
volunteers make extensive use of data that is compiled in
something called a National Climatic Center which is related to
NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] and the
National Weather Service. But the analysis of the data is
pretty much purely done by volunteers who put this map
together, responding to overall community decisions on how safe
is safe enough. The overall wind program, if you will, if it
were supported as proposed in the National Wind Hazard Impact
Reduction Program, I think would become more sophisticated and
a better overall program, probably more intelligent expenditure
of construction dollars. I think it would reduce cost in some
areas and would increase cost in others because the safety
level would become more consistent then.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Wu. I thank the gentleman from New York. The
gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Smith. Dr. O'Rourke, you noted or you referenced FEMA's
support for earthquake preparedness has been perhaps subsumed
into a more generic State and local hazard preparedness
program, and obviously FEMA always has a lot on their plate it
seems. And with the so-called moving target of geography of
disasters and the velocity of disasters, certainly I don't want
to criticize FEMA, but would you believe there are ways to
reestablish a good, distinct focus on earthquake mitigation
within FEMA without compromising this all-hazards mission and
approach within DHS?
Prof. O'Rourke. Absolutely. I think in order to make any
hazards mitigation effective, you have to get down to the
community level. That is where the implementation occurs, and
FEMA, frankly, has been quite effective in being able to reach
out to the communities. As envisioned within NEHRP, FEMA is the
implementation arm. They are the group that works through the
codes and standards process. They are the group that developed
HAZUS which is applied at the local community level, and they
are the folks that come in and work with the states and multi-
State organizations and so forth. Their support for the State
program, since about 2003, has been subsumed into a broader
sort of DHS approach to things, and there has been kind of a
loss of identity during that period of time on the part of the
State managers and mitigation and earthquake programs. We
believe that those programs were very effective because they
were targeted, people did have an identity, they were able to
get access to resources that made them effective, and putting
more emphasis on the State programs, in particular, for
mitigation programs within the states' targeted earthquakes is
a good idea, that it doesn't necessarily compete with other
hazards. It fits into a jigsaw puzzle as a complimentary piece
of support with other types of hazards. And actually, it is
kind of a natural, shall we say, stimulus for support and other
hazards area, and I will give you an example. When HAZUS, which
is this computer decision support system that is very effective
in helping communities understand the impacts of natural
hazards and their local jurisdictions, was originally created,
it was created for earthquakes. But since then, it has been
extended to floods and to windstorm effects. So starting from
the incubation of this particular technology for earthquakes,
it has been able to be developed and applied to other
locations.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. And then also, Dr. Harris, if you
might respond. Certainly there is a lot of discussion lately
about carbon footprint and the impact of carbon emissions. Do
you see any of these efforts perhaps compromising building
codes along the way?
Dr. Harris. If they were applied in an unthinking fashion,
that might be the case, but in reality, I think the smallest
carbon footprint, with respect to the topics we are talking
about, is building the infrastructure that is the most
resilient, that you don't have to reconstruct after every
natural disaster. And it does mean in some cases spending more
money and more carbon in the initial construction because it
pays off in the long run. If you look at the carbon footprint
issue as a true life cycle cost, then I don't think there are
conflicts. If it gets narrowed to just carbon in a given year,
then perhaps there are conflicts.
Mr. Smith. I appreciate your response. I hear you saying
that there may need to be some flexibility and that we should
look beyond perhaps just that first carbon footprint and what
might happen down the road.
Dr. Harris. I concur. That is the flexibility that is
necessary.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
Chair Wu. The Chair recognizes himself. Dr. Hayes, you
testified that NEHRP has almost 30 years' worth of experience
at interaction with State and local government and other
earthquake professionals which has provided a good deal of
organizational experience that can be shared with those working
with other hazard fields. What lessons are the lessons learned
from earthquakes and how can these lessons be extended to other
hazard fields?
Dr. Hayes. I probably won't think of all of them. There are
many similarities, and there are some dissimilarities and we
have to distinguish between the two. But I think as Dr. Lindell
testified earlier, one of the major areas of possible
commonality is in the disaster preparation and response
recovery that really involves many activities that are very
similar. It is irrelevant what the hazard might be. There are
other issues that we clearly see involve work that NEHRP has
done over the years. But for example, cascading effects that
can occur in the lifeline systems of a community that is
impacted by any natural disaster, whether it is a flood,
tsunami, earthquake, wildfire, where one system is impacted
that then affects another system is another area that has many
areas, I think, of common interest.
Looking specifically within the structural world, we
certainly see that there are some similarities with wind
effects but not close similarities between wind effects and
earthquake effects. There are things that can be learned there,
and again, looking more narrowly at structural engineering, if
we look at what we call progressive collapse, which in effect
is a cascading effect, there are similarities there as well.
When a structural element fails, it almost doesn't matter
really what the original impetus was that caused that failure
to occur if things start spreading throughout a structure. And
so there are similarities there, and it is something that I
think we haven't completely studied in a comprehensive way yet,
and it is certainly something that could be done in the future.
Chair Wu. Thank you, Dr. Hayes. Mr. Murphy, what type of
activities does NEHRP currently support with respect to
tsunami, and what are some other things that NEHRP perhaps
ought to be looking at with respect to tsunami preparedness?
Mr. Murphy. I think probably the most--what I consider
significant and beneficial thing--that NEHRP provides is the
support of our public education and warning campaigns. I think
the most significant thing as you know, Mr. Chair, there is not
a whole lot of time to evacuate and not a whole lot of space on
the Oregon coast, and I will only speak for our area, but
public education not only to the citizens but to the visitors
to the states that may not be familiar. So, I think those types
of programs and financial support to help us makes a huge
difference, and I think that would apply to any state as you
look at these.
I think also, too, you know, as far as NEHRP goes, you
know, the more tools that at least in the emergency management
community can be provided, you know, not necessarily for us but
through the science, you know, to help us know as soon as we
can about it or the potential resulting after-effects. I think
the science is very important, and I know I have learned a
great deal from our geologists, our seismologists, our civil
engineers, you know, and using those to try and predict through
HAZUS as has been mentioned here, the modeling system, you
know, and I think the continued support and hopefully
increasing support in those areas will help us do a better job
as emergency managers trying to prepare for it. And whether it
is in the preparation mode or the response or recovery mode,
any of those types of tools that NEHRP has provided or can
provide would help us in the future.
Chair Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. Tonko?
Mr. Tonko. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Prof. O'Rourke, you
recommend a post-earthquake information management system. Can
you further detail that for us, please?
Prof. O'Rourke. When people come into an earthquake
stricken area, there are many, many different forms of data
that they collect. They may collect photographs, they may
collect high-resolution satellite imagery, they may collect
observations, they may collect actual information about the
subsurface soil conditions. These then become somewhat
extraordinarily complex as the information starts to come in.
And the intention, of course, is not to have this information
just available to a few individuals who are expert in the area
but to make it generally available to the community at large
and ultimately to the community that has been affected or may
be affected by the next event. And it is not a trivial task to
try to take all of these disparate sources of information and
integrate them into a system where people can get access that
their appropriate metadata which are data that allow them to
identify where the specific information is that they are
looking for and to create that in a user-friendly way. The
earthquake community, I think, has kind of led the group in
terms of acquiring information after disasters and have
experimented with a number of, I think, very exciting
technologies. One of the areas that they piloted has been the
use of high-resolution satellite imagery that has been tied
into GPS systems on the ground so that as people acquire
information as they travel through earthquake-stricken areas or
disaster-affected areas, this information is immediately
integrated into the satellite view of things and then is
integrated by advanced geographical information systems into a
whole series of databases which are map-based. And this was
done for earthquakes in the 1990's and early 2000 and actually
has been very effective in acquiring information after
hurricanes, like Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. And so
this is a part of that type of information system where we are
looking for high-tech, very visual, very precise, very visual
ways of collecting and cataloging that information for access
by others.
Mr. Tonko. Then who do you envision would be responsible
for implementation?
Prof. O'Rourke. That is an integrating role, and I would
look to the integration of post-earthquake information to the
lead agency which would be NIST because that would be the
natural place to place that type of oversight. And I know that
NIST in the previous year has actually supported some workshops
that have been focused on trying to acquire, and FEMA has also
been in part of this. Of course, FEMA is important because of
the implementation part of it. Ultimately, as I mentioned
before, one of the important applications for this information
is in the actual community where the problems have occurred.
When you have to reconstruct after a major earthquake like
Northridge or you have to reconstruct after a major hurricane
like Katrina, you need to have this type of information with
the planners and the civil engineers and the public utilities
and the communities so that they have that data available to do
the most effective job on reconstructing their environments.
Mr. Tonko. It sounds like it would provide some good
preventative therapy, too, in the response that would be
required in situations that would follow after those given
circumstances.
Prof. O'Rourke. Absolutely.
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Murphy, you shared the thought that perhaps
we should look at geographic constructs with the
reauthorization of NEHRP. Could you describe that for us,
please?
Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir. Really trying to focus NEHRP programs
is a priority, so that we ensure that we are good stewards of
the money in the NEHRP program. In looking at trying to focus
the program we need to ensure that there's clear evidence like
the New Madrid earthquake fault which runs through the Central
United States. It includes eight states. Out in my part of the
United States, the Cascadia Subduction Zone that affects
Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Northern California and you
know, where we have clear, good, empirical data if possible
that we try and focus the money and efforts to help in those
areas that clearly have evidence and that we can spend the
time, whether it is in preparedness mitigation, response, or
recovery to focus that effort toward those geographical areas.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Chair Wu. I thank the gentleman. Dr. Harris, given the
number and magnitude and the frequency of wind-related
disasters such as hurricanes and tornadoes, why do these wind-
related disasters receive comparatively, it seems, less
attention in codes and the standards development process, and
what is the wind equivalent of the Building Seismic Safety
Council?
Dr. Harris. The engineering problem is actually approached
in a different fashion. The nature of the earthquake action on
a structure allows one to take advantage of certain kinds of
damage and still protect life, at the risk of losing
substantial dollars of constructed inventory, but when one does
a cost benefit analysis, that makes sense. So what it means
then from the engineering side is that the solution of a design
to resist an earthquake is a very complicated problem.
For the solution to designing the structure to resist wind,
or in fact any load that is related to gravity, snow on the
roof, occupancy within the structure, and so on, a much simpler
approach is taken. Effectively it is the difference between,
you know, let us say a college education and a post-graduate
education in terms of the level of the sophistication of the
structural design. That has driven the need for an extensive
R&D program in earthquake engineering, if you will, not
necessarily hazard definition, in the engineering side of it,
which we haven't had to have for wind. So there is less
attention paid, if you will, in building codes and building
code development processes to the wind problem than there is to
the earthquake problem. But in the end, it turns out that it is
to all of our detriment. It turns out that the provisions we
have are not as clear and easy to understand. They don't have
the same, I think, depth of technical consensus behind them
that we do in the earthquake world.
The equivalent to BSSC for wind is in fact a subcommittee
of this ASCE-7 committee that produces the standard on
``Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.''
There are roughly 30 to 40 highly qualified professionals
involved in that volunteer committee, and they do what BSSC
does, if you will, but for wind. They produce the map, they
produce the provisions. The fact that it is a volunteer effort
means that it is just--it doesn't receive the same attention.
Chair Wu. Dr. Harris, this is stunning. What you are saying
is that because it is a simpler problem and easier problem,
wind resistance and codes concerning wind resistance receive
less attention than seismic research and resistance to seismic
stress, even though on a per-dollar basis and on a per-life
basis it might be a higher risk?
Dr. Harris. Yes, both parts of your statement are right. It
receives far less attention in the research community, it
receives less attention in the code development processes, and
in reality, year in, year out we lose lives and we lose
property because of high-wind events. It is my personal opinion
that this society in this country continues to move toward a
desire for increasing levels of safety which means that in the
end we are going to have some very difficult technical problems
to solve on the engineering side because we are going to soon
be at the point where I think we can no longer say, ``it is a
tornado,'' and ``we do not design for tornadoes,'' and that
becomes a very difficult problem to solve then.
Chair Wu. So on a per-dollar-spent basis, there might be a
lot more bang for the buck in research on structures and
developing codes, promulgating better codes for wind
resistance?
Dr. Harris. I concur with that.
Chair Wu. Just very quickly for the entire panel, as my
time is winding down here, the report, Securing Society Against
Catastrophic Earthquake Losses, recommends $330 million per
year over 20 years to achieve national resiliency for
earthquakes. What could be done with a triple-fold increase in
funding, and that is a difficult thing to do, but what could be
done with a triple-fold increase in funding and how might that
help both our mitigation and our preparation steps?
Prof. O'Rourke. That report that you refer to was put
together by quite a distinguished group of multi-disciplinary
people who have thought about it for a long time. That kind of
level of support would accelerate, and acceleration is
important because the risk increases constantly. Activities
that are already under way and then would provide the kind of
strength and basis to deliver on the products. We have heard,
for example, about a number of the areas that deserve research.
That would be able to be accomplished by that type of level of
funding. For example, the performance-based seismic design. It
is a very tricky problem because you are trying to deal with
the design of the structure to fit a certain level of
performance in terms of what the owner would desire from that
structure, and that performance, which is translated into human
terms has to then be linked to computer analyses and methods of
assessment and then also the level of seismic risk. So there is
a lot of effort that goes into that. It is a very important
part of making communities resilient, and that would be able to
be accelerated and put into place.
Similarly, one of the areas that I think is a tremendous
opportunity for the entire country is understanding the
interdependence of complex lifeline systems. We know from not
only earthquake events but from issues relating to hurricanes
and other kinds of natural disasters that there are tremendous
interdependencies among these systems, and I will give you an
example. After Hurricane Katrina, there was virtually all the
infrastructure in place to take oil from the Louisiana off-
shore oil part, and take it on the pipeline system because that
was buried. It wasn't affected by the hurricane--and take it
into the Midwest where it was absolutely necessary for energy.
But it was unable to function because the pump stations were
without electricity having had those transmission lines blown
down and substations under water because of Hurricane Katrina.
So these interdependencies and understanding them and
earthquakes have really led the way because of the large
geographic extent of the damage and the interdependencies and
the interaction and all these different functionalities have
really helped being illustrated. And there have been a number
of sophisticated models that have been put forward. This kind
of work could accelerate, and I think not only do you end up
with that type of support securing this country against
earthquakes, but you have an enormous additional benefit in
terms of the technology, the procedures, the processes that
spread out and are applied to all sorts of hazards, including
human threats in the form of major accidents and then also
terrorism.
So a lot of what is done in the earthquake area affects
other hazards, and it also affects our critical civil
infrastructure. And trying to leverage this kind of support,
this kind of investment we make in the earthquake area to
affect our civil infrastructure, make it better--you know, if
you can make civil infrastructure better during an earthquake,
I guarantee you, you have made it better for everything.
Dr. Harris. I would like to add to Tom's remarks just a
little bit and say that a substantial increase would allow, I
think, a lot more attention to be paid to the substantial
problem of evaluating and rehabilitating existing structures,
especially in the area where earthquake hazards is of the
nature where it occurs relatively frequently. No place is it
truly frequent but relatively frequently. We have a tremendous
inventory of built construction that is not earthquake
resilient, and the real money is making those structures
resilient. Increasing the funding for the program in a
substantial way is the first step toward figuring out how we
come up with the right economic models to fund the
rehabilitation of existing hazardous construction. There is a
strong tradition in the regulation of buildings: laws are not
made retroactive. There are a few sterling exceptions, such as
the invention of the smoke detector a little bit less than a
half-century ago, which led to building code provisions that
existing structures had to be retrofitted with smoke detectors
because it was such a low-cost item and saved so many lives. We
don't have that analogy for almost anything that is structural,
and so private sector buildings, there are no mandatory--they
are very limited, pardon me--mandatory, retroactive provisions
in building codes to reduce existing hazards.
Chair Wu. Is there an exception for that, say, in the San
Francisco Bay area that when you redo even a residential
structure that you have to upgrade the structure?
Dr. Harris. Yes, and these rules are complicated as you
might expect. When you are giving essentially extended life to
existing buildings, there are rules that vary from one
jurisdiction to another as to whether you have to actually even
evaluate the existing seismic hazard, and then if you do have
to do that, what you have to do in terms of upgrading. It is
unusual that you would have to bring existing structure up to
the level expected for new construction. And the rules are not
necessarily consistent. FEMA has been working on this problem
for a long time. They have supported the development of tools
that the engineering profession is finding useful, but the
engineering profession also finds gaps, holes, et cetera, in
these tools. The enhanced funding could accelerate this process
so the engineering tools are better, and frankly there has to
be the public policy side of this to decide how we are actually
going to get things implemented.
Chair Wu. Thank you. Would the gentleman from New York like
to ask any further questions?
Mr. Tonko. No, Mr. Chair, I am set. Thank you.
Chair Wu. Thank you very much then. Let me move toward
closing, and I would like to ask a question of Dr. Lindell or
anybody else who would like to respond, and this is a
curiosity/speculation question.
Dr. Lindell, in your testimony earlier you said that
depending on social, economic and other factors of the
population affected, there are potentially different responses
or different outcomes to various disasters. And I would just
like to invite you to speculate for me. And if this is
something to which you have not devoted any professional
thought, I am fine if you decline to speculate. But one
natural, one man-made disaster, if you will, if Hurricane
Katrina had hit a different city with a different ethnic
makeup, a different social economic mix, what kinds of
outcomes, what kinds of reactions might have been different.
And similarly, instead of the airplanes crashing into the World
Trade Center on 9/11 if say that had happened--you are at Texas
A&M--and if those airplanes had crashed into buildings or a
school where there are 3,500 kids in Houston rather than two
office towers in New York City, how might things have been
different. And if you are comfortable speculating about those
scenarios, I would invite you to illuminate the situation for
me.
Dr. Lindell. I am a professor, and so speculation is my
profession.
First, regarding Hurricane Katrina, I think it is
instructive to note that in 1992, Hurricane Andrew struck
Miami. Andrew was actually a stronger storm. It was at the top
of the category four and was subsequently reclassified as a
five on the Saffir-Simpson scale. Even though it was actually a
stronger storm than Hurricane Katrina, it created fewer
casualties, less damage, and less long-term disruption. Now,
part of the reason for that--as a matter of fact, we know a
number of the reasons why there was such a big difference
between Andrew and Katrina. First of all, we know that much of
New Orleans is below sea level and that Katrina had a stronger
surge than Andrew did. And so the hazard exposure of the city
made a difference. Had the land use plans in the City of New
Orleans prohibited development in areas, let us say, below 10
feet below sea level, the damage and death toll probably would
have been much less. Had the building codes required elevation
of the structures so that they could withstand the flooding of
the city, the damage and the death toll would have been even
smaller. Those land use plans and building codes deal with
hazard exposure and physical vulnerability, respectively. There
is also social vulnerability, which is another preexisting
condition. We know that some of the greatest damage and the
greatest death tolls were in areas where people were in lower
income, lower education, population segments and were ethnic
minorities, as well. All of these are indicators of or
predictors of social vulnerability. These were people that
didn't have the cars to--they either had no cars to evacuate,
had cars that were not sufficiently reliable to travel out of
the city, or had insufficient funds to be able to travel
outside the city for an extended period of time. Because all
their relatives lived in the city, they didn't have any
relatives or other people that they could stay with because
that is where most people who evacuate do stay. Few people go
to public shelters: it is usually only a maximum of about 15
percent in most cases. Most people stay with friends and
relatives, or if they have the money, they go to commercial
facilities, hotels and motels.
So those are a few ways in which the consequences would
have been different had it been a city that had a lower
proportion of ethnic minorities or households with low incomes.
On the other hand, what if there had been compensatory measures
that had recognized adequately the social vulnerability, the
physical vulnerability and the hazard exposure? That is, what
if the local emergency plans had provided for the training of
bus drivers and made arrangements to ensure that bus drivers
would have been there to drive the school buses that many
pictures show were flooded out, that were never used for
evacuation? So had there been better mitigation measures,
better emergency response preparedness, and better disaster
recovery preparedness measures; had there been a higher
proportion of people that not only had flood insurance but had
a flood insurance and also homeowner's insurance through high-
quality insurance companies.
One of the things that was found in Hurricane Andrew is
that many of the ethnic minorities and lower income population
segments had their homeowner's insurance with regional
companies that went bankrupt. They either got nothing or got a
very low payment on their losses, sometimes what happened was
that it took a very long time to go through the State of
Florida to get any kind of funds for reconstruction.
So there are all these social science factors. We have
talked about building codes, but it takes political will within
a jurisdiction to get those codes adopted, implemented, and to
get the inspections done to make sure that they are actually
effectively implemented. So there are a large number of social
science issues that follow on from just about all of the
physical science and engineering issues that relate to this
question of how would things have been different if there was
good physical science and engineering research. It could have
been different but only if that research was properly
implemented.
Chair Wu. Thank you, Dr. Lindell, for that very thoughtful
response. I think that underscores the Science Committee credo
that information is important and the opportunity to think
about it is very, very precious.
I want to start something new with this subcommittee here.
We have gone on for a while, but I want to turn it back over to
the panel. If the panel has anything else to add because it
occurs to me that you all have traveled, many of you
significant distances, and in the course of a dialogue like
this, I think one of the most frustrating things is to have
come a long distance and to sit there with a sense of, you
know, I have something to say about that or if the guy just
asked me a different question. So consider the question asked,
and we will take just a couple minutes so that if there is a
burr under your saddle blanket, please proceed in whatever
order.
Dr. Harris. I will offer one thing which follows directly,
I think, some of Mike's comments about Katrina, and one of the
things that has become clear in my service on committees
writing things that end up in building codes is that
fundamental question that I as a structural engineer worry
about in terms of how safe is safe enough has really different
answers depending upon what kind of environment, local,
political, or natural hazard one is talking about, and from the
Science Committee's perspective, I think the natural hazard
differences are really of interest. We are not designing
structures to resist earthquakes to be as safe as we are with
respect to wind, snow, or any other natural hazard except
flood. Flood is almost out in a different room, if you will,
maybe in the same building, but our hazard level that we
consider the design criterion for flood is something on the
order of 100 or 200 years, mean recurrence interval. That means
that within a given year, you have a one percent or one-half
percent chance of your flood protection system failing. The
current earthquake criterion is a one out of 5,000 chance per
year. For a wind load failure on a structure that meets the
building code, it is more like one out of 125,000 to one out of
50,000 chance per year. This is a public policy question that
engineers alone shouldn't necessarily be answering. And if
there's something that I would like to see a multi-hazard
approach taken on. It is--what are the appropriate safety
levels?
Dr. Lindell. I would like to return to this issue of multi-
disciplinary research because it is one that the NRC Committee
on Disaster Research in the Social Sciences addressed at some
length. One of the things I would like to remind you is that as
a rule, universities award degrees in disciplines, not in
problems. Earthquake hazard mitigation, like other hazard
mitigation, is a problem, not a discipline.
And so it is really--part of the problem is to figure out
ways in which to get universities--and the research faculty in
those universities--to collaborate in trying to address these
problems. A consequence of the fact that we are trained in
disciplines is that we view the world very much like a very
famous New Yorker cover in which it shows a view from
Manhattan, and Manhattan island takes up one half of the cover,
and then New Jersey and Pennsylvania take about the next
quarter, and then on the distant horizon are California and
Japan. That is the way that every discipline trains its members
to view the world. We look at very fine distinctions within our
disciplines and think they are very large. And so what happens
as a consequence is that social scientists are trained to think
of physical scientists and engineers are pretty much
interchangeable, and that physical scientists and engineers see
the different social sciences--psychology, economics,
sociology, political science--as all the same. Of course, this
is horrifying to anybody within those disciplines. The problem
is that universities need to create incentives to get people
out of their own disciplines simply because all the rewards are
to doing things within your own discipline.
NSF had a brilliant idea a number of years ago to require
in some programs that submission of proposals required that
there would be at least one physical scientist or engineer and
one social scientist as a key member of the project staff. That
requirement had a huge influence on people's willingness to
engage in interdisciplinary research. It is as a philosopher
once said, a journey of 1,000 miles but are only at the very
first steps. There are some engineers that are further along
than others. There are some social scientists that are further
along than others. But those kinds of incentives are definitely
effective in improving the amount of multi-disciplinary
research.
Prof. O'Rourke. Chairman Wu, there is a well-known person
in our community, that is, the natural hazards and earthquake
community, by the name of Dennis Mileti who says that natural
hazards never went to college, they never had to major in any
particular area of engineering or science. And I think that
sort of speaks to the way that communities look at natural
hazards. If they are affected by earthquakes, they are very
seriously affected and concerned. If they are affected by
hurricanes, it is similar for that particular hazard. In other
words, if I could give one more quote, that would be from
Voltaire, ``We are all victims of our virtue but there is no
virtue in being a victim.'' What we want to do is to protect
our communities, and perhaps the best way to do that is to find
a multi-hazard approach. However, natural hazards, R&D, and
coordinated hazards research involves science, modeling and
engineering. It really does differ among the hazards, and so
they do have to be approached on a technological basis
differently, and it also involves a lot of institutional
cultures and stakeholders and a multitude of governmental
agencies. And that is why, I think, a very good way to approach
this on a broad level and a level that would help to integrate
it is to pursue the National Academies in trying to put
together an NRC study that would bring together all the
stakeholders and look at this problem from an integrated
perspective and give us the time to reflect and understand how
to go forward and in that process to recognize that NEHRP is
really the gem within the programs that address natural
hazards. The wonderful things that have come from this program,
and the reduction in risk that it has been able to generate for
communities affected by seismic and tsunami hazards, has been
extraordinary but also the fact that it has generated so much
technology, so much procedure, and so much policy which is
shared and used by the other natural hazards. You know, one of
the great examples is the World Trade Center disaster. When the
World Trade Center disaster occurred, the buildings surrounding
the World Trade Center site had to be inspected, but there was
no existing protocol for how to examine a building next to a
terrorist attack. But they used protocols from inspecting
buildings for earthquakes and adapted it, and that allowed some
very important trading companies to participate in the market
much more quickly than they would have and helped really to
establish financial order worldwide.
So supporting NEHRP is also an important part of this, and
I hope we can perhaps increase some of the authorized levels
modestly but certainly try to achieve in our enactment the
authorized levels to use this program as the cornerstone for
going forward in multi-hazards.
Chair Wu. Thank you, Professor O'Rourke. Mr. Murphy,
please.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. From the emergency
management community, we are interested in using things like
NEHRP and different programs to look at things from a multi-
hazard viewpoint, but I also don't want us to lose focus on the
specific subject of earthquake. I think it is unique, even
though we have things like Northridge or the Nisqually
Earthquake in Washington State or in 2011, I believe, we will
be doing a new Madrid exercise for the Central United States. I
still think there is much to be learned. I do think we have to
narrow our focus sometimes, even though there are
commonalities. I would never deny that. But I do think we need
to focus it. At least from the emergency management community,
we can use all the science tools and the technology, you know,
to help us out. I think about tools and technologies that have
been developed over time for tornadoes or hurricanes or
different events, you know. I think those are helpful, and I
hope that the reauthorization of this program will induce us to
keep moving forward because I really do need those tools and
that research, and even the money for public education and
outreach. That will make us stronger as a nation. Thank you.
Chair Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy. Dr. Hayes.
Dr. Hayes. Looks like I'm nominated to speak again. I
thought about what I might say, and it is not profound, but I
think it is important. One of the reasons that I took the job
that I took three years ago was that the earthquake community
is probably the most dedicated professional community I have
ever witnessed anywhere. And as you consider the issue of
multi-hazard and what might be done in relation to other
hazards and looking at the example of NEHRP, don't overlook the
fact that part of NEHRP's success, in fact a large part of it,
has been the involvement of dedicated people from the private
sector from academia, State and local governments, the dollars
that we talk about for NEHRP have been leveraged in ways that
no one has ever been able to document because of the dedicated
service that people such as the gentlemen at the table today
with me have provided for the program. They have done it not
because of NEHRP but because they think it is the right thing
for the Nation. That is something that you can't put a price
tag on, and it is really important to consider that as we look
at other hazards to see what kinds of communities might exist
in relation to those other hazards as well. Thank you very
much.
Chair Wu. Thank you very much. I want to thank the entire
panel and thank you for appearing before the Committee and the
travel that many of you have done. The record will remain open
for two weeks for additional statements from the Members and
for answers to any follow-up questions that the Committee may
ask of the witnesses. Again, thank you all very, very much for
this thoughtful discussion. The witnesses are excused, and the
hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by John R. Hayes, Jr., Director, National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP), National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce
Questions submitted by Chair David Wu
Q1. Please provide the Committee with the fiscal year (FY) 2010
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) budget requests
for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Geological Survey, and the
National Science Foundation. Please include a list of programmatic
activities that will be supported by these funds.
A1. With the adoption of the new NEHRP Strategic Plan,\1\ NEHRP is
tracking agency funding by the Strategic Goals as they are listed in
the Plan. The relationships of the Strategic Goals to the Program
Activities that are listed in P.L. 108-360 is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Strategic Plan for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program, Fiscal Years 2009-2013, October 2008.
Q2. In Dr. Harris' testimony he stated that an ``opportunity for
improvement'' for NEHRP existed in ``deepen[ing] the commitment of DHS
to NEHRP.'' At the previous reauthorization hearing for NEHRP in 2003,
then Director of the FEMA Mitigation Division, Mr. Anthony Lowe, stated
that increasing the interaction between NEHRP and the Department of
Homeland Security Science and Technology (DHS S&T) was a high priority.
Why hasn't there been improvement in the level of coordination and
interaction? Please provide some examples of where NEHRP has
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
collaborated with DHS S&T.
A2. Since the creation of DHS in 2003, the FEMA Mitigation Directorate
(NEHRP) has coordinated and interacted with DHS Science and Technology
(S&T) when opportunities to address all hazards issues have presented
themselves. The most significant example of this coordination has been
FEMA's Risk Management Series (RMS), a collection of over 20
publications, training materials and assessment tools. The objective of
the RMS series is to provide guidance in the post 9/11 environment on
managing risks from different hazards in a balanced manner, resulting
in reduced physical damage to buildings, injuries and/or loss of life.
Different natural hazards (such as earthquakes, floods, high winds) and
man-made hazards (such as conventional bombs, chemical, biological, and
radiological (CBR) agents) are addressed in these publications.
FEMA Mitigation (NEHRP) continues to reach out to DHS S&T to keep
this material current with research and knowledge. While interactions
have not been extensive, FEMA NEHRP continues to seek opportunities to
coordinate with DHS S&T.
Q3. Both ATC-57, The Missing Piece: Improving Seismic Design and
Construction Practices, and previous NEHRP testimony before the Science
Committee in 2003 discussed the need to address the growing gap between
the science and engineering knowledge generated by NEHRP and its
application. NEHRP testimony on June 11 of this year described
activities such as technical support for the code development process,
developing tools to improve earthquake engineering practice, and
techbriefs to familiarize practicing engineers with new concepts in
seismic design.
Q3a. What proportion of total NEHRP funding supports these applied
activities? To what degree is this level of support commensurate with
closing this gap? Please also provide specific examples which
illustrate the success of the activities identified above in closing
this gap.
A3a. Both FEMA and NIST directly support applied activities that focus
on ``closing the gap.'' In the FY 2009 NEHRP budget, most FEMA and NIST
projects that contribute to Goals B and C of the Strategic Plan are
directly tied to these applied activities. The total is about $12M,
approximately nine percent of the total NEHRP budget. The 2009
percentage is up from about six to seven percent of the total in recent
years, reflecting renewed support for NEHRP activities in those
agencies.
While the question raised seems to point specifically to the
engineering activities of FEMA and NIST, it is important to note that
USGS supports or performs a significant amount of applied activity.
Approximately a third of the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program funding is
applied to developing hazard and risk products that are heavily used by
engineers, planners, and emergency managers, as well as directly by the
public. This funding supports development of seismic hazard assessments
at national, regional and urban scales. In one of the flagship efforts
for NEHRP, the National Seismic Hazard Maps are translated into the
seismic provisions of model building codes through the involvement of
FEMA and the consensus process of the code development community.
Regional hazard maps like the recent California statewide earthquake
rupture forecast are directly applied to insurance rate-setting and
other purposes. Urban seismic hazard maps like those released this past
year for Seattle provide much greater detail than the national or
regional maps, include site effects due to soil type and other key
factors. The Seattle maps are being used by the City of Seattle to
prioritize retrofits and for the design process of new highway and
bridge construction.
As mentioned in the NEHRP Strategic Plan, the NEHRP agencies
identified nine strategic priorities for the Program that will receive
increased emphasis, contingent on available resources. All nine
strategic priorities are closely tied to applied activities that would
accelerate ``closing the gap.''
FEMA has been active in this area for 30+ years, producing over 200
earthquake design guidance publications on all aspects of earthquake
mitigation and conducting or supporting related outreach and training
activities. FEMA's development, publication, dissemination, and
promotion of building design and construction materials are signature
examples of NEHRP applied activities. Following are some examples of
FEMA's successes:
FEMA first developed The NEHRP Recommended Provisions
for New Buildings and Other Structures ongoing series of
publications in 1985 and has been periodically updated them
since. This series is a primary resource for translating NEHRP
and other research results into design practice and
implementation, with the primary goal of improving the Nation's
consensus standards and model building codes. FEMA works
through the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) to involve
the Nation's leading earthquake engineering practitioners and
researchers in developing the ``Recommended Provisions.'' The
latest addition to this series is the pending 2009 NEHRP
Recommended Provisions, which contains many consensus-approved
changes to the national design consensus standard, ASCE 7.\2\
Probably the most significant change is the adoption of new
seismic design maps based on the 2008 USGS seismic hazard maps.
The changes contained in the 2009 NEHRP Recommended Provisions
are serving as the basis for changes currently being balloted
for the 2010 edition of the ASCE 7 standard, which will then
adopted by reference by the 2012 International Building Code
(IBC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/
SEI 7-05, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006.
It is also noteworthy that FEMA's efforts in this
area contributed significantly to a national movement away from
three regionalized model building codes into the nationally-
recognized IBC. Via the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC),
FEMA supports a group of experts who submit changes developed
under the NEHRP Recommended Provisions and other projects to
the IBC and other ``International Codes'' series documents
(published by the International Code Council). The
International Codes, as well as the three predecessor codes,
have been substantially equivalent to the NEHRP Recommended
Provisions for over 15 years. The International Codes series
serves as the basis for State and/or local building codes in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
all 50 states.
Existing buildings are potentially greater risks than
new buildings, since most were constructed prior to the
adoption of current building codes; many could be collapse
hazards. FEMA has developed and published a series of technical
design guides on seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing
buildings. Publications include Rapid Visual Screening for
Potential Seismic Hazards (FEMA 154) for assessing large
populations of buildings, Prestandard and Commentary for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356) for retrofitting
existing buildings, to Techniques for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (FEMA 547), which is a
publication developed with NIST assistance that provides
retrofit guidance techniques based on building type.
Information from these publications served as the basis for the
national consensus standard for seismic evaluation of existing
buildings, ASCE 31,\3\ and the national consensus standard for
seismic protection of existing buildings, ASCE 41.\4\ These
standards in turn serve as the basis for the International
Existing Buildings Code (IEBC), part of the International Codes
series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 31-03,
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2003.
\4\ Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-06,
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2007.
A primary recent FEMA focus is the development of
Performance Based Seismic Design (PBSD) guidance and other
materials for new and existing buildings. When mature, PBSD
will enable evaluating how an entire building is likely to
perform in a given earthquake and permit design of new
buildings or upgrade of existing buildings with a realistic
understanding of the risk of casualties, occupancy
interruption, and economic loss that may occur as a result of
future earthquakes. FEMA currently supports a multi-year
project to develop Performance Assessment Methodology and
Guidelines for new and existing buildings--the 50 percent draft
Guidelines for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings and
an accompanying Performance Assessment Calculation Tool (PACT)
are currently under review by FEMA. The second phase of this
project will develop a series of PBSD Guidelines for use with
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
different structural systems and building occupancies.
In addition to PBSD work, FEMA supports efforts to
improve the prescriptive seismic provisions of ASCE 7 and the
IBC, thus improving the performance of buildings designed with
these model codes. It has recently supported the development of
a new methodology through the Applied Technology Council for
reliably quantifying building system performance and response
parameters; these parameters are critical components of the
prescriptive building code seismic design process. To report on
this new methodology, FEMA will soon publish the Quantification
of Building Seismic Performance Design Factors (FEMA P-695).
As NIST restarts its active applied research efforts with increased
funding, it is working very closely with FEMA. NIST received an
increase of $800K in NEHRP funding (for a total of $1.7M) in FY 2007
and an additional NEHRP funding increase of $2.4M in FY 2009 (for a
total of $4.1M) providing funding for the applied activities that were
outlined in ATC 57. Requested NIST funding for FY 2010 would continue
support for these applied activities. NIST is committed to a combined
in-house and extramural work accomplishment approach that was suggested
by ATC 57. To that end, NIST awarded a multi-year Indefinite Delivery,
Indefinite Quantity research contract in 2007 and is now in the process
of developing a new in-house earthquake engineering work force. Also
consistent with the ATC 57 recommendations, NIST has structured its
NEHRP research program to address performance-based engineering,
building code development technical support, national design
guidelines, and evaluated technology dissemination.
NIST is currently supporting beta testing of the FEMA P-695
methodology. NIST is in the process of awarding new task orders on its
research contract that will contribute to both PBSD and to improved
model building code provisions. NIST has recently released two
techbriefs, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frames
(NIST GCR 8-917-1) and Seismic Design of Steel Special Moment Frames
(NIST GCR 09-917-3).
Q3b. Is there similar support for applied activities in the social
sciences?
A3b. Several of the NEHRP agencies are involved in this area.
NSF is responsible for a significant portion of the NEHRP social
sciences activities. In general, knowledge transfer and dissemination
mechanisms in the social sciences are different from those in
engineering and the physical sciences. NSF supports the activities of
the Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder,
which serves as a major clearinghouse that links the research and
practitioner communities. This center provides information on research
results for over 20,000 subscribers. With the assistance of other NEHRP
agencies, such as FEMA and USGS, total annual funding for the center is
about $750,000. Various other major research centers across the
country, such as the Disaster Research Center at the University of
Delaware and the Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center at Texas A&M,
engage in knowledge transfer and training programs. These centers also
receive NSF funding.
A portion of FEMA's earthquake work addresses social science
issues. Most of this work focuses on outreach activities targeting the
general public. The goal of these outreach activities is to affect
behavioral change that improves public awareness, encourages
appropriate response, and promotes activities to reduce future losses.
As part of this outreach, in 2008, FEMA initiated QuakeSmart, a
program to encourage business leaders and owners in areas at risk from
earthquakes to take actions to mitigate potential damage to their
businesses, provide greater safety for customers and employees, and
speed post-earthquake recovery. Businesses that participate in the
program benefit in numerous ways: their investments are protected
better; they can recover more quickly from a disaster; they can save on
insurance premiums; they can significantly reduce the risk of injury or
death for themselves, their employees, and customers; and they create a
more resilient community in which future investment is more attractive.
QuakeSmart started with community forums in four cities in the Midwest
and on the West Coast. Two regional follow-up events are planned for
late 2009. Overall, FEMA has dedicated approximately $600,000 over the
last two years to QuakeSmart.
Other FEMA outreach efforts include the development and ongoing
distribution of outreach-related FEMA publications, including:
Promoting Seismic Safety: Guidance for Advocates (FEMA 474), Earthquake
Safety Checklist (FEMA 526), Earthquake Safety Activities for Children
and Teachers (FEMA 527), Earthquake Home Hazard Hunt Poster (FEMA 528),
Drop, Cover and Hold Poster (FEMA 529), Earthquake Safety Guide for
Homeowners (FEMA 530), and The Adventures of Terry the Turtle and
Gracie the Wonder Dog (FEMA 531). The cost of developing, printing and
the ongoing distribution of these publications since 2003 exceeds
$500,000.
The USGS has worked closely with social scientists, both within the
agency and in the university community, to develop effective outreach
activities and products. A recent example is the Great Southern
California ShakeOut. USGS and its partners developed a scenario of the
likely effects from a magnitude-7.8 earthquake on the Southern San
Andreas Fault, which required not only expertise on the shaking and
other hazard effects but also a wide range of expertise on the societal
impacts, including economic losses, disrupted commuting patterns, and
school impacts. Social scientists played a key role in the ShakeOut
exercise, which was the largest public preparedness event in U.S.
history, involving over five million people. The messages for the
ShakeOut were developed using the results of extensive social science
research into what is most effective. Social scientists have played key
roles in scenarios developed for other high-hazard cities as well as
helping to guide development of preparedness materials for maximum
effect.
Q4. Dr. Lindell noted in his testimony that research was needed to
design better methods to encourage the adoption of mitigation measures.
This need was also cited by NEHRP testimony before the Science
Committee in 2003. What has NEHRP done specifically to address this
since 2003? How much NEHRP funding, in general, has supported social
science research since the last reauthorization?
A4. NSF supports social science research on earthquakes and other
hazards. Since 2006, that support has totaled over $50M. The NSF-wide
Human and Social Dynamics solicitation contributed over $34M for
research on hazards and disasters, and the Directorate for
Engineering's Infrastructure Management and Extreme Events program
contributed over $14M. These research grants all include plans for
technology transfer and dissemination of research findings.
Increasingly, they are utilizing the Internet and other technologies to
augment the traditional mechanisms of publications on professional
journals, research reports, and after action reports. NSF has funded
research on the adoption of mitigation measures by households and
communities.
Q5. The 2006 National Research Council (NRC) report referenced in Dr.
Lindell's testimony recommended creating a Panel on Hazards and
Disaster Informatics. Should this be a NEHRP responsibility? How should
the challenge of sharing and standardizing hazards-related social
science data be addressed?
A5. NSF funded the development of the NRC report that recommended
creating a Panel on Hazards and Disaster Informatics. This
recommendation was one of many in the report. As recommended, this non-
governmental Panel would have a two-fold mission: to assess issues of
data standardization, data management and archiving, and data sharing
as they relate to hazards and disasters, and to develop a formal plan
for resolving these issues to every extent possible within a decade.
The recommendations did not suggest an organizational framework for
the panel. The NEHRP agencies envision the proposed Panel would be
formed under the aegis of the NRC and would be ad hoc in nature, with
the purpose of developing the proposed plan. If sufficient resources
can be identified, the NEHRP agencies are willing to take the
leadership in pursuing the development and support of this Panel;
however, for it to be effective it must involve the support and
participation of all other Federal agencies involved in disaster
research, warning, and response. These include the Department of
Homeland Security, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
the Forest Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and many others.
Without government-wide participation and support, the acceptance and
applicability of the Panel results may be limited.
In developing a plan, the Panel will face challenges. Currently, no
single institution has the authority or capability to data mine
research findings and disseminate them to potential users. It is a
matter of debate how such an institution should be organized. Some
researchers favor a clearinghouse, some want to borrow the structure
and function of the agricultural extension service that is supported by
USDA and the states, and others want a panel. It is not clear how such
an institution should be funded, how it should disseminate
recommendations, or how it will legitimize its operation.
The centralization and standardization of hazards-related social
science data has always been extremely difficult, given the great
variety of qualitative and quantitative data that are gathered.
Furthermore, there is an extraordinary variety of research designs,
ranging from survey research, experimental and quasi-experimental
investigations, ethnographies and ethnomethodologies, secondary data
analysis, and participant observation studies. These designs may be
perfectly appropriate for undertaking specific research projects;
however they result in quite divergent forms of data.
NEHRP agencies have made some progress in addressing this issue.
The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), as part of its
NSF-supported Learning From Earthquakes program, has made some progress
in standardizing data collection from its reconnaissance teams. The
George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(NEES) provides a national data repository for earthquake engineering
experimental data. However, this effort primarily involves the
collection of standardized structural engineering, geotechnical
engineering, and tsunami hazard test data. The National Earthquake
Information Center (NEIC) of the USGS maintains an accessible archive
of summary information on casualties and losses for major earthquakes.
At least from the earthquake perspective, standardizing both social
sciences and other data will be an essential part of the effort
required to develop the Post-Earthquake Information Management System
(PIMS) that is referenced in Question 6 (following).
Q6. The Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction recommended
that NIST serve as ``the single point of coordination'' for all post-
earthquake reconnaissance activities. What resources and authorities
would NIST need to serve in this role? The NEHRP Strategic Plan also
calls for the development of a National Post-Earthquake Information
Management System. Who would be responsible for operating and
maintaining this system? What would the activities of operating and
maintaining this system include?
A6. The NEHRP agencies are evaluating this significant new
recommendation from the Advisory Committee. NIST is now comprehensively
assessing the resources and authorities that it would need to serve in
the lead agency role for post-earthquake reconnaissance. Regardless of
the designated lead agency, post-earthquake reconnaissance, and the
associated resource needs, will involve all of the NEHRP agencies.
The NEHRP strategic priority of establishing PIMS is also a very
recent development. The NEHRP agencies believe that PIMS is vitally
needed. NEHRP took a first step towards developing a concept for PIMS
through a scoping study that FEMA supported in 2008.\5\ This report,
which may be downloaded in electronic form,\6\ provides valuable first-
step information, but additional study is needed to establish the
requirements for this system--hardware, software, data collection
criteria and formats for PIMS. The NEHRP agencies will work to develop
the detailed planning needed to implement the PIMS concept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Post-Earthquake Information Systems (PIMS) Scoping Study,
American Lifelines Alliance, September 2008.
\6\ http://www.americanlifelinesalliance.org/PIMS%20Report/
PIMS.Final%20report.pdf
Q7. The NEHRP Strategic Plan states that it will reestablish a
dedicated State earthquake program, ``subject to the availability of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
funding.''
Q7a. In the absence of a dedicated program, what has NEHRP done to
address this need since 2003?
A7a. As FEMA reported in 2003, FEMA's original NEHRP Earthquake State
Grant Program was combined with other similar State grant programs into
a single Emergency Management Preparedness Grant (EMPG) program in the
late 1990's to give states more flexibility in addressing their
hazards. Within the EMPG program, the NEHRP funding lost its
programmatic identity over time and the viability of a number of the
State earthquake programs began to suffer as states used funds for
other hazards. Since that time, virtually every state that had
previously received NEHRP Earthquake State Grants has suffered
significant reductions in support and capacity; many of the earthquake-
related activities had been curtained or stopped altogether. The net
result was a significant reduction in State-level capabilities to
prepare and respond effectively to a major earthquake event.
Under the NEHRP Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-360),
FEMA was directed to undertake a number of activities, including
operating a program of assistance to states to accomplish various
eligible earthquake mitigation activities. This new State Earthquake
Assistance Program will support that responsibility by providing
assistance to accomplish the following eligible activities:
Develop seismic mitigation plans,
Prepare inventories and conduct seismic safety
inspections of critical structures and lifelines,
Update building codes, zoning and ordinances to
enhance seismic safety,
Increase earthquake awareness and education, and
Encourage the use of multi-State groups for such
purposes.
In FY 2009, FEMA re-established a State Earthquake Assistance
Program. In the mid-1990's, when the NEHRP Earthquake State Grant
Program was subsumed into EMPG, the grant funding level was
approximately $4.5M. In FY 2009, FEMA is committing $2.3M to this new
program. When adjusted for inflation, the new program is less than half
of the previous funding. However, it is an important step in supporting
states to begin re-building their earthquake programs.
Under this new State Earthquake Assistance Program, FEMA plans to
enter into cooperative agreements with as many as 29 states and
territories. This $2.3M program will support enhancing and maintaining
State earthquake hazard mitigation programs for planning, education and
assessment activities. By supporting and improving State earthquake
programs, FEMA will be helping to reduce the loss of life and property
from future damaging earthquakes.
The criterion for eligibility for State assistance is demonstrating
that the assistance will result in enhanced seismic safety in the
state. Other goals include establishing and/or maintaining a dedicated
State Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and achieving measurable
improvements in earthquake mitigation activities. Funded activities
will be determined through individual negotiations between FEMA and the
states.
Q7b. Also, according to a 2004 Government Accountability Office
assessment of the FY 2003 FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, only
seven percent of the grants applied for were related to seismic hazard
mitigation. What factors accounted for this comparatively low level of
attention to seismic risks?
A7b. The table below provides updated data for the FEMA PDM program
from fiscal years 2003 to present:
The percentage of seismic projects submitted compared to the total
number of projects submitted has improved substantially since the
inception of the Program. Overall, seismic projects are well developed,
feasible, and effective from engineering and cost perspectives.
However, there are several reasons why there are fewer seismic projects
submitted than other hazard types (i.e., flood and wind):
Not all states have a substantial seismic risk.
States may not appropriately identify seismic risk
(i.e., states in the New Madrid Fault Zone).
States prioritize their sub-applications for
submittal to FEMA in accordance with the risks identified in
their respective State and local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plans.
Since seismic retrofit projects tend to be more
expensive than those for other hazards, and the PDM program
does not include multi-year funding, this may tend to
discourage states from submitting these types of projects.
PDM program appropriations fluctuate from year to
year. And,
There are competing requirements for funding (i.e.,
State Set-Aside (Stafford Act Requirement and Congressional
Earmarks).
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Kenneth D. Murphy, Immediate Past President, National
Emergency Management Association (NEMA); Director, Oregon
Office of Emergency Management
Questions submitted by Chair David Wu
Q1. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program's Strategic Plan
states it will re-establish a dedicated State earthquake mitigation
program ``subject to the availability of funds.''
Q1a. What has been the impact of a lack of federal funding for this
program?
A1a. The impact of a lack of federal funding effects each states plan
for a well coordinated and consistent earthquake hazards program. Many
states do not have any dedicated funding of their own and truly depend
upon the NEHRP program. The federal funding for states provides many
opportunities that we cannot afford in the earthquake hazards
environment. One of the most difficult challenges is trying to convince
elected leaders at any level of government or business leaders in the
private sector to make these investments before the disaster strikes
and a disaster they may not have ever happened to them or very
infrequently. I believe the lack of funding simply hurts the states and
the Nation's ability to have a consistent mitigation, preparedness,
response, and recovery program for earthquake hazards, you find
yourself going at one pace, then you have to slow down or speed up
based upon funding or just not continue. The lack of funds had the
biggest impact on the states to maintain outreach and public education
to its citizens and visitors, as you know this type of activity must be
on-going, especially dealing with preparedness activities.
The lack of funding also hurts the states in their ability to get
more localized and specific types of information or scientific data to
help them plan, make decisions, and transfer research into cost-
effective mitigation strategies. Finally the lack of funds also hinders
states from implementing pilot projects for mitigation, development and
implementation of immediate and long-term recovery plans. The lack of
funding also has impacted states abilities to collaborate on multi-
State projects.
The NEHRP program is critical to this nation's ability to deal with
earthquakes. Over the last half century we have enough experience and
data based upon actual earthquakes in the United States and around the
world that clearly should give us pause as to are lack of preparedness.
Q1b. In 2004, the Government Accountability Office reported that only
seven percent of the fiscal year 2003 Federal Emergency Management
Agency Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant applications were for earthquake
mitigation. In your opinion, what were factors in this low utilization
of available funds?
A1b. The Pre-Disaster mitigation grant program (PDM) is a very valuable
program to states for mitigation activities. I cannot characterize any
specifics about states low use of funds without some further research.
My perspective from Oregon is that using these PDM funds for earthquake
mitigation is hampered by the large dollar totals a State specific
mitigation project may cost for earthquake projects, these high dollar
projects will take most of your PDM dollars and states may have decided
to go with lower cost projects. Additionally, it depends upon the
state's overall mitigation plan, which may have many varying mitigation
focuses and certain states have chosen to use this money for other more
frequent hazard mitigation projects such as flood control.
It is also a possibility that states may not have had applicants
ready or eligible for these types of earthquake mitigation projects.
Q2. One of the activities discussed in the Strategic Plan is the
continued development and use of earthquake scenarios. How do State
officials, such as emergency managers, use these tools? How could they
be more effective?
A2. These types of products which are constructed by professional
individuals and organizations provide a great tool for emergency
managers. These types of tools if consistently improved based upon
science or experience do help emergency managers. It takes the burden
off of emergency managers to develop these scenarios and allows more
time to exercise or plan for results based upon the scenarios.
I believe they can be most effective if the scenarios are accurate
representations of your jurisdiction, they contain good data and known
effects. Additionally, if the scenarios are built to address more than
just the emergency management community, this would make them more
effective.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Thomas D. O'Rourke, Thomas R. Briggs Professor of
Engineering, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Cornell University
Questions submitted by Chair David Wu
Q1. In Dr. Harris' testimony he stated that an ``opportunity for
improvement'' for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP) existed in ``deepen[ing] the commitment of DHS to NEHRP.''
Previous NEHRP testimony in 2003 noted that increasing the interaction
between NEHRP and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and
Technology was a high priority. How would you assess the current
interaction between NEHRP and other components of DHS? How could this
interaction be strengthened?
A1. At FEMA, NEHRP staff has interacted with DHS in productive ways
since the creation of DHS in 2003. A good example of this interaction
is the production of the Risk Management Series (RMS), a collection of
more than 20 different documents, training curricula, and vulnerability
and assessment tools. The development and dissemination of these
documents were funded with NEHRP and other FEMA Mitigation Directorate
resources. The documents were focused on knowledge and information
needed by architects, engineers and contractors to address human
threats in the built environment that is owned and maintained by the
private sector. After 9/11 it was recognized that essential information
on dealing with human threats was not readily available to the private
sector, even though guidance was at hand for designing and hardening
military facilities, U.S. embassies, and other government buildings.
The RMS documents have helped fill this knowledge gap and are being
widely used. These documents have also resulted in opportunities to
collaborate with the DHS Science and Technology Directorate, Office of
Infrastructure Protection, and Policy Office.
Even though there are examples of successful programs, like the RMS
documents, the overall DHS engagement of NEHRP within FEMA has been
uneven. For example, FEMA was responsible for developing the national
loss estimation procedures embodied in the software HAZUS. This program
has been very successful for earthquakes, and has been adapted to
floods and windstorms. When DHS was developing modeling capabilities
for human threats, there was little interaction between DHS and FEMA,
even though FEMA had acquired extensive experience in modeling the
effects of natural hazards when producing HAZUS. Ultimately, DHS
created its own tools without making use of the HAZUS tool set
developed over 10+ years at a cost of $40M.
Programs within FEMA, which are focused on natural hazards, involve
community interactions, dealing with multiple stakeholders, building
consensus for standards and guidelines, and public education. In my
opinion, the security of U.S. communities requires the ability to deal
with sensitive and often subtle societal issues, as well as the ability
to achieve security hardening against human threats under the
leadership of managers with law enforcement and military experience.
DHS could benefit substantially from the experience acquired by FEMA
with communities vulnerable to natural hazards. There is perhaps no
better illustration of the need for working with communities to achieve
resilience than New Orleans before and after Hurricane Katrina. I was a
member of the National Academies Committee on the New Orleans Regional
Hurricane Protection Projects and saw first hand the need for better
coordination with local communities and utility companies that are
responsible for the lifeline networks. The social science and remote
sensing expertise gained through NEHRP is providing support for
building a more resilient New Orleans, and should receive greater
attention and support from DHS.
An important way to promote productive and sustainable interactions
between DHS and NEHRP is for NEHRP to appear as a line item in the DHS
budget for FEMA. A line item in the budget would be the single most
effective action to improve the visibility and accountability of the
program.
Q2. What has been the result of the elimination of the American
Lifelines Alliance by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)?
A2. The elimination of the American Lifelines Alliance (ALA) has left
NEHRP without a focused and dedicated program for the implementation of
research findings and best practices for critical lifeline
infrastructure, such as electric power, gas and liquid fuel delivery,
telecommunications, transportation facilities, water supplies, and
waste management systems. As indicated in my written testimony, the
Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR) [2008]
recommends that all NEHRP agencies expand their activities related to
lifeline systems, and points out that attention should be given to the
interdependencies among lifeline systems as well as the national impact
that a single outage can have.
When addressing lifelines, it is very important to enlist the
assistance of the Technical Council for Lifeline Earthquake Engineering
(TCLEE) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). This
volunteer, professional organization has a dramatic impact on reducing
seismic risk to lifelines and has published many excellent reports and
conference proceedings that are available through ASCE. This
organization has received very little direct support through NEHRP and
should figure more prominently in future NEHRP activities. Working
directly with TCLEE should be a cornerstone for a NEHRP program focused
on lifelines.
Q3. You mentioned FEMA State earthquake mitigation grants in your
testimony. What were some of the successes of these grants? In the
absence of a dedicated State earthquake mitigation program, what have
states been unable to do? Do you believe there is a need to reinstate
this program?
A3. The original FEMA State Earthquake Grant program supplemented State
earthquake hazard mitigation program efforts and provided dedicated
State funding for planning (response, mitigation, and preparedness),
inspections of critical facilities, active support for building codes
and land use issues, and staffing support to carry out these
activities. There was also a matching funds requirement to ensure State
commitment to the program. For a number of states these funds were the
difference between having an EQ hazards reduction program and not
having one.
As these funds and their visibility faded, beginning in the late
1990s with the creation of the Emergency Management Preparedness Grant
(EMPG) program, State earthquake programs were compromised. By 2009,
virtually every state, which had received grants previously, had
suffered significant reductions in support and capacity, and many of
the activities listed above had been curtained and stopped altogether.
The net result is that there has been a significant, and perhaps
profound, reduction in State-level capabilities to respond effectively
to a major earthquake because of funding and staffing cut-backs. Along
with the loss of resources and staff came a loss of expertise critical
for effective earthquake response.
FEMA is now negotiating 29 cooperative agreements with 29 states
(about $80,000 each) for an estimated $2.3 million for State earthquake
hazard reduction programs. In the late 1990s, when the earthquake State
grant program was subsumed into EMPG, the funding level was
approximately $4.5M. Adjusted for inflation, the new effort is less
than half that of the previous funding. However, it is an important
step in the right direction.
The successful FEMA State Earthquake Grant program should be
reinstated at levels that exceed those in the past to account for
inflation and restore the balance and level of engagement that
previously had been achieved. One focus of the State programs could be
the seismic safety of schools, where there is substantial need for
improvement. As indicated in my written testimony, a serious life
safety threat exists with respect to non-ductile concrete, soft story,
and unreinforced masonry buildings. Many schools fall within this these
building categories, and steps should be taken to correct this
situation. The FEMA State Earthquake Grant program can provide critical
assistance to retrofit or reconstruct unsafe buildings and improve the
safety of our schools.
Q4. With respect to getting civil infrastructure projects in place,
you mentioned that there are ``more effective ways of approaching'' the
dialogue between social scientists and engineers and scientists. Please
assess current NEHRP activities in support of fostering the interaction
between engineers and social scientists. What would you recommend to
improve these interactions?
A4. As indicated in my written testimony, research into the social and
behavioral aspects of community response to earthquakes is a natural
complement to research that increases the resiliency of the built
environment. Interdisciplinary research through NEHRP, which involved
collaboration among social scientists, engineers, and geoscientists,
has resulted in advanced technologies for reinforcing and monitoring
the built environment, loss assessment methodologies, emergency
response procedures, and a process for achieving disaster preparedness
(EERI, 2008a). They also involve a unique, multidisciplinary culture
that integrates basic and applied research into design codes,
construction methods, and public policy. NEHRP-related
interdisciplinary research has provided benefits that extend well
beyond seismic risk to improve the security and economic well-being of
U.S. citizens and other members of the world community within a multi-
hazard context.
Effective programs involving interdisciplinary research have been
supported in the past through NSF at the Earthquake Engineering
Research Centers (EERCs). Core funding for those centers has ended to
make way for new NEHRP-related research. The interdisciplinary research
at the EERCs provides good examples of successful programs that can
guide interactive research with social scientists in the future. ACEHR
(2008) recommends joint support from both NSF and NIST for multi-
disciplinary projects either with the newly graduated EERCs or with
teams that have the appropriate interdisciplinary skills. The
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (2008b) has issued a white
paper, entitled Earthquake Risk Reduction: Addressing the Unmet
Challenges, in which recommendations for an interdisciplinary research
approach are provided. NSF is home for the Engineering, Geosciences,
and Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) Directorates.
Hence, SBE is well positioned to develop multi-disciplinary projects
involving social science interactions with the either the Directorates
for Engineering or Geosciences, or both.
REFERENCES
Advisory Committee for Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR) (2008)
``Effectiveness of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program,'' May, available through the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) (2008a),
``Contributions of Earthquake Engineering to Protecting
Communities and Critical Infrastructure from Multi-hazards,''
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, Nov.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) (2008b), ``Earthquake
Risk Reduction: Addressing the Unmet Challenges, The Need for
an Interdisciplinary Research Approach,'' Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, Jan.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Michael K. Lindell, Professor, Landscape Architecture and
Urban Planning; Senior Scholar, Hazard Reduction & Recovery
Center, Texas A&M University
Questions submitted by Chair David Wu
Q1. In your testimony, you mentioned that more research was needed on
how to design inducements to encourage people to adopt hazard
mitigation measures. The 2003 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program (NEHRP) testimony before the Science Committee also noted the
need to better understand and design such measures. What type of
research is needed on this specifically? Why has progress lagged on
this topic for the last six years of this reauthorization? What actions
would you recommend to address this?
A1. The type of social science research that is most needed now is
integrative research that systematically examines the effects of risk
reduction programs involving different types of hazard adjustments. The
term hazard adjustments encompasses all three types of hazard reduction
actions--1) hazard mitigation, 2) emergency response preparedness, and
3) disaster recovery preparedness. Hazard mitigation comprises actions
that provide passive protection when disaster strikes (e.g., better
land use regulations and building codes that prevent damage and
casualties from happening in the first place) Emergency response
preparedness supports an active response when disaster strikes (e.g.,
better response plans, procedures, and training that prepare responders
to stabilize damaged buildings, fight fires, and treat the injured).
Disaster recovery preparedness speeds the community's return to normal
levels of psychological, social, economic, and political functioning
(e.g., developing more effective hazard insurance programs so families
can rebuild their homes).
As I indicated in my testimony, economic market mechanisms alone
cannot solve the problem of seismic hazard adjustment because people do
not respond to hazards in the ways that are necessary for markets to
work efficiently and effectively. Political mechanisms alone cannot
solve the problem of seismic hazard adjustment because the Federal
Government (which ultimately pays for much of the cost of disaster
response and recovery) lacks control over the most important mechanisms
that produce hazard vulnerability--ineffective land use and building
construction practices. Thus, an integrated set of private and public
sector actions is needed by stakeholders at multiple levels (household/
business, profession/industry, local government, State government, and
Federal Government).
Existing social science research has identified individual elements
of a systemic approach to seismic hazard adjustment, but these elements
have only been studied in isolation. Consequently, we do not know if a
program that assembled these individual elements would function in the
way it was intended to work. This is the reason that systematic multi-
disciplinary research should be conducted to develop and evaluate
comprehensive programs for seismic hazard reduction. Such research
might, for example, systematically examine the National Flood Insurance
Program to identify ways in which a different combination of market
mechanisms, government incentives and sanctions, and technical
assistance could more effectively guide land developers, homeowners,
and banks to reduce their hazard vulnerability. Such research should
address the communication of information about risk and hazard
adjustments, and the development and dissemination of new hazard
adjustment technologies, as well as positive (financial incentives),
negative (punishment for violations of regulations), and facilitative
(providing the means for implementation such as specialized knowledge
and equipment) inducements.
There are fundamental obstacles to implementing comprehensive
hazard reduction programs because there is no single societal
institution in the public or private sector that has sufficient
administrative responsibility and technical capability for providing
relevant social science research findings to those who need them. Such
an institution could monitor current research findings, assess their
suitability for field application, and establish standards for
practice. The NEHRP partner agencies--FEMA, NIST, NSF and USGS--lack
the administrative responsibility and, consequently, lack a staff of
qualified social scientists available for performing this function.
The reason a specific institution is needed to promote
dissemination of social science research findings is that seismic
hazard reduction lacks market mechanisms of the type that exist, for
example, in the health domain. There, pharmaceutical manufacturers, who
expect to make a profit on the sale of their products, conduct clinical
trials at their own expense to determine if their new drugs are safe
and effective. After receiving approval from the Food and Drug
Administration, the pharmaceutical manufacturer can take its product to
market. As is the case with the clinical trials, the expense of product
distribution is paid by the manufacturer in the expectation of making a
profit. In sum, where salable products exist, market incentives can
generate innovations and distribute these innovations to users without
government intervention.
By contrast, social science research rarely produces products that
can be sold for a profit so there is no market incentive to conduct the
types of tests that are equivalent to clinical trials. Nor is there an
incentive to disseminate research finding widely because researchers
are rewarded mostly for publishing their results in scholarly journals.
Because there are few rewards for anyone to disseminate potentially
useful research findings, the transfer of social science technology to
practical application tends to be slow and inconsistent. The ultimate
consequence is that communities remain unnecessarily vulnerable to
earthquakes and other natural hazards even though social science
findings exist that could reduce this vulnerability.
Q2. The 2003 NEHRP testimony before the Science Committee stated that
increasing the interaction between NEHRP and the other components of
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was a high priority. The 2006
National Research Council report you discussed in your testimony also
recommended increased coordination between the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and DHS for social science research and development.
In your opinion, what have been the impediments preventing the
recommendations made in 2003 and 2006 from becoming a reality?
A2. I know from personal experience that NSF has collaborated with at
least two other federal agencies (the Department of Transportation and
the Department of Commerce/National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration) in developing and funding programs that involved social
science research. I don't know of any similar collaborative programs at
the Department of Homeland Security, but this might be because I have
only had limited contact with that agency.
I know that collaboration requires parties to be both willing and
able to coordinate their actions but, in the case of DHS, I don't know
which of these is the more important factor. My experience with the
agency suggests that DHS has an extremely strong emphasis on terrorism
and, within that focus, on applied research in the physical,
biological, and engineering sciences. This would be an impediment to
collaboration on social science relevant to natural hazard reduction. I
also gather that DHS has very few social scientists, which would affect
the agency's ability to collaborate.
Q3. As noted in Dr. Harris' testimony, there is a gap between
earthquake science, engineering knowledge, and research findings and
the ability of practitioners to use this knowledge. Are there examples
of a similar gap that exist within the social sciences? If so, where?
What mechanisms exist to bring social science research findings into
practice?
A3. As I noted in my response to the first question, there is a
substantial gap between social science research findings and their
application to earthquake hazard reduction. The gap exists because
there is no institution with sufficient administrative responsibility
and technical capability to promote the transfer of the administrative
technologies developed through social science research. There are
currently some institutions that address this need in a very limited
way. For example, the Natural Hazards Center at the University of
Colorado serves as an information clearinghouse. However, this center
lacks the funding and staff to transfer social science technology at
the scale at which it is needed. More generally, social science
technology transfer is achieved by the (mostly pro bono)
entrepreneurial activities of a very few researchers.
Q4. Under NSF funding, the National Earthquake Centers required
engineers and physical scientists to partner with social scientists.
How successful were these partnerships? What would you recommend to
ensure that the knowledge and expertise of social scientists are well
integrated into collaborative projects?
A4. As I noted in my written testimony, there have been some cases of
social scientists collaborating successfully with engineers and
physical scientists. As the Committee on Disaster Research in the
Social Sciences concluded, the Earthquake Engineering Research Centers
had a mixed record of success in fostering such collaboration. However,
even this limited amount of collaboration only existed while the
Earthquake Engineering Research Centers were funded by NSF. I know of
no evidence to indicate that any significant level of collaboration has
continued since the termination NSF funding to the Earthquake
Engineering Research Centers. Indeed, despite the tremendous
opportunity for technical advances that the George A. Brown Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation seems to provide for engineers, this
facility presents even fewer opportunities for collaboration with
social scientists than were available through the Earthquake
Engineering Centers.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by James Robert Harris, President, J.R. Harris & Company,
Structural Engineers
Questions submitted by Chair David Wu
Q1. In your testimony you stated that an ``opportunity for
improvement'' for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP) existed in ``deepening the commitment of DHS to NEHRP.'' Why
hasn't there been an improvement in the level of interaction? What
opportunities exist to strengthen the interaction between NEHRP and
other sectors of DHS?
A1. I'm not close enough to the inner working of DHS to know why there
has not been an improvement, although I understand there are many
competing demands upon DHS. I'm not a social scientist, but it does
seem to be human nature to assign lower priority to hazards that are
rare events, even though the consequences may be high. That said, I
suggest that an improved accountability would strengthen the
interaction. It should be possible to track the expenditures and
compare with the budget. Refer to the 2008 report of the Advisory
Committee on Earthquake Hazard Reduction, ``Effectiveness of the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program,'' prepared for and
available from NIST, in which the second recommendation regarding FEMA
read ``Fund FEMA at the authorized level and assure funding is
dedicated to earthquake risk reduction'' (emphasis added). The Advisory
Committee was seriously concerned about the erosion of funds made
available to NEHRP within FEMA. Some of this erosion is the result of
inflation, but some of it is simply difficult to track. Congress should
review the tools at its disposal, make a decision about how to increase
the accountability and then review the effectiveness.
Q2. Hearing testimony strongly supported greater resources and a
larger role for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. In
your testimony you noted that NEHRP must recognize and acknowledge
realities in the building industry that slow the adoption of the latest
research into practice. How could NEHRP activities be improved to close
the gap between the creation of new science and engineering knowledge
and developing the tools to allow practitioners to utilize this
information?
A2. Two activities are necessary to close the gap: NIST must carry out
its role in support of applied research, and FEMA must continue to
develop and maintain guideline documents that are the source material
for standards and codes. Both of these activities require funding. In
the case of FEMA it is a continuation of prior funding, which as I
mentioned earlier has been eroded. In the case of NIST, the funding has
never really been there: it was authorized in the 2004 Act, but
inadequate funding was not appropriated.
There is a direct analogy between preparing legislation and
preparing technical standards: the final language inevitably reflects
compromises necessary to gain consensus. In the case of the technical
standards a far higher degree of agreement is needed than a simply
majority, and the process of resolving dissent is rigorous, but there
is dissent. In many cases the dissent exists because the depth of
knowledge is simply inadequate. The applied research component does not
attract the attention of the National Science Foundation, but it is no
less necessary. The Building Seismic Safety Council has routinely
compiled a list of research needs each time they close the preparation
of a new edition of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions, and it is
instructive that the same items show up time after time. These research
needs are precisely the type identified in the report ATC 57 ``The
Missing Piece: Improving Seismic Design and Construction Practices.''
Q3. You noted that the American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural
Engineering Institute 7 map for wind speed is supported by volunteer
efforts, and consequently is not as user-friendly as similar standards
for earthquakes. What role could the Federal Government play to address
this problem?
A3. I have reviewed the proposed ``National Windstorm Impact Reduction
Reauthorization Act of 2009'' (H.R. 2627) currently under consideration
by the Congress. I believe the program described in that bill is an
appropriate role for the Federal Government, and I further believe that
the proposed program would make a significant improvement in the
problems that I described with the effectiveness of our standard for
engineering buildings and other structures to resist winds.
Specifically there are duties assigned to NIST to ``. . . support
research and development to improve building codes, standards and
practices . . .'' and to cooperate with FEMA to ``. . . work closely
with national standards and model building code organizations to
promote the implementation of research results . . .'' that will
directly affect the problems that I described. The basic research at
NSF and NOAA and the cooperating research at NASA, the Department of
Transportation, and the Army Corps of Engineers are important, and my
emphasis on the work at NIST and FEMA is because that work is directly
relevant to the question.
It is important that the authorization be followed by
appropriations of funds to carry out the new activities at the
pertinent federal agencies.
Q4. You testified that in terms of floods, we are more tolerant of
failure of flood protection mechanisms than of any other type of
hazards. You also stated that making decisions on failure-level
tolerances should not be left to engineers alone. What should the role
of NEHRP be in increasing the level of public involvement in these
types of decisions?
A4. I think the role that NEHRP should play in the solution of the
flood problem is primarily one of example. NEHRP has been a very
successful program, in no small part because the amount and duration of
financial support has assembled a critical mass of expertise across the
Nation. That critical mass has made possible the significant
improvements in our understanding of various aspects of earthquake
phenomena and of structural response to strong ground motions. These
improvements in understanding have led to significant changes in the
ways we design and construct to resist the effects of earthquakes, and
more significant improvements are relatively close at hand. To a great
extent the expertise required for other natural hazards is different.
The communities interested in multiple hazards--building code
officials, engineers of various disciplines, social scientists with
expertise in natural disasters, builders, producers of construction
products and materials--will naturally be involved, but the scientists
and many of the research oriented engineers do not have interests that
span multiple hazards, and that expertise is crucial to developing the
critical mass to make significant advances.
I participated in a workshop last Friday (July 10) at the Technical
University of Delft, in the Netherlands. The workshop assembled experts
from the U.S. and the Netherlands to discuss how we each approach
design of structures and infrastructure for various natural hazards,
with an emphasis on flood. It is my perception that the establishment
of design criteria for flood safety in this country has not advanced on
a parallel with the development of criteria for earthquake, wind, snow,
and so on. I was impressed by several aspects of the Dutch approach to
flood safety in their country: their methodology for establishing
protection goals is based upon very similar concepts to that used for
other hazards, their target level of safety appears to be comparable to
that for other natural hazards, and they routinely perform cost-benefit
analyses to ground their decisions. It was also fascinating to hear
them say that Katrina's effect on the U.S. was a big wake up call for
them--not that they need to change their desired level of safety, but
they gained a deeper realization of how complex flood protection
systems really are and that there are many diverse ways they can fail.
At this point some believe their protection systems need improvement to
really deliver their professed goals.
With respect to the involvement of the public in decisions about
the level of safety, I don't really foresee much feasibility for
extensive discussion in the general public realm. This is where multi-
hazard approaches do make sense to me. Technical experts in various
fields, including economists and social scientists, need to be
encouraged to examine safety across a broad range of hazards and risks.
We who have technical expertise in one or two narrow fields too often
are making decisions that really do require knowledge and input from
broader constituencies. These decisions are typically endorsed by
groups with those broader interests as matters progress from single-
topic standards to model building codes to the adopted laws of states
and cities, but adjusting the safety level is rarely done at these
later stages. When such adjustments are made, they oftentimes actually
go in what many experts would consider to be the wrong direction and
are usually based upon very limited cost studies. Therefore, I do
recommend that FEMA continue to support the Multi-hazard Mitigation
Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences, and I encourage
the National Science Foundation to find creative ways to build social
science roles into natural hazards research programs. And finally, I
want to endorse the recommendation made by Tom O'Rourke at the hearing:
commission the National Research Council of the National Academies of
Science and Engineering to study the question of multi-hazard
approaches to mitigation of our risk.