U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–870PS 2003

THE NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS

REDUCTION PROGRAM:

PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 8, 2003

Serial No. 108–14

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

JOE BARTON, Texas

KEN CALVERT, California

NICK SMITH, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,

Washington

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

ROB BISHOP, Utah

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

VACANCY

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

CHRIS BELL, Texas

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

ZOE LOFGREN, California

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

VACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

NICK SMITH, Michigan, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

ZOE LOFGREN, California

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

BRAD SHERMAN, California

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

JIM MATHESON, Utah

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

PETER ROONEY Subcommittee Staff Director

DAN BYERS Professional Staff Member/Designee

JIM WILSON Democratic Professional Staff Member

ELIZABETH GROSSMAN, KARA HAAS Professional Staff Members

JEREMY JOHNSON Staff Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

May 8, 2003

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................ 10

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Minority Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 11

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13

Witnesses:

Mr. Anthony S. Lowe, Administrator, Federal Insurance Mitigation Administration; Director, Mitigation Division, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate (Federal Emergency Management Agency), Department

of Homeland Security

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16

Biography .......................................................................................................... 23

Mr. Robert A. Olson, President, Robert Olson Associates, Inc.

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26

Biography .......................................................................................................... 31

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 31

Dr. Lloyd S. Cluff, Director, Geosciences Department and Earthquake Risk

Management Program, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 32

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 35

Biography .......................................................................................................... 40

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 46

Dr. Thomas D. O’Rourke, President, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; Thomas R. Briggs Professor of Engineering, Cornell University

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 46

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 49

Biography .......................................................................................................... 60

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 62

Dr. Lawrence D. Reaveley, Professor and Chair, Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering, University of Utah

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 65

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 67

ATC–57,The Missing Piece: Improving Seismic Design and Construction

Practices by the Applied Technology Council, 2003 ................................... 74

Biography .......................................................................................................... 102

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 106

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 107

Page

IV

Appendix 1: Additional Statements

Dr. Charles G. Groat, Director, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department

of the Interior

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 122

Biography .......................................................................................................... 129

Dr. Priscilla P. Nelson, Senior Advisor, Directorate for Engineering, National

Science Foundation

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 130

Biography .......................................................................................................... 136

Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, Chief, Materials and Construction Research Division,

Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards

and Technology

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 138

Biography .......................................................................................................... 144

Statement of the NEHRP Coalition ....................................................................... 146

Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) ........................... 149

Statement of Support for NEHRP Reauthorization, submitted by the Seismological Society of America .................................................................................... 152

Appendix 2: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Anthony S. Lowe, Administrator, Federal Insurance Mitigation Administration; Director, Mitigation Division, Emergency Preparedness and Response

Directorate (Federal Emergency Management Agency), Department of

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 154

Appendix 3: Additional Material for the Record

Building for the Future, NEHRP, 25th Anniversary ............................................ 160

Expanding and Using Knowledge to Reduce Earthquake Losses: The National

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, Strategic Plan 2001–2005 ............. 168

(1)

THE NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM: PAST, PRESENT AND

FUTURE

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick Smith

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The National Earthquake Hazards

Reduction Program:

Past, Present, and Future

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003

2:00 P.M.–4:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

On Thursday, May 8th, 2003, the Research Subcommittee of the House Science

Committee will hold a hearing to examine the current status of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) in preparation for program reauthorization later this year. NEHRP is a long-term, comprehensive, multi-agency earthquake hazards mitigation program established by Congress in 1977 to minimize the

loss of life and property from earthquakes. Four agencies participate in this effort:

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS), National Science Foundation (NSF), and National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST).

2. WITNESSES

(Note: The Subcommittee will also receive written testimony from USGS, NSF, and

NIST.)

Mr. Anthony Lowe is the Administrator of the Federal Insurance Mitigation Administration (FIMA), a division of the Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR,

formerly FEMA) Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security. He will be

accompanied by Mr. Craig Wingo, Director of the FEMA Engineering Science and

Technology Division.

Dr. Lloyd S. Cluff is the Director of Geosciences and Earthquake Risk Management for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and also Chair of the USGS Scientific

Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee. Dr. Cluff’s expertise includes identification of seismic faults and their potential ground motion, and a member of the National Academy of Engineering.

Dr. Thomas O’Rourke is President of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), a nonprofit technical society of engineers, geoscientists, architects,

planners, public officials, and social scientists. He is also a Professor of Civil and

Environmental Engineering at Cornell University, and a member of the National

Science Foundation Engineering Advisory Committee. His research interests include

geotechnical engineering, earthquake engineering, lifeline systems, underground

construction technologies, and geographic information technologies.

Dr. Robert Olson is President of Robert Olson Associates, where he consults on

areas of earthquake hazards mitigation, emergency management, disaster operations, recovery assistance, and public policy development. Previously, Mr. Olson

served as Executive Director of the California Seismic Safety Commission. He has

chaired numerous committees, including the Governor’s Task Force on Earthquake

Preparedness and the Advisory Group on Disaster Preparedness to the California

Joint Legislative Committee on Seismic Safety.

Dr. Lawrence D. Reaveley is Professor and Chair of the Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering at the University of Utah.

3. OVERARCHING QUESTIONS

The hearing will address the following overarching questions:

1. What have been the notable accomplishments and shortcomings in the first

25 years of NEHRP? What is the current status of the program, and what

4

is the appropriate level of funding? How should this funding be prioritized

among various research and mitigation activities?

2. How can Congress improve NEHRP strategic planning and coordination to

foster a more unified effort to reduce earthquake hazards?

3. How will NEHRP be affected by the recent transition of FEMA, formerly an

independent federal agency, into the Emergency Preparedness and Response

Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security?

4. How can NEHRP accelerate the implementation of knowledge and tools developed from earthquake-related research?

4. OVERVIEW/ISSUES

• Damaging earthquakes are inevitable, if infrequent. Most states face at least

some danger from earthquakes, and total annualized damages in the United

States are estimated to be about $4.4 billion in direct financial losses (repair

costs, inventory loss, and business interruption). The 1994 Northridge earthquake in California (magnitude 6.7) was the most costly in U.S. history, causing over $40 billion in damage.

• NEHRP was created in 1977 in response to growing concerns about the threat

of damaging earthquakes. The program was originally focused on research

into geotechnical and structural engineering and earthquake prediction. Over

time, researchers recognized that earthquake prediction was an unrealistic

goal, and its focus was significantly de-emphasized within NEHRP, while efforts were expanded to include activities such as seismic retrofitting and rehabilitation, risk assessment, public education and outreach, and code development.

• NEHRP Agency responsibilities include:

FEMA—overall coordination of the program, education and outreach, and

implementation of research results;

USGS—basic and applied earth science and seismic research;

NSF —basic research in geoscience, engineering, economic, and social aspects of earthquakes

NIST—problem-focused R&D in earthquake engineering aimed at improving building design codes and construction standards.

• The program has achieved significant progress since inception, and is generally considered to be a successful undertaking. Loss of life and injuries sustained from earthquakes has decreased substantially, seismic risk assessment

capabilities have significantly improved, and technological advances in areas

such as performance-based engineering, information technology, and sensing

and imaging have provided valuable knowledge and tools for mitigating

earthquake hazards.

• New knowledge and tools, however, have not translated into decreased overall

vulnerability. End-user adoption of NEHRP innovations has been incremental

and slower than expected. This is in part because current building codes tend

to focus on protecting the lives of the occupants rather than minimizing nonstructural damage and economic losses. Further, the cost of rehabilitating existing structures to become more earthquake resistant is often too high, as

is the cost of building new structures to minimize risk. The private sector has

not had adequate incentives, and State and local governments have generally

not had adequate budgets, to take steps to address these challenges.

• This slow implementation of new mitigation technologies, combined with continued widespread development in areas of high seismic risk, has resulted in

a rapid and steady increase in societal vulnerability to a major earthquake

event. Potential loss estimates of a future large earthquake in a major U.S.

urban area now approach $200 billion.

5. BACKGROUND OF NEHRP

History

A culmination of efforts, largely in response to the great Alaskan earthquake of

1964 and San Fernando earthquake of 1971, led to the creation of NEHRP in the

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (P.L. 95–124). The original program

called on 10 federal agencies to implement the objectives of the program, though

only the USGS and NSF were authorized appropriations. Those objectives were to:

— implement a system for predicting damaging earthquakes;

5

— develop feasible design and construction methods for new and existing buildings and lifelines for earthquake resistance;

— identify, characterize, and evaluate seismic hazards; develop model building

codes and land-use policy recommendations;

— increase use of scientific and engineering knowledge to mitigate earthquake

risks; and

— educate public officials and the public about earthquake phenomena.

In 1979, a governmental reorganization initiative created FEMA to lead government-wide efforts to respond to emergencies. The Earthquake Hazards Reduction

Act of 1980 (P.L. 96–472) designated FEMA as the lead agency for NEHRP and authorized funding for both FEMA and the National Bureau of Standards (now NIST)

to become part of NEHRP. While NEHRP has been reauthorized nine times, the

only other substantive changes were made in 1990 (P.L. 101–614). This act clarified

and expanded program objectives and agency responsibilities, required federal agencies to adopt seismic safety standards for new and existing buildings, and attempted

to improve program coordination by requiring NEHRP agencies to complete a strategic plan to be updated every three years, prepare biennial reports on program

progress, and submit a unified NEHRP budget to OMB each year with their budget

request.

Accomplishments and Goals

NEHRP has accomplished a great deal since its inception. Perhaps most notable

is the vast improvement in the ability to design a built environment that can resist

significant earthquake shaking with little or no damage. NEHRP research and mitigation has also produced valuable tools for mitigating earthquake hazards, including

new national hazard maps (Figure 1), improved seismic design provisions for new

buildings, guidelines for the rehabilitation of existing buildings, loss estimation

methodologies, performance-based design methodologies, and real-time shake maps

for first responders and other public officials.

Today the goals of NEHRP are to:

— Develop effective practices and policies for earthquake loss reduction and accelerate their implementation;

— Improve techniques to reduce seismic vulnerability of facilities and systems;

— Improving seismic hazard identification and risk assessment methods and

their use;

— Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.

Transition into the Department of Homeland Security

On March 1st, 2003, FEMA officially became part of the Emergency Preparedness

and Response Directorate for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It is unclear how this change will affect the execution of NEHRP, but it is likely that the

new arrangement will present both challenges and opportunities for the program.

6

While it seems appropriate that natural disaster mitigation programs should be

housed in the DHS Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, many are

concerned that the Department’s primary focus on acts of terrorism could reduce the

attention paid to NEHRP and other natural disaster efforts. Conversely, though, it

is clear that risk reduction efforts such as strengthening buildings and lifelines and

developing comprehensive building databases would also benefit counter-terror operations, and may therefore benefit from the Department’s primary mission.

NEHRP Budget

Original funding for NSF and USGS earthquake research activities in 1978 was

$67 million (Chart 1). Though program activities have expanded substantially, today’s NEHRP budget is well below its original level in real dollars. Also, funding

for the program has tended to be reactive, going through periods of gradual decline

only to be followed by sharp increases after significant earthquake events. Expanded

program activities and inconsistent, declining funding, combined with the fact that

the cost of performing research has increased faster than inflation, have clearly limited the ability of NEHRP to effectively meet program objectives.

The FY 2004 total funding request for NEHRP is $112.9 million (Table 1). This

level is essentially flat, both in total and across agencies, compared to the appropriated levels of the last three years (with the exception of NSF, which has had a

gradual decrease due to the planned completion of the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, NEES). NEHRP is funded through

three different appropriations bills (VA/HUD, Interior, and Commerce-State-Justice), none of which include agency lines for NEHRP programs. This factor, along

with the often unclear budget request breakdowns for the program, have made

NEHRP budget and activities difficult to interpret and analyze.

The Science Committee has been particularly concerned with the lack of funding

for the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), a network of instruments for

monitoring and providing early warning of earthquakes. ANSS was authorized by

the most recent NEHRP reauthorization law in 2000 (P.L. 106–503) at $170 million

over five years. In each of its first three years, it has been funded at only about

10 percent of the authorized level.

7

6. ABOUT EARTHQUAKES

— When the crust of the earth is subject to tectonic forces, it bends slightly.

But because the crust is rigid, when the stress or pressure from the tectonic

forces exceeds the strength of the rocks, the crust breaks and snaps into a

new position. This creates vibrations called seismic waves, which travel both

through the earth and along its surface. These seismic waves cause the

ground shaking we call earthquakes.

— It is estimated that there are 500,000 detectable earthquakes in the world

each year. 100,000 of those can be felt, and 100 of them cause damage.

— In the 20th century, more than 100 earthquakes occurred worldwide that

each resulted in losses of more than 1,000 lives. The deadliest earthquake

in modern times occurred in 1976 in Tangshan, China, killing more than

250,000 people. In 1990, a major earthquake in Iran killed 40,000 people.

— Almost 40 states are subject to either moderate or high seismic risk. Alaska

is the most earthquake-prone state and one of the most seismically active

regions in the world. Alaska experiences a magnitude 7 earthquake almost

every year. The largest recorded earthquake in the United States was a

magnitude 9.2 that struck Prince William Sound, Alaska on March 28, 1964.

— Southern California experiences 10,000 earthquakes a year. Only about 15–

20 of these are above magnitude 4.0. On the other side of the spectrum,

there were four states that did not have any earthquakes from 1975–1995:

Florida, Iowa, North Dakota, and Wisconsin.

— While most earthquakes in the United States occur on the West Coast and

in Alaska, a major fault line also exists in the Central United States. Known

as the New Madrid Fault, a series of major earthquakes occurred on this

fault line in 1811 and 1812. The effects of shaking from these magnitude 8+

earthquakes reportedly caused church bells to ring in Boston and moved furniture in the White House.

8. WITNESS QUESTIONS

The witnesses were asked to address the following questions in their testimony:

Question for all witnesses

What factors have limited the success of NEHRP, and what policy changes would

you recommend to remove these limitations? How can the NEHRP participating

agencies improve planning, coordination, and general administration of NEHRP to

better meet the vision for the program set forth by Congress?

8

Questions for Dr. Lloyd Cluff

• Discuss how geology and earth sciences research related to earthquake processes has improved our understanding of seismic hazards. How have these

advancements contributed to our ability to protect from the loss of lives and

property due to earthquakes? How has the focus of NEHRP earth sciences research evolved since the inception of NEHRP?

• How would a major earthquake potentially affect the operations of critical

lifelines such as utilities, hospitals, and communications centers? How does

Pacific Gas and Electric utilize NEHRP research and activities to protect

against such disasters?

• In your capacity as Chairman of the USGS Earthquake Studies Advisory

Committee, discuss the findings and recommendations of your Committee

with regard to the U.S. Geological Survey’s role in NEHRP.

• How would you prioritize limited federal funds among specific NEHRP research and mitigation activities (earthquake monitoring, hazard assessment,

performance-based engineering, lifeline reinforcement, code development and

adoption, education and outreach, post-earthquake response and investigation, etc.)?

• How will the transfer of FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security

affect the success of NEHRP? How do NEHRP research and mitigation activities benefit other efforts to increase our preparedness for all types of hazards,

such as hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, and terrorist events?

Questions for Mr. Anthony Lowe

• Discuss the significant achievements of the NEHRP program during its first

25 years. What factors have been most important in contributing to this success? In what areas may the program not be realizing its full potential? How

does the NEHRP of 2003 differ from the program that was originally established in 1977?

• Provide an overview of FEMA’s NEHRP activities, including information on

efforts related to: (1) planning and coordination of the program with participating agencies; (2) promoting the implementation of earthquake hazard reduction measures by Federal, State, and local governments, as well as private

entities; (3) accelerating the application of research advances into practice; (4)

combining measures for earthquake hazards reduction with measures for reduction of other natural hazards; and (5) harnessing the potential of information technology in meeting NEHRP goals.

• How will the transfer of FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security

affect the success of NEHRP, and how will FEMA ensure that the program

receives adequate support within the expanded layers of government in the

DHS structure? How do NEHRP research and mitigation activities benefit

other efforts to increase our preparedness for all types of hazards, such as

hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, and terrorist events?

• Please provide with your testimony a detailed budgetary breakdown of each

participating agency’s NEHRP activities, as well as a status report and estimated timetable for the completion of the strategic plan required by Public

Law 101–614.

Questions for Mr. Robert Olson

• Discuss the evolution of federal earthquake mitigation efforts over the last 40

years, from initial interest in the 1960’s, through establishment of NEHRP

in 1977, to where we are today. What notable successes have these efforts

produced? What significant events and developments have impacted the program, both negatively and positively?

• How can the resources and expertise of non-NEHRP emergency preparedness

activities (hurricane, flood, tornado mitigation) and agencies (i.e., NASA,

NOAA) best partner with NEHRP to further the goals of the program?

• How will the transfer of FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security

affect the success of NEHRP? How do NEHRP research and mitigation activities benefit other efforts to increase our preparedness for all types of hazards,

such as hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, and terrorist events?

9

Questions for Dr. Thomas O’Rourke

• Discuss how research in structural, geotechnical, and other engineering disciplines has improved our ability to protect lives and property from earthquake hazards? How has the focus of NEHRP engineering research evolved

since the inception of NEHRP?

• Discuss the findings and recommendations of the comprehensive EERI report

‘‘Securing Society Against Catastrophic Earthquake Loss: A Research and

Outreach Plan in Earthquake Engineering.’’ How should policy-makers

prioritize limited federal funds among and within the five program areas discussed in the report (Understanding Seismic Hazards, Assessing Earthquake

Impacts, Reducing Earthquake Impacts, Enhancing Community Resilience,

and Expanding Education and Public Outreach)?

• Discuss the potential of information technology to contribute to earthquake

mitigation. To date, has NEHRP effectively harnessed this potential?

• How will the transfer of FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security

affect the success of NEHRP? How do NEHRP research and mitigation activities benefit other efforts to increase our preparedness for all types of hazards,

such as hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, and terrorist events?

Questions for Dr. Lawrence Reaveley

• Discuss how research in structural engineering has improved our ability to

protect lives and property from earthquake hazards? How has the focus of

NEHRP structural engineering research evolved since the inception of

NEHRP?

• How would you prioritize limited federal funds among specific NEHRP research and mitigation activities (earthquake monitoring, hazard assessment,

performance-based engineering, lifeline reinforcement, seismic rehabilitation,

code development and adoption, education and outreach, post-earthquake response and investigation, etc.)?

• What are the major impediments to improving the overall seismic performance of buildings, both new and existing? Is the pace and extensiveness of

code development and adoption improving? Is there anything the Federal

Government can do to facilitate increased adoption of seismic codes in areas

of high seismic risk? Is seismic rehabilitation an economical use of earthquake mitigation funds?

10

Chairman SMITH. The Subcommittee on Research will be in

order. I thank all of the witnesses for being here today, and I

apologize for holding up the starting at the beginning of this committee session on the important topic of reauthorizing NEHRP and

how do we best protect ourselves from earthquakes in this country

and help with our advice and technology around the world. You

know, NEHRP was established in 1977, created as the Federal

Government’s response to several large earthquakes in the United

States and around the world that served, probably, as a wake up

call to the significant threats that earthquakes posed to the people

and infrastructure of many of our heavy populated metropolitan

areas.

And I think it is important that we stress that this just isn’t a

West Coast problem. It is certainly the best known location for

earthquake risks lately, but it is not the only part of the country

vulnerable to earthquake hazards. Alaska is even more seismically

active than California, in fact. The—a massive 7.9 magnitude

earthquake underneath the Trans-Alaskan Oil Pipeline struck just

last November and we will hear from witnesses of this quake that

went unnoticed, largely thanks to some of our witnesses today and

the foresight and funding to mitigate the hazard when the pipeline

was being constructed.

The Eastern United States is not immune, either. A very large

fault centered in eastern Missouri was the site of one of the largest

earthquakes in American history, which had consequences all the

way to James Madison’s White House and the bells in Boston.

More recently, two smaller but noticeable quakes, one last week in

Alabama and one on Monday near Charlottesville, Virginia, I

think, surface to remind us that the threat is constant and far

reaching and indeed deserves the attention and the funding of taxpayers from all over the Nation.

I look back at the progress from the first 25 years of NEHRP and

it shows that the program has contributed significantly to our ability to protect against earthquake hazards. Our understanding of

fault lines and seismic risks has improved dramatically, and we

know much more about how to build structures that perform well

even during severe earthquakes. And the question I think and the

challenge before us is how do we implement these precautions that

we know how to construct at the moment.

And without objection, the rest of my statement will be going

into the record, and I would call on the Ranking Member.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN NICK SMITH

Good afternoon and welcome to the first Research Subcommittee meeting of the

108th Congress. Today we meet to review the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, NEHRP, in preparation for reauthorization later this year.

Established in 1977, NEHRP was created as the Federal Government’s response

to several large earthquakes in the United States and around the world that served

as a wake-up call to the significant threats that earthquakes posed to the people

and infrastructure in many of our heavily populated metropolitan areas.

While the West Coast—and California in particular—is certainly the best-known

location for earthquake risks, it is not the only part of the country vulnerable to

earthquake hazards. Alaska is even more seismically active than California—in fact

a massive 7.9 magnitude earthquake underneath the trans-Alaskan oil pipeline

struck just last November. As we will hear from our witnesses this quake went unVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
11

noticed, largely thanks to the foresight and funding to mitigate this hazard when

the pipeline was being constructed.

The Eastern United States is not immune either. A very large fault centered in

Eastern Missouri was the site of one of the largest earthquakes in American history—which in 1812 famously rang church bells in Boston and moved furniture in

James Madison’s White House. And more recently, two smaller but noticeable earthquakes—one last week in Alabama and one on Monday near Charlottesville, Virginia—serve to remind us that the threat is constant and far reaching. Indeed,

earthquakes are clearly not just a state or regional problem, but a nationwide problem, demanding nationwide mitigation.

A look back at the progress from the first 25 years of NEHRP shows that the program has contributed significantly to our ability to protect against earthquake hazards. Our understanding of fault lines and seismic risks has improved dramatically.

We know much more about how to build structures that perform well during even

the largest of earthquakes. And we now have technologies available for seismic monitoring that provide real-time earthquake information to public officials and emergency responders.

Despite these advances, our vulnerability to earthquakes has continuously increased. Widespread development still occurs unabated in areas of high seismic risk.

Development, adoption, and enforcement of pertinent building codes have been incremental and slower than expected. And now we see funding for available mitigation technologies at all levels of government has steadily declined in real terms. The

only exceptions are two brief increases following the 1989 and 1994 Loma Prieta

and Northridge earthquakes, respectively. While the reactive nature of Congressional support for programs like NEHRP is a political reality, disasters should not

be the only time we acknowledge the importance of earthquake mitigation.

It is clear that NEHRP needs to be strengthened. In addition to funding challenges, several aspects of program leadership and coordination continue to be an ongoing problem. The low visibility of the program has also limited its success. Knowledge and awareness of these needs within the Office of Management and Budget,

relevant appropriators, and even to some degree NEHRP agencies—has been too

low. Many outside of this committee and a small outside community of earthquake

interests—are unaware that this coordinated effort even exists. These factors need

to be addressed as we reauthorize the program.

Finally, I want to note my disappointment with the continued under-funding of

the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), the real-time seismic monitoring

system for which we authorized funds for construction and operation as part of the

last NEHRP authorization bill over three years ago. The earthquake community is

in almost unanimous agreement that funding ANSS should be a top priority—the

NEHRP Strategic Plan, the EERI Research and Outreach Plan, and the USGS Advisory Committee recommendations all cite ANSS as the top priority—but this has

not translated to funding requests anywhere near the levels this committee authorized. We need to find a way to fund ANSS. We may not be able to do this with all

new funding, but rather have to find some trade-offs elsewhere in NEHRP, but we

have to follow up our recognition of its importance with funding.

Certainly we know that earthquakes cannot be prevented. But we can mitigate

their impact. That is why the NEHRP exists, and that is why we are here today

to discuss how we can improve the program.

We have a very esteemed panel of witnesses before us today that will present

some innovative ideas and opinions on how to best bring about meaningful improvements to NEHRP. I thank them for appearing here today, and look forward to a

productive discussion.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank you

for calling this hearing, and I am pleased to join you in welcoming

our witnesses today for this initial hearing on the National Earthquake Hazardous—Hazards Reduction Program. This hearing will

begin to lay the groundwork necessary for the Research Subcommittee to develop authorizing legislation for this interagency

program. NEHRP was established 25 years ago to address the serious seismic hazard in the United States. It has the major goal of

determining how to lower the risks to people and to the built environment.

Today, 75 million Americans and 39 states are directly vulnerable to a serious earthquake. The potential economic losses in a

12

large metropolitan area due to a major earthquake could be over

$100 billion. These facts make the justification for NEHRP self-evident and its relevance even after 25 years continues.

The Subcommittee’s attention will be directed to other questions

about the program. These include: how well is it being run, is it

focused on the highest priority issues, and is it adequately funded

to meet the goals? The witnesses today, hopefully, will describe the

accomplishments of NEHRP, and there have been many, but as we

approach the reauthorization of this program, it is important to

consider the areas where more needs to be done. On such—one

such area is the technology transfer that will bring into practice

what has been learned from the research activities—most effective

and economically ways for enhancing the seismic safety of the built

environment. Also, attention must be directed to deficiencies in the

planning and administration of the program.

In 1993, the former Chairman of the Science Committee, Mr.

George Brown, wrote the President to express his concerns about

NEHRP. He cited the lack of strategic planning, insufficient coordination and implementation of research results, and a lack of emphasis on mitigation. Unfortunately, most of these concerns are

still valid.

I am particularly disappointed with the performance of FEMA in

its role as the lead agency for NEHRP. The strategic plan FEMA

is statutorily mandated to develop and submit to Congress has

been in limbo for a very long while and has only now surfaced, just

in time for today’s hearing, but about 10 years overdue. In the last

NEHRP reauthorization in 2000, Congress directed FEMA to work

jointly with the other NEHRP agencies to prepare a detailed implementation plan and budget for the program for submittal to OMB

during the budget formulation process. I doubt that this has been

done for any budget year since the requirement was put into place.

FEMA was not able to provide a breakout of the various agencies’ NEHRP budgets on the day the President’s fiscal year 2004

budget was released. Developing a NEHRP authorization bill, the

Subcommittee must reassess the current structure of the program,

including the roles and responsibilities of participating agencies.

We must determine whether FEMA, in its new status as a component of the Department of Homeland Security, is willing and able

to provide the leadership needed to ensure a well coordinated, carefully planned, and effectively executed NEHRP.

Another major issue I look forward to exploring in this hearing

is the adequacy of the resources available for NEHRP. I invite the

witnesses to comment on whether the current funding is allocated

in optimum ways and to identify what they consider the most serious deficiencies of the program. If NEHRP were to receive an infusion of funding, what are the priorities that deserve attention? I

would also welcome suggestions on how NEHRP could help accelerate the transfer of research findings to practical mitigation practices.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling the hearing. And

I might have to leave since I am working with another Committee,

but I do—I would like the answers. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

13

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming our witnesses today to this

initial hearing on the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. This hearing will begin to lay the groundwork necessary for the Research Subcommittee to

develop authorizing legislation for this interagency program.

NEHRP was established 25 years ago to address the serious seismic hazard in the

United States. It has the major goal of determining how to lower the risk to people

and to the built environment. Today, 75 million Americans in 39 states are directly

vulnerable to a serious earthquake. The potential economic losses in a large metropolitan area due to a major earthquake could be over $100 billion.

These facts make the justification for NEHRP self evident, and its relevance, even

after 25 years, continues. The Subcommittee’s attention will be directed to other

questions about the program. These include: how well is it being run, is it focused

on the highest priority issues, and is it adequately funded to meet its goals?

The witnesses today will describe the accomplishments of NEHRP, and there have

been many. But, as we approach the reauthorization of the program, it is important

to consider the areas where more needs to be done. One such area is the technology

transfer that will bring into practice what has been learned from the research activities about the most effective and economical ways for enhancing the seismic safety of the built environment. Also, attention must be directed at deficiencies in the

planning and administration of the program.

In 1993, the former Chairman of the Science Committee, George Brown, wrote the

President to express his concerns about NEHRP. He cited the lack of strategic planning, insufficient coordination and implementation of research results, and a lack

of emphasis on mitigation. Unfortunately most of these concerns are still valid.

I am particularly disappointed with the performance of FEMA in its role as the

lead agency for NEHRP. The strategic plan FEMA is statutorily mandated to develop and submit to Congress has been in limbo for a long while and has only now

surfaced, just in time for today’s hearing, but 10 years overdue.

In the last NEHRP reauthorization in 2000, Congress directed FEMA to work

jointly with the other NEHRP agencies to prepare a detailed implementation plan

and budget for the program for submittal to OMB during the budget formulation

process. I doubt that this has been done for any budget year since the requirement

was put in place. FEMA was not able to provide a breakout of the various agencies’

NEHRP budgets on the day the President’s FY 2004 budget was released.

Mr. Chairman, in developing the NEHRP authorization bill, the Subcommittee

must reassess the current structure of the program, including the roles and responsibilities of the participating agencies. We must determine whether FEMA, in its

new status as a component of the Department of Homeland Security, is willing and

able to provide the leadership needed to ensure a well coordinated, carefully

planned, and effectively executed NEHRP.

Another major issue I look forward to exploring in this hearing is the adequacy

of the resources available for NEHRP. I invite the witnesses to comment on whether

the current funding is allocated in optimum ways and to identify what they consider

are the most serious deficiencies of the program. If NEHRP were to receive an infusion of funding, what are the priorities that deserve attention? I would also welcome

suggestions on how NEHRP could help accelerate the transfer of research findings

to practical mitigation measures.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing and thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today. I look forward to our discussion.

Chairman SMITH. The Chair would like to align himself with

your comments, Congresswoman Johnson, particularly your suggestion to FEMA that better late than never, but better on time than

being late. And so with that, if there is no objection, all additional

opening statements by the Subcommittee Members would be added

to the record. And without objection, so ordered.

At this time, I would like to introduce our panelists. Mr. Anthony

Lowe is the Administrator of the Federal Insurance Mitigation Administration for FEMA. Mr. Robert Olson is President of the Robert Olson Associates, Incorporated. Mr. Lloyd Cluff is Director of

Geosciences and Earthquake Risk Management at Pacific Gas and

Electric Company and Chair of the USGS Federal Advisory ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
14

mittee for NEHRP. And Dr. Tom O’Rourke is the President of the

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute at Cornell University

and civil and environmental engineering professor. And Dr. Lawrence Reaveley is Professor of Civil Engineering, but will be more

completely introduced by Mr. Matheson.

Mr. MATHESON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking

Member Johnson. I appreciate having the opportunity to introduce

my constituent, Dr. Lawrence Reaveley. And very briefly, he has 40

years of experience in structural engineering, earthquake code development, and earthquake risk mitigation, and he also assessed

damaged concrete buildings following the 1999 earthquake that

devastated Turkey as part of an Advanced Technology Council Survey Team. Currently, Dr. Reaveley is Professor and Chair of the

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Utah. He also serves as the President of the Structural Engineering Association of Utah. He was just telling me he was involved in the seismic retrofit of the Federal building in downtown

Salt Lake City for which he—GSA [General Services Administration] recognized that effort with an award.

Thanks to the Utah Legislature, I no longer have that building

in part of my district, so my office is no longer in that building, but

we were there for the construction. Dr. Reaveley, it is really a

pleasure to have you here today, and I want to thank you for your

participation in this hearing and look forward to your comments.

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. And we no longer formally administer the oath, but you are, in effect, under oath testifying before

a panel of the United States Congress. And Mr. Lowe, as best you

can, limit to about five minutes, but thereabouts we would be comfortable with. Mr. Lowe.

STATEMENT OF MR. ANTHONY S. LOWE, ADMINISTRATOR,

FEDERAL INSURANCE MITIGATION ADMINISTRATION; DIRECTOR, MITIGATION DIVISION, EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE DIRECTORATE (FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY), DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. LOWE. Thank you. Thank you so much. Chairman Smith,

Ranking Member Johnson, Members of the Subcommittee, my

name is Anthony S. Lowe, Federal Insurance Administrator and

Director of the Mitigation Division of FEMA in the Department of

Homeland Security. On behalf of the National Earthquake

Hazard——

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Lowe, just a second. Sorry for the interruption. What is happening now? It is—they are calling a vote,

which sometimes disrupts the proceedings, but we will go along

with at least your testimony and then we will recess for five minutes to make the vote. So excuse the interruption.

Mr. LOWE. Thank you so much. I am used to being over on the

Senate side where the buzzer is a little different, and you have got

the clock with the lights on it. So I was looking around the room,

but I didn’t see one. Okay. I guess we need lights over there. You

are a little more sophisticated on this side, I think.

Nevertheless, as I said, on behalf of the National Earthquake

Hazards Reduction Program, NEHRP, we appreciate the invitation

15

to appear today before the Subcommittee on Research. The Committee has asked me, and so I am joined by Craig Wingo, head of

our Engineering Science and Technology Program. Congress assigned the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, the

core of the Department of Homeland Security’s Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, to serve as the lead agency

for NEHRP. Our role, in reality, is leadership among equals. And

that also includes the United States Geological Survey, USGS, the

National Science Foundation, NSF, and the National Institute of

Standards, NIST.

This past year, as you know, marks the 25th year since Congress

first authorized NEHRP, and I am pleased to report that it is

sound. In our role as lead federal agency, we are implementing a

number of results-oriented management initiatives so that we can

build upon the program’s past successes and current strengths. We

will accomplish this while maintaining strong partnerships with

other NEHRP agencies and stakeholders. These partnerships have

been vital to our success over the past 25 years, and they are also

key to our future success.

As you may be aware, we recently co-sponsored a forum with the

other NEHRP agencies and the National Academy of Sciences to

celebrate the 25th anniversary of the program and its many successes. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to

present a brochure from that forum that illustrates just ten of the

programs accomplished over the past 25 years.

[Note: The information referred to is located in Appendix 3: Additional Material for the Record.]

Thank you so much. Two other more notable accomplishments

are we now have a nationally applicable seismic building standard

that serves as a basis for the Nation’s modeling—model building

codes, and many states are adopting those provisions in their own

codes. Also, we have made significant progress in providing seismic

design guides for the Nation’s lifelines, such as power, water,

transmission, and the critical infrastructure such as bridges and

hospitals.

Fundamental to NEHRP’s mission is that our earthquake loss reduction efforts are built upon a solid foundation of basic as well as

applied research. To further that goal, FEMA, in concert with other

NEHRP agencies, has completed the development of the NEHRP

strategic plan, which has been referred to by the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would also like to submit

another copy, for the record, of the strategic plan.

[Note: The information referred is located in Appendix 3: Additional Material for the Record.]

As you know, this plan represents considerable coordination

among our NEHRP——

Chairman SMITH. Is that a different——

Mr. LOWE. No, it is the same.

Chairman SMITH [continuing]. Plan from the first?

Mr. LOWE. No. This plan represents considerable coordination

among our NEHRP partner agencies and stakeholders to arrive at

a national consensus document, and we all are pleased with the results. Now, however, that the strategic plan is in place, I have consulted with my counterparts from the other NEHRP agencies,

16

which is called the Policy Coordination Council, PCC, to begin to

develop a management plan.

I am going to just divert from my remarks a little bit and say

a couple of words in reference to what has been said so far by both

you, Mr. Chairman, as well as the Ranking Member. At the 25th

anniversary celebration, what we were able to do is certainly celebrate the 25 years of accomplishments, but we did so without the

strategic plan, which of course, really was the guiding document for

the work that had been begun even before its passage and now

really sets the stage. But with the strategic plan, my objective

there and now was to operationalize that strategic plan. And the

first part of that was to call for the first meeting of the PCC, the

political heads, as well as the executive policy heads of the four

NEHRP agencies, because in order for us to thoroughly carry out

the strategic vision that the strategic plan calls for, it needs the

commitment, both monetarily as well as staff-wise and expertisewise, and also, if you will, the commitment of the synergy of our

missions to really achieve the results that we are looking for. And

so sitting with the four principals, we all decided that what we

really needed was a management plan. And the purpose of that

management plan, of course, is to provide monetary and control,

both the systems to monitor as well as the process to, if you will,

begin to implement the strategic plan.

In addition, I called for, at that time, an annual plan, which

would be really the operation and the program of work by which

the ICC, which are Craig and the other program level folks who,

if you will, take care of the day-to-day operations, would lead their

work by, that way we all could look at what we are asking them

to do that is coming from the strategic plan and then be able to

monitor that against a set of performance metrics, which the management plan would call for and would be monitored.

We also, of course, during that process, want to be able to continually evaluate programming, budgeting, planning, execution. We

want to begin to be able to do that at the management level. And

so I think this process allows us to do that.

[Slide.]

The next slide, very quickly, shows the many advisory groups

that have been involved in this strategic planning process up to

this point. The last thing I would say about the management plan

is the purpose here in part is to carry out the full spirit of Section

206, which I—which really has to be done at the highest level of

all of the agencies.

That concludes my testimony. I look forward to any questions

you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowe follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANTHONY S. LOWE

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the Subcommittee,

I am Anthony S. Lowe, Federal Insurance Administrator, and Director of the Mitigation Division of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate in the Department of Homeland Security. On behalf of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, or NEHRP, we welcome and appreciate the invitation to appear

today before the Subcommittee on Research. I am joined by Craig S. Wingo, head

of our Engineering Science and Technology Unit.

17

I would like to do three things today: first, share with the Subcommittee what wehave accomplished under NEHRP during the past two years; second, review for

the Members our roles and responsibilities as lead agency of NEHRP; and finally,

look to what lies ahead for NEHRP, especially in the post-9/11 environment.

Congress assigned the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), now the

core of the Department of Homeland Security’s Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, to serve as the lead federal agency for NEHRP. Our lead role

is in reality a leadership among equals that also include the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

This past year marked 25 years since Congress first authorized NEHRP. We are

pleased to report that the state of NEHRP is sound, and, in our role as lead federal

agency, we are implementing a number of results-oriented management initiatives

so that we can build upon the program’s past successes and current strengths. Further, we will accomplish this while maintaining strong partnerships with the other

NEHRP agencies, State and local governments, academia, the research community,

code enforcement officials, design professionals, and the remainder of the private

sector. These partnerships have been vital to the success of NEHRP during the past

25 years, and they will be key to our continued success in what lies ahead to reduce

the exposure of our people, our economy, and our overall security as a nation to the

threats of earthquakes and other related hazards.

Specifically, we are responsible for the overall coordination of the NEHRP, both

within the Federal Government and with external constituencies. By Congressional

mandate, we prepare a consolidated multi-year plan and periodic reports to Congress. We also translate the results of research and technology into effective earthquake loss reduction methodologies, and we administer a program of grants and

technical assistance to States and multi-state consortia. These activities heighten

public awareness of the earthquake hazard and foster plans to reduce seismic vulnerability.

We also support the development and dissemination of improved seismic design

and construction criteria for new buildings and retrofit guidance for existing buildings. This material is made available to design professionals, and Federal, State and

local entities for voluntary use through model building codes and standards.

NEHRP is a key component in the Department’s mission to secure and protect

this nation because earthquakes represent the largest single potential for casualties,

damage, and economic disruption from any natural hazard facing this country. All

but 11 States and territories are at some level of earthquake risk.

The National Security Council (NSC) in 1982 underscored the threat of earthquakes to the United States and estimated that a large magnitude earthquake in

urban areas could cause thousands of casualties, and losses approaching $200 billion. The NSC issued a report identifying the need for FEMA to develop a federal

interagency response plan for the life-saving and life-protecting phases of a disaster

operation to assist States and localities since States and localities would, in many

cases, be overwhelmed in the first days after a catastrophic earthquake. In the 20

years since this report was completed, our improved knowledge of the earthquake

hazard has only served to buttress the Council’s findings.

Recent findings from the USGS show a significantly increased potential for damaging earthquakes in both southern and northern California. Studies also show

higher potential of earthquakes for the Pacific Northwest, the New Madrid fault

zone in the central U.S., and coastal South Carolina. This exposure is in addition

to other areas of earthquake risk, such as New England and the Wasatch front in

Utah. We know that while earthquakes may be inevitable, earthquake disasters are

not.

Furthermore, earthquakes in critical locations can have national economic consequences. For example, a major earthquake in the central United States on the

New Madrid fault might well disrupt oil and gas distribution to the Northeast, gridlock barge traffic on the Mississippi River, and disrupt travel and communications

hubs that serve national and international markets.

The good news is that we can reduce the earthquake risk that our nation faces

through a shared responsibility under the NEHRP. In the face of this threat,

NEHRP is working and succeeding.

Since we last appeared before you, our country has experienced several large-scale

events, most notably the Nisqually earthquake outside of the Seattle area in February 2001. The Nisqually event was roughly the same magnitude as our largest

recent earthquake disaster, the January 1994 Northridge earthquake. That latter

event, located on the fringe of a major metropolitan area, caused over $30 billion

in damage. However, the epicenter of the Nisqually earthquake was fairly deep in

18

the earth, and this depth served to significantly reduce surface ground motions and

resultant damages. Nonetheless, we need to recognize the City of Seattle for their

significant mitigation activities and the effective building code which helped further

reduce the impact of the event. By comparison, the Kobe, Japan earthquake demonstrated the impact of an event of similar size located directly under a major metropolitan area. The result was over $100 billion in damages and approximately

5,500 fatalities in Kobe, a city strikingly similar to Oakland, California in its proximity to the sea with resultant poor soil conditions, and the fault which runs

through the middle of the city.

The depth of the Nisqually earthquake, which served to reduce its effects at the

surface by at least a full point of magnitude, and the timing of both the Northridge

earthquake, which occurred at four in the morning on a holiday, and the Loma

Prieta earthquake, which shook the San Francisco Bay area on a day when many

had left work early to watch the World Series game, all worked to lessen the impact

of these events. Thus, thankfully, we avoided the types of losses that Kobe suffered,

but we cannot ignore their warning signs.

Many of NEHRP’s activities include taking what research has discovered and

what technology has developed and translating those findings into practical seismic

risk reduction measures as well as training, education, and advocacy for earthquake

hazard mitigation measures. In these activities the NEHRP agencies work together,

work with other Federal and State agencies, universities, and private, regional, voluntary and professional organizations. The end results are safer buildings, safer infrastructures, more aware citizens, and more proactive State and local governments.

As you may be aware, we were pleased to have recently co-sponsored a forum with

the other NEHRP agencies and the National Academy of Sciences celebrating the

25th anniversary of the program and its many successes. Mr. Chairman, I have a

brochure from that forum that illustrates just 10 examples of the program’s successes over the past 25 years. With the Committee’s permission, I would like the

brochure to be included in the record. A number of representatives of the stakeholder community who have been so instrumental in the success of the NEHRP provided input for this brochure, and I am pleased to see some of them here today.

In addition to the 10 examples listed in the 25th anniversary brochure before you,

there have been many more successes. Among them are the following:

• At the program’s inception 25 years ago, the geologic theory of plate tectonics

was less than 10 years old, and we really did not understand how earthquakes worked. We now have significantly more knowledge of the faults located throughout our country and how they work. This may allow us eventually to forecast, if not actually predict, future activity.

• When Congress first authorized NEHRP in 1977, the only State with an adequate seismic building code was California, and that code was not applicable

outside of the State. We now have a nationally applicable seismic building

standard. It serves as the basis for the seismic requirements in the Nation’s

model building codes, and many States are adopting those provisions in their

own codes.

• We now have earthquake engineering research centers throughout the country funded through NSF that are continuing to add to the body of knowledge

about earthquakes and their effects. Soon we will have a national high-speed

Internet system in place that will allow researchers to access and participate

in research work from anywhere in the country.

• We now have design guidance in place that addresses the risk from existing

buildings, and we have facilitated the introduction of this material into the

Nation’s building codes and standards.

• We have begun the process of providing seismic design guidance for the Nation’s lifelines, such as buried pipelines and water systems, and other critical

infrastructure.

• We now have seismic expertise at the State and local level throughout the

country that has done much to implement the program and reduce future

losses.

While the Program has been a success by all measures, it is not without its challenges.

The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (Act) designated FEMA as the

lead agency of a program consisting of four federal agencies with different cultures

and different charters, each with its own budget. The Act did not, however, authorize us to direct resources to where the Program may have the greatest need. In spite

of this challenge, the NEHRP has accomplished what it has through collaboration

and cooperation.

19

That spirit of cooperation must continue. Toward that end, I assure this subcommittee that the Interagency Coordinating Committee, consisting of the four

agencies’ program managers, will continue to meet on a bimonthly basis to improve

communication with respect to our program activities. In addition, I recently held

a meeting of the Policy Coordination Committee, with my three counterparts from

the other NEHRP agencies, and I plan to hold these meetings three times a year.

But fundamental to NEHRP’s mission is that the Nation’s earthquake loss reduction efforts are built upon a solid foundation of basic and applied research. To further that goal, FEMA, in concert with the other NEHRP agencies, has completed

the development of the NEHRP Strategic Plan, Using Knowledge to Reduce Earthquake Losses. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to submit this strategic plan for the record.

All four agencies worked closely throughout this process, and we believe this Plan

and the way it was developed have been responsive to the March 1997 letter cosigned by then-Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Brown. That letter

raised the concerns that the NEHRP was not sufficiently focused on actions to reduce future earthquake losses and specifically requested the development of a strategic plan for the program. This Plan is the product of a considerable amount of coordination among our NEHRP partner agencies as well as all of our outside partners, and we are all pleased with the results.

This process required more time than we anticipated, but the Plan before you has

the approval of the NEHRP agencies and its stakeholders. While the production of

the Plan itself may have been delayed, let me assure you that the material contained in the Plan, the four goals and all that they represent to the Program, have

been in use by the four agencies and many of our partners for quite some time.

The NEHRP Strategic Plan cites the following mission for NEHRP to provide effective, timely guidance as we work to improve seismic safety in this country:

‘‘The mission of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program is to develop and promote knowledge and mitigation practices and policies that reduce

fatalities, injuries, and economic and other expected losses from earthquakes.’’

To achieve this mission, the Strategic Plan spells out four goals:

A. Develop effective practices and policies for earthquake loss-reduction and accelerate their implementation;

B. Improve techniques to reduce seismic vulnerability of facilities and systems;

C. Improve seismic hazard identification and risk-assessment methods and

their use; and

D. Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.

The goals are deliberately ordered, beginning with the most important, that is,

reducing losses, followed by successive goals, each of which provides a basis for the

previous one, ending with a solid foundation of basic and applied research.

With the completion of the NEHRP Strategic Plan, the next challenge is the coordination of program research within that framework.

While research alone increases our knowledge of earthquakes, it must be coordinated and applied to reduce future losses to be effective. Dr. Dan Abrams of the Mid

America Earthquake Center recently wrote an excellent article detailing this need

for improved coordination of research.

To this end, I have directed the formation of a subcommittee of the FEMA-chaired

Interagency Coordination Committee to specifically address research coordination

issues. The National Science Foundation has volunteered to chair the initial term.

This Research Coordination Subcommittee is charged with developing a Research

Coordination Plan of Work, which will be an operational component of the overall

NEHRP Strategic Plan. This Subcommittee will be chaired on a rotating basis by

each of the three NEHRP agencies that conducts research.

While research will always be an integral component of NEHRP, we believe that

NEHRP will need to shift the program’s emphasis from primarily one of research

to the application of research results to reduce losses. Our knowledge has now

reached the point where we have to effectively implement the results of this work

to reduce earthquake losses. I have directed the Research Subcommittee to address

this issue in its work. I have also directed this group to reassess the NEHRP role,

particularly the USGS, in producing cost-effective earthquake prediction technology,

as called for in the 1977 legislation. This is a key complementary component to enhance the existing seismic monitoring program within the USGS.

I will make certain that the work of this subcommittee is closely coordinated with

my colleagues. I intend to coordinate this subcommittee’s work with the new Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate to leverage efVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
20

forts in both areas in an all-hazards framework which will benefit both NEHRP and

the Science and Technology Directorate.

Building upon the NEHRP Strategic Plan and my goal of a performance-driven,

results-oriented Program, I would like to present our vision for the future of the

Program. For NEHRP to remain relevant in the 21st century, it is no longer enough

to study the earthquake problem; we must also develop and implement effective

mitigation solutions. This means that the Program agencies must continue to evaluate our priorities and focus our activities in ways that will emphasize implementation of the Program. The Program must be able to provide not only the tools needed

to reduce future losses, but also the incentives to encourage their use.

NEHRP has been extremely successful in developing an impressive array of mitigation technologies that have been used very effectively by engineers, architects and

building regulators when they have been given the resources to address the hazard.

The problem, however, is that there has been little incentive or public demand to

provide the resources necessary to reduce the risk.

This is partially due to a lack of understanding or knowledge of the actual seismic

threat which exists in any given area. It is also due to the faulty assumptions that

designing and building to the building codes currently in place in many communities

will result in a completely damage-free structure and that when there is damage,

the Federal Government will invariably fund the necessary repairs through disaster

assistance to make the building whole again. Both assumptions are false.

Building codes in general only provide the minimum level necessary to protect

lives, and do little to prevent damage. In addition, as you know, federal disaster assistance was never meant to replace insurance.

Changing perceptions is key to serving the basic mission of NEHRP. Just as the

American consumer has come to consider the safety of a vehicle to be a significant

factor when buying a car, we envision a future where one of the key criteria in buying a house or building will be its safety from all hazards—how well was the building designed and constructed and whether it is certified to meet or even exceed a

certain level of code performance and an associated level of safety.

Unfortunately, one of the major weaknesses of the NEHRP is our lack of leverage

for local and State levels of government to implement earthquake risk-reduction

measures. So we must look for and find ways to provide this leverage with incentives and rewards for communities at risk that adopt and enforce adequate mitigation standards.

The current public policy emphasis on pre-disaster mitigation and on improving

the preparedness of local emergency management offers new avenues that we need

to pursue in order to get our earthquake disaster-resistance message into the hands

of those who can best use this information. Our hope is that pre-disaster mitigation

activities will serve both as the catalyst and the foundation for future risk-reduction

activities by public and private sector interests.

Ultimately, the Program will need to explore possible incentives that will encourage the use of our technology by the American public. Several years ago a study

done by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, with NEHRP funding from

FEMA and the State of California, provided some possible incentives. The findings

of this study need to be pursued. I have directed the FEMA earthquake program

staff to explore possible incentives and develop recommendations that would allow

us to promote their use.

However, all of this will require a careful review to ensure the best use of the

resources of all of the parties—public and private. This means that we need to emphasize those aspects of our program that offer the greatest promise of helping communities and individuals acknowledge their risk, accept responsibility for reducing

that risk, and take appropriate actions to become more disaster-resistant. It is the

intention of the Program to use this strategic planning process to focus more heavily

on this facet of our responsibilities.

As I have indicated, a key to the success of NEHRP has been, and will continue

to be, an effective translation of research to practice. A major element of this translation is a strong approach to communicating risk to different audiences in different

parts of the country. The perception of the earthquake threat in California, where

earthquake loss reduction is viable and risk perceived as probable, is far different

than in other areas of the country, such as the New Madrid region with its high

loss and low probability of occurrence, where the perception of risk is minimal. The

general population of New England and other areas on the east coast represent an

even greater contrast in that there is little perception of earthquake risk. A risk

communications strategy will need to acknowledge these differences.

The NEHRP agencies need to shift some of the focus of their research efforts to

put a greater emphasis on behavior to understand how to influence perceptions, how

21

to effectively communicate information in a way that helps those affected to not only

understand their risk but begin to manage it as well.

We have already started this shift in emphasis. This Subcommittee tasked FEMA

with determining how effective the Program is in addressing the needs of at-risk

populations, such as the elderly, people with disabilities, non-English-speaking families, single-parent households, and the poor. We found that there were a number

of documents and delivery mechanisms directed at some of these audiences. The results, however, were mixed.

It is apparent from the conclusions of the report, The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and At-Risk Populations, which I have previously submitted under separate cover, that there are strategic opportunities that can increase

the effectiveness of NEHRP agencies in addressing at-risk populations. Specifically,

we found that there are five broad-based areas of opportunity:

1. Leadership: Increase emphasis at the national and regional levels.

2. Research: Encourage the development of a research agenda that integrates

the vulnerabilities of the at-risk populations with earthquake science, risk

communication, risk mitigation, and disaster management.

3. Communications/Educational Outreach: Develop risk-reduction outreach

that is relevant to at-risk populations.

4. Technology: Promote the application of research, informational tool development, and building and social science technology issues to the at-risk populations.

5. Policy: Reflect commitment through new and renewed policy approaches.

One area of opportunity that our report cites is the schools. They provide the best

immediate mechanism for affecting a positive change and disseminating information

to at-risk populations on hazards and how to reduce or avoid them. In addition,

working through the schools offers a number of possibilities for working with other

federal partners, such as the Department of Education and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which are not directly involved in the NEHRP but have an extensive involvement with various aspects of education policy and procedures. By

taking advantage of these opportunities in a collaborative, inclusive manner, the

Program will further achieve its defined mission and reduce losses among the most

socially vulnerable populations.

With the Program’s new emphasis on risk communication, we will bring a systematic approach to taking our understanding of people in their environment and apply

it to the way in which we disseminate technically based information. Included in

this systematic approach will be the development of metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of our communications in raising awareness and motivating risk-reduction

activities at the individual and community levels.

One of FEMA’s roles as lead agency under NEHRP is to present this subcommittee with a report covering our activities for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. I

have previously provided the completed NEHRP Biennial Report under separate

cover.

The Biennial Report outlines many activities of the agencies and highlights State

and local efforts to reduce earthquake risk. It illustrates how the Strategic Plan is

already being used as a guide by the earthquake community in their efforts to meet

the four program goals. The report gives you an idea of just how much is being accomplished from this relatively small program.

The final NEHRP lead agency responsibility I want to mention is our reporting

on the NEHRP budget. The actual Program budget numbers for the last two fiscal

years have already been sent to Committee staff under separate cover. We have already reported on the other three NEHRP agencies’ budgets for FY 2003. FEMA’s

FY 2003 NEHRP budget, approximately $19 million, represents level funding from

FY 2002, less a Congressional rescission of 0.65 percent, applied to all programs.

The FY 2004 budget request will be at the FY 2003 level. However, approximately

$4.4 million will be transferred from the Emergency Management Performance

Grant program to the Office of Domestic Preparedness.

The breakout among the agencies continues to be approximately 48 percent for

the USGS; 35 percent for NSF; 15 percent for FEMA; and a little over 2 percent

for NIST. Over and above those figures are: The USGS Global Seismic Network at

approximately $3.5 million; and NSF’s George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) at $24.4 million last year and $13.5 million

this year.

One of the best examples I can offer of how we are effectively using our resources

is the updating of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for New Buildings. This

22

document serves as the basis for the Nation’s seismic code language and is updated

for us every three years by the National Institute of Building Sciences’ Building

Seismic Safety Council to maintain its consensus backing. This updating relies

heavily on the efforts of volunteers, and it has been estimated that we get eight dollars of work for every dollar we spend.

I would also like to share with the Subcommittee the role of NEHRP as FEMA

has become an integral part of the Department of Homeland Security.

This consolidation of agencies into DHS focuses greater resources on protecting

people and property from all hazards—natural and man-made. The creation of the

Department of Homeland Security offers us the opportunity to share our successes

and the lessons learned from NEHRP and our other natural hazard mitigation programs and leverage them to address other perils.

That does not mean that there is any reduction in focus or commitment to serve

the underlying mission of the NEHRP; however, since earthquakes do not happen

with sufficient regularity to remain in the collective memory, it often appears that

there has been a diminished earthquake presence in the NEHRP agencies. The

earthquake threat is still very real, and it is this hazard that still holds the greatest

potential of all natural hazards to cause death and destruction in a single moment.

Several faults in this country have the potential to create the most catastrophic disaster we have ever faced. The earthquake hazard is a critical part of our all-hazards

work.

NEHRP is one of the only federal programs that has experience in preparing for,

responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the future effects of large-scale disasters. This experience can be transferred to the Nation’s work and mission to protect

our nation from the threats of terrorism.

Some examples where this experience can support the Nation’s risk of terrorism

include the following:

• Seismic design criteria developed under the NEHRP have been proven to provide a significant level of resistance to other outside loads, such as blast, and

has proven to prevent progressive collapse such as that which occurred in the

Oklahoma City bombing.

• The NEHRP has already developed and is currently implementing a plan to

improve the protection of lifelines and critical infrastructure. The current

American Lifelines Alliance, supported by FEMA’s NEHRP funds and based

on a plan developed by NIST, has already accomplished much to address the

protection of this vital link, and we are expanding this program to improve

protection from man-made hazards.

• The NEHRP has made significant investments in improving post-event reconnaissance and the collection and analysis of damage data, and these investments have already had direct benefits after 9/11. The ability to rapidly examine buildings after a damaging event and tag them based on their level

of damage and habitability is critical after a large disaster. The NEHRP funded an existing system known as ‘‘ATC–20,’’ that was quickly modified by New

York engineers and used after the WTC attacks to evaluate surrounding

buildings. Such a resource will be needed after future damaging events, no

matter what the cause, and we are working with ATC to expand this program

to other hazards.

• The ability to design a new building or an upgrade to an existing building

to achieve a defined level of performance to mitigate a specific hazard is critical to reducing future losses economically. FEMA, through the NEHRP, has

already funded the first two phases of a project to develop Performance-Based

Design Guidance to meet this capability. We have already taken steps to expand this program beyond seismic hazards to include fire and blast as well.

• The ability to screen, evaluate, and upgrade existing buildings to improve

their resistance to external forces is an important process in reducing the risk

from structures built prior to current building codes. Current FEMA–NEHRP

publications provide guidance on how to visually screen existing buildings to

identify those that are potentially hazardous, how to perform more detailed

evaluations on those potentially hazardous buildings, and how to upgrade

those buildings to satisfy minimum safety criteria. Such a system of guidance

publications has considerable applicability in addressing man-made hazards,

and we are working to adapt these publications to reflect this.

• The urban seismic networks that the USGS is trying to develop under the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) would be capable of detecting, locating, and timing explosive blasts in urban areas. The WTC impacts and colVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
23

lapses, the Pentagon impact, and the Oklahoma City bombing were all recorded on seismographs.

• NEHRP assets were used in the development of our current Urban Search

and Rescue Program, and helped fund the development of some recent technologies such as robots for search, rescue and recovery following earthquakes

and other natural hazard events. It was this same Urban Search and Rescue

Program that was so visible immediately after the 9/11 attacks.

• NEHRP investments in earthquake disaster risk assessment such as the development of Hazards US, or HAZUS, have been extended to include multihazard risks from hurricane, wind and coastal flooding, and to develop integrated risk assessment methodologies to manage social and infrastructural

vulnerability.

• NEHRP investments in testing equipment and cyber infrastructure, including

the NSF’s George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, are used to investigate and mitigate earthquake vulnerability in critical

infrastructure systems. These facilities are also used for study of infrastructure performance and damage under any kind of hazard.

• Building on previous work under the NEHRP, NIST is already working with

the private sector to develop needed tools and guidance for improving overall

structural integrity by mitigating progressive collapse.

Through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which is authorized

under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, FEMA has funded several projects that have improved earthquake resistance, even though the availability of funding was triggered by a different event. As

a result of the WTC attacks, FEMA and the State of New York have funded the

seismic upgrade of two major transportation facilities: the George Washington

Bridge and the Port Authority Bus Terminal for a total of $61 million. This is an

excellent example of how the NEHRP has helped to shape decisions at the State

and local level, and has influenced their priorities.

In conclusion, in spite of its many challenges, the NEHRP has been a success and

has done a great deal to improve this nation’s ability to prepare for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate future earthquakes.

It is beneficial to look back and celebrate our successes over the last 25 years,

and we have many to be proud of. It is also meaningful to look forward and plan

where we are heading in the next 25 years. As part of the Department of Homeland

Security, I can assure you that we will continue to lead the NEHRP to protect the

American people from the earthquake hazard.

I want to express my appreciation for the consistent support and counsel of this

subcommittee and look forward to our continuing association in addressing the challenges before us.

Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions that the Subcommittee

may pose.

BIOGRAPHY FOR ANTHONY S. LOWE

Anthony S. Lowe was appointed director of the mitigation division of the Emergency Preparedness & Response Directorate/FEMA, in the newly created Department of Homeland Security, in March 2003. He continues to serve as the Federal

Insurance Administrator, a role to which he was nominated by President Bush in

March 2002. Mr. Lowe is responsible for providing leadership for some of the Nation’s leading multi-hazard risk reduction programs, which seek to secure the homeland from hazards both natural or manmade. His areas of oversight include the National Flood Insurance Program, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, the National Dam Safety Program and the National Hurricane Program. In

his position, Mr. Lowe works closely with public and private risk managers, as well

as leaders in government, industry, research and academia.

Before assuming this post, Mr. Lowe was the senior legislative counsel for the

U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition and Business Rights

and on the staff of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information. Previously, he was the deputy prosecutor with the King Country Prosecutor’s Office. He also was a commissioner on the city of Redmond’s planning commission.

Earlier in his career, Mr. Lowe was associate director at the International Center

for Economic Growth and International Center for Self-Governance programs of the

Institute of Contemporary Studies, in Washington, D.C. Mr. Lowe also served as

24

legal counsel to the Washington State Senate majority office and as legislative assistant to U.S. Senator Slade Gorton of Washington.

A native of King County, Wash., Mr. Lowe holds a Bachelor of Science degree in

international political science from University of Washington, a law degree from the

University of Santa Clara and a Master of Divinity degree from Virginia Union University.

Chairman SMITH. We have about seven minutes to get to our

vote, so excuse us, but the bad news is there are four votes. So we

will have one 15-minute vote and four 5-minute votes, but we go

over about two minutes on each of the time limits. I would ask

staff, in our period of recess, with your permission, I would ask

staff to maybe discuss with you some of the questions that we have

put together that we would like to know if you would get some of

those more detailed answers, and we will try to return in the next,

I am guessing, 20 minutes. With that, the Subcommittee is in recess.

[Recess.]

Chairman SMITH. The Subcommittee on Research has reconvened, and we would turn to Mr. Olson for his statement.

STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT A. OLSON, PRESIDENT, ROBERT

OLSON ASSOCIATES, INC.

Mr. OLSON. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be here.

I will very quickly summarize my written testimony.

I wish I had the time, we had the time today, actually, to close

our eyes, close all of our eyes for four minutes, and try to imagine

the non-stop violent shaking, the noise associated with buildings

coming apart, the unsteadiness of large blocks of earth as they slip

away beneath us, and hearing the occupants’ and victims’ screams

of terror. This is what happened in Alaska, 1964. And that particular earthquake is what got people thinking about the threat to

other metropolitan areas where earthquakes have occurred and

could be expected.

I won’t go into details on that, but we can trace the origin of that

program, of the current program, to that event in 1964. Your action

here in Congress represented a public policy decision to look at the

earthquake risk nationally, one, as you noted, that is shared by at

least 39 states. The act of 1977 was a political action that took

many years to achieve, actually. And three key Members of Congress, including the Science Committee’s former Chairman, Representative Mosher from Ohio played a key role in this along with

Congressman George Brown and Senator Alan Cranston.

On February 20, I had a challenging request to attend the forum

that has been referred to and to summarize what I heard that day.

And I thought I would just take my time to hit the high points of

what I heard people talk about in the context of the earthquake

program. There is a concern, and it has been reflected already,

about the budget stagnation and erosion. In terms of real dollars,

the earthquake program’s purchasing power has declined steadily

to the level where essential program activities are being sacrificed,

because the actual appropriations have not kept pace with at least

inflation.

There is a concern in the community about program leadership,

particularly as the new Department of Homeland Security comes

on line, a very large agency. And FEMA, of course, didn’t exist in

25

1977, but was given the leadership role in 1980. And how this leadership responsibility will be continued or performed within the

new, and frankly, huge Department of Homeland Security, this is

some concern to us in the earthquake community.

You have touched on the strategic plans. Well, there are two or

three out there, new programs and strategic plans now exist on

which we might be able to base long-term modifications to the act.

Much like the years leading to the original act’s passage, there now

exists several of these plans that could provide a new foundation

for amending the earthquake legislation to set the program’s direction for, well, the next decade or two.

There are a lot of agencies who have significant roles to play in

the earthquake program, and we must find better ways to involve

and support these participating agencies that are involved heavily

in construction and in financing construction and others. Patience

is needed, also. Knowledge is cumulative, and sometimes it is slow

in coming. And a great deal of our effort in the last two decades

has been spent on research, and—as it must. And that has helped

develop knowledge as well as a large pool of human resources: better educated students, more practicing earthquake engineers, and

others. We must keep that benefit in mind, as well.

But there is a need to balance the investments in research with

the program’s commitments to improving practice and governments

as well. You have touched on it already. We must speed up the rate

of applying knowledge. This is a real challenge. And while new research leads to improved knowledge, there exists a gap in applying

what is known and what is accepted already, the results of previous investments in research. We have got to find better ways to

accelerate the application of knowledge.

Earthquake risk is increasing. This worrisome condition is due

partly to growing populations and to little or no attention being

given to the hazard in areas that we believe are subject to the risk.

During its existence in the last 25 years, the program has fostered

the development of intellectual and organizational capabilities to

the earthquake program that simply didn’t exist before.

I would like, also, to make note that understanding the context

is critical to achieving earthquake risk reduction. Risk reduction

decisions are made in a social context by individuals, by companies,

by governments at all levels. And their abilities to address this

kind of a risk varies greatly depending on their location, their priorities, the knowledge of the risk, and other values, and we must

be able to intervene in those processes to affect future decisions.

The agencies, and you have heard about them, work in very complex and competitive contexts and environments. While the earthquake program is just one program, these agencies house—have activities—other activities, missions, priorities, levels of funding, and

so on that make these settings for the agency people very, very

complicated.

Earthquake prediction was a popular item at the time of the

original passage, and it may be time to revisit it with the advent

of new technologies and theories. I don’t know. I am not an earth

scientist, but it might be worth putting back on the list to see if

we might get there this time. Certainly the investment in earthVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
26

quake prediction in those days led to much stronger and better

forecasting abilities, which have had a major impact.

So let me conclude with one recommendation that this committee

as the full Science Committee to convene a truly independent panel

to look at the charter legislation after 25 years and to see how it

might be modified to help reduce earthquake risk over the next 25

years for across the United States.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. OLSON

INTRODUCTION

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program—‘‘NEHRP’’ as it is commonly called—is governed by a ‘‘sunset’’ provision requiring the Science Committee

to review and to reauthorize the program every two years. This hearing is particularly appropriate because the Science Committee was the program’s committee of

origin, and 2002 was the NEHRP’s 25th birthday. Such sunset provisions provide

a regular means for Congress to review the status, progress, and needs of important

programs beyond the normal annual appropriations processes.

In response to your invitation, my comments address several subjects: (1) the key

role of this committee and the origins of the program beginning in about 1964 following the occurrence of two significant earthquakes in Alaska and Niigata, Japan;

(2) some observations I offered recently at a National Academy of Sciences’ forum

on the earthquake program’s 25th anniversary, and (3) some reminders based on my

practitioner’s observations during the last 22 years as an emergency management

consultant.

I have been involved in emergency management, disaster assistance, and hazard

mitigation issues since joining a FEMA predecessor agency in 1964 in Washington,

DC and then moving to a regional office where I became involved in earthquake

mitigation activities, including serving as a volunteer advisor to a California legislative committee. I left federal service in 1972 to help establish the San Francisco Bay

Area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission while I continued my volunteer

service to the legislature. Governor Ronald Reagan and the legislature agreed on the

need to establish a state Seismic Safety Commission to address the continuing

earthquake threat in California. I was selected as the Commission’s first Executive

Director, a post I held for seven years. During the last 22 years I have been providing consulting and research services to federal agencies, State and local governments, and private clients. I was educated in Political Science, with an emphasis

on American Government.

NEHRP: AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

If we had the time, I would ask everyone here to close their eyes for four minutes

and try to imagine non-stop violent shaking, noise associated with buildings coming

apart, unsteadiness as large blocks of land give way under us, and hearing the occupants’ and victims’ screams of terror. Soon after, the coastal areas would be devastated by a tsunami. This happened in Alaska on Good Friday, 1964.

The Great Alaska earthquake, one of the most powerful ever recorded, affected

about 50,000 square miles and triggered many research and applications activities

that were based on a simple fear: What would be the consequences of an event like

this one somewhere in the ‘‘lower 48’’ in an area that was known to have earthquake risk: the Wasatch Front in Utah, Northern California (a repeat of 1906), the

Mississippi Valley (a repeat of the 1811–12 events), Southern California (a repeat

of the 1857 earthquake), the Puget Sound area of Washington, or other locations

with a significant but less well known hazard?

The act establishing the program represented a national public policy decision to

reduce earthquake risk, one that is shared to varying degrees by at least 39 states.

The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act (EHRA, Public Law 95–124) of 1977 was

a political action that took many years to achieve by an ‘‘advocacy coalition’’ composed of three key members of Congress including the Science Committee’s former

chairman, Representative Mosher from Ohio, who had a particular interest in

science and technology associated with earthquake prediction research, and Senator

Alan Cranston and Representative George Brown. They were supported by influential members of the ‘‘earthquake community’’ from outside and inside the Federal

Government. Moreover, the Carter Administration was ‘‘receptive’’ to the proposal,

sending a clear signal to Congress that it should proceed with the legislation.

27

Years before its enactment, however, the NEHRP’s foundation was laid by a series

of program and budget oriented studies and reports that taken together defined the

program as we know it today. The President’s Science Advisor recommended a 10-

year program of earthquake prediction research in May 1965. This was followed in

June 1967 by a Federal Council on Science and Technology (FCST) 10-year recommended earthquake hazards reduction program, which was later updated in October 1968. Three more expert reports were issued in 1969: the National Academy

of Engineering’s (NAE) report on earthquake engineering research and applications

needs, the National Academy of Science’s (NAS) report on the status of seismological

research and its needs, and the NAS’ multiple volume report on the Alaskan earthquake. In 1970 the Office of Science and Technology issued a proposed an updated

10-year program of earthquake hazard reduction.

Several other studies and reports contributed to eventually framing the NEHRP

during those years. These included a report on the status of state and local disaster

preparedness (1972), studies of other damaging earthquakes and even possibly successful predictions here and abroad (e.g., China, Nicaragua, Romania, Guatemala,

Italy), a technology assessment of earthquake prediction technology (1975), and another examining the social and public policy implications of earthquake prediction

(1975).

This collection of needs assessments, state of knowledge reviews, and recommended programs and budgets provided a ‘‘critical mass’’ on which to base a national earthquake hazards reduction program. It all came together in what we refer

to as the ‘‘Newmark-Stever Report’’ that was titled Earthquake Prediction and Hazard Mitigation: Options for USGS and NSF Programs. This carefully crafted and

skillfully negotiated program and budget document provided the administration and

the Congress with a scope of work, agency responsibilities, and three recommended

funding levels.

The proverbial ‘‘window of opportunity’’ that set the stage for NEHRP’s enactment

was the February 9, 1971 San Fernando, California earthquake ‘‘on the fringe of a

densely populated metropolitan area,’’ according to an early post-earthquake report

by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Close to the heart of Los

Angeles and only a moderate (6.3 Richter magnitude) event, it caused 65 deaths

(most in a federally-owned building), but this earthquake again raised the question

about the vulnerability of our heavily populated metropolitan areas.

Three bills were introduced in the Senate in 1972; four in the House and three

in the Senate in 1973; ten bills in the House and one in the Senate in 1974; and

one each in the House and the Senate in 1977. The resulting legislation, H.R. 6683

and on the Senate side, S. 126, passed in October 1977 and became the Earthquake

Hazards Reduction Act. Understandably, the new legislation had a strong research

orientation. We had to know more about the earthquake hazard (and if we could

predict them) and how we could prevent future disaster losses. Thus, the new act

focused mostly on strengthening the earth science programs of the Geological Survey (USGS) and the earthquake engineering research program of the National

Science Foundation (NSF). The National Bureau of Standards, now the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) also was included.

In short, according to a FEMA-funded study, To Save Lives and Protect Property:

A Policy Assessment of Federal Earthquake Activities, 1964–1987 (Robert Olson Associates, 1988):

Events leading to the EHRA’s enactment and its implementation up to 1987

have spanned the terms of five presidents (Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and

Reagan) and thirteen sessions of Congress.

A few general observations may be helpful. First, many attempts were made to

enact a national earthquake program prior to 1977. However, several factors

converged in the 1975–76 period to create a climate for successful passage of

the Act and its signing into law. They included a ‘‘killer year’’ for earthquakes

(1976), the euphoria over potential earthquake prediction, the presence of legislative and executive leaders in key places, and the completion of an expert report containing the proposed content and budget for legislation (NewmarkStever, 1976).

. . .prior to the 1971 San Fernando, California earthquake experts who were

designing the scope of the future program had based their ideas largely on the

lessons learned from the 1964 Alaska earthquake. San Fernando post-earthquake studies produced large quantities of data that significantly added to the

understanding of earthquake effects on relatively modern urban areas. (9)

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) did not yet exist. It was

created in May, 1979, and it was given the NEHRP leadership role in 1980 by an

28

amendment to the act. FEMA, more of a mission-oriented than a research-oriented

agency, thus had two responsibilities: promote earthquake hazard mitigation and

disaster preparedness measures by working primarily with local and state governments and ‘‘carry the NEHRP flag’’ as the program’s designated leader.

A QUARTER CENTURY RETROSPECTIVE

On February 20 I had the welcome opportunity to participate in a National Academy of Sciences’ forum on the status of the NEHRP. The day’s speakers collectively

spoke to a number of points central to the continued effectiveness of the NEHRP

and the challenges it is facing. Some of my summary observations included:

• Budget stagnation and erosion. In terms of real dollars, NEHRP’s ‘‘purchasing

power’’ has declined steadily to the level where essential program activities

are being sacrificed because appropriations have not kept pace with at least

inflation. Additionally, the community has identified other important needs

that will speed risk reduction if funding can be provided.

• Program leadership and the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The EHRA was passed in 1977, the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) was formed in 1979, and FEMA was assigned to lead the NEHRP

in 1980. In about 1983 a program review panel, in a ‘‘management letter’’ to

the then FEMA director, pointed out that the agency, unlike the other three

involved (NSF, USGS, and NBS [now NIST]) had two duties: (1) internal

mitigation and preparedness program operations and (2) multi-agency leadership. How the leadership responsibility will be performed within the new and

huge DHS is of some concern to the earthquake community.

• New program and strategic plans exist on which to base program modifications. Much like the years leading to the EHRA’s passage, there now exists

several documents that could provide a ‘‘new’’ foundation for amending the

NEHRP legislation to set the program’s direction for the next decade or two.

For example, the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) has released one focusing on research, and the interagency strategic planning process has been reinvigorated with the FEMA-led NEHRP strategic plan soon to

be released.

• Ways must be found to better involve and support the ‘‘participating agencies.’’

Over the decades, really only three agencies (FEMA, NSF, USGS) and NIST

(to a much lesser extent) have benefited from funds appropriated to the

NEHRP. Yet, many other federal agencies, such as DOD, DVA, and GSA, are

directly involved in construction and others greatly influence construction financing and lending. While the NEHRP acknowledges these participating

agencies, stronger mechanisms are needed to integrate their risk reduction

activities more fully because the results of their activities and decisions directly effect the safety of the built environment.

• Patience is needed: knowledge is cumulative and sometimes slow in coming.

The core of the NEHRP has been the support of research: knowledge and

human resources development. This objective is fundamental to the program

and has contributed mightily to new information, better practices, and more

capable practitioners. Research, experimentation, instrumentation and testing

continues to be an important program need. It must be understood, however,

that knowledge most often accumulates relatively slowly and incrementally as

theories and data are developed, tested, and finally accepted. Thus, there remains a need to balance NEHRP’s investments in research with its commitments to improving practice and governance.

• We must speed up the rate of applying knowledge. While new research leads

to improved knowledge, there exists a gap in applying what is known and accepted already—the results of previous research investments. There is a

growing literature about the barriers and facilitators that affect the adoption

and implementation of earthquake risk reduction measures, most of which

are attributable to risk communication and acceptance and governmental and

private institutional factors. Nationally, and especially in the lower risk

areas, we need to give attention to processes and methods for overcoming

these obstacles to public safety. In the final analysis, applying knowledge has

real effects on our people, buildings, and infrastructure.

• Earthquake risk is increasing. This worrisome condition is due partly to growing populations and little or no attention being given to managing the risk

in many vulnerable areas. This is a very complex issue consisting of what to

do about the existing built and future built environments, and there is a need

to better understand decision-making processes to see how risk reduction

29

measures can be included in such processes effectively. Central to this challenge is to find better ways of communicating earthquake risk information repeatedly through multiple channels in ways that compete successfully for attention and lead to decisions and the commitment of resources to increase

safety.

• During its existence the NEHRP has fostered the development of intellectual

and organizational capabilities. Not only have NEHRP-funded activities increased knowledge, they have helped develop new practitioners and researchers who are influencing professional practices, such as through the three

earthquake research centers and other programs. Emphasis on this

intergenerational mentoring should be continued so that the knowledge pool

is widespread, locally influential, and knitted together by such organizations

as EERI.

• Understanding the context is critical to achieving earthquake risk reduction.

Information is received and decisions are made in societal contexts (e.g., individuals, families, small businesses, large companies, public agencies, charitable groups). Their abilities to address items important to them varies greatly depending on their location, priorities (agendas), wealth, values, and others. Applying risk reduction measures must be understood and promoted in

specific relevant contexts, and improved techniques are needed to define and

influence the controlling contexts.

• The NEHRP agency representatives work in very complex and competitive contexts and environments. While the NEHRP is just one program, the agencies

housing its activities have other missions, priorities, and levels of funding.

Some of these are legislatively, administratively, technically, or politically determined. Any changes to the NEHRP, if they are to be successful, must be

sensitive to these environments and address the organizational, administrative, regulatory, and financial capabilities needed to implement them successfully.

• Earthquake prediction may deserve to be revisited. The earlier euphoria associated with earthquake prediction contributed significantly to theory development, measurement technologies, international observations, socio-economic

impact studies, and other advances. It definitely has led to vastly improved

‘‘earthquake forecasting’’ abilities—defining the risk and probabilities of occurrence in ways that were impossible when I first became involved in the

mid-1960s. While predicting earthquakes with precision (i.e., date, time, magnitude, etc.) remains elusive, new technologies and theories and accumulated

knowledge and other earth science-related programs may advance our abilities if we try again. Only if we had a season like hurricanes or rains or snow

melt to watch for flooding!

REMINDER: LOSS PREVENTION/MITIGATION REFLECTS AMERICAN

FEDERALISM

The Constitution of the United States of America defines the authority relationships between the national government and the states. Individual state constitutions define similar relationships between state and local governments.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines mitigation ‘‘as any

sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from a hazard event.’’ Sometimes known as ‘‘disaster prevention’’ in some cultures, mitigation’s objective is to reduce the direct and indirect losses in ways that

protect life, physical assets, and national wealth.

Mitigation programs must be understood within this context of ‘‘shared governance.’’ Thus, some mitigation programs are administered by the national government (e.g., nuclear power plant safety) while others provide incentives and penalties

to encourage state and local participation (e.g., planning grants). Some state programs are enacted and administered directly by state governments (e.g., public

school construction in California), enacted by the state but administered directly by

local governments (e.g., Safety Elements of General Land Use Plans in California),

others contain shared administrative responsibilities (e.g., California’s Special Studies Zones Act), and in many areas some mitigation programs are enacted and administered directly by local governments (e.g., zoning regulations and building

codes).

REMINDER: MITIGATION OCCURS IN TWO PRINCIPAL TIME FRAMES

Hazard mitigation occurs within two temporal contexts: (1) prospective and (2)

retroactive. In general, programs that address the future (‘‘prospective’’) are easier

30

to adopt and implement than are programs to correct past (‘‘retroactive’’) deficiencies.

Incremental changes to building codes that apply to new buildings can be incorporated into new designs relatively easily and inexpensively, but laws or codes that

require the strengthening or replacement of existing buildings are difficult to enact,

controversial to implement, and costly in terms of construction and social costs (e.g.,

dislocation of tenants, loss of rental income). For these reasons, most mitigation programs are prospective, and if enacted at all, retroactive requirements follow decades

later.

REMINDER: MANY FACTORS AFFECT DECISIONS TO REDUCE FUTURE

LOSSES

While disasters often create ‘‘windows of opportunity’’ to introduce new mitigation

efforts, they are not in and of themselves sufficient conditions. Moreover, differing

mitigation decision-making situations exist: (1) regulatory (i.e., government enacts

laws demanding compliance), (2) voluntary (i.e., a company strengthens buildings it

owns to protect its assets), or (3) mixed (i.e., government provides incentives for

those taking voluntary private action).

Some factors that affect decisions to mitigate against disaster losses include: (1)

the perception and understanding of risk to support decision-making, (2) organizational ‘‘champions’’ to advocate the adoption and implementation of mitigation measures, (3) successfully competing with other items on decision-making agendas, (4)

sufficient wealth to pay for the desired mitigation measure, (5) the possibility of

achieving multiple benefits from investing in mitigation, (6) achieving other organizational goals as part of mitigation programs, and (7) convincing those that pay for

mitigation now will accrue benefits in the future.

CONCLUSION

Hazard mitigation as a concept is simple to understand: act now to prevent future

disaster losses. It often takes a long time for the benefits of mitigation to be

achieved, however. We have a very short recorded earthquake history, but when we

examine the geologic and seismologic evidence we are reminded that earthquakes

remain a national problem potentially affecting 39 states. Some have paid attention

to their risk, but many have not. Regardless, a major to great earthquake near or

in any of our major urban areas will have devastating and eye-opening effects.

Laws, policies, and programs must be thought through carefully to achieve their

desired results, and they must be modified periodically to reflect current conditions.

While ideas and knowledge about successful mitigation programs can be transferred

easily, their adoption and implementation must be acceptable in particular social,

economic, cultural, and political environments.

Does the legislation governing the NEHRP need to be changed? My biased answer

is ‘‘yes’’ because conditions, knowledge, technology, contexts, research and applications needs and other factors have changed over the past 25 years. It is important

that laws, regulations, procedures, organizations, duties and responsibilities, and

budgets be reviewed and changed to assure or enhance the NEHRP’s future effectiveness.

Perhaps a new ‘‘advocacy coalition’’ needs to be mobilized so, like the one that existed from about 1964 to 1977, it can influence the political agenda and engage the

process to amend the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act. The program’s associated

implementation and administrative processes then will need to be modified so the

program will continue to lessen the Nation’s earthquake risk.

Thus, I have one simple recommendation: this subcommittee ask the full Science

Committee to use NEHRP’s 25th anniversary to convene a truly independent panel

to advise the Committee on the future of the NEHRP—via another long range program plan with priorities and a recommended funded level similar to what as done

in 1976 (the ‘‘Newmark-Stever Report’’). The ingredients are there on which to proceed. As former California State Senator George Moscone said to us in 1970, ‘‘Bring

this legislative committee your best recommendations, and we will take care of the

politics.’’

I look forward to continuing a partnership with the House’s Science Committee,

especially this subcommittee, as we progress steadily toward reducing our nation’s

earthquake risk and to contributing to lessening the risks from other hazards including, sadly, human-caused emergencies, where I am spending an increasing

amount of my time working with state and local governments and private firms.

31

BIOGRAPHY FOR ROBERT A. OLSON

Robert Olson is President of Robert Olson Associates, Inc., where he consults on

areas of earthquake hazards mitigation, emergency management, disaster operations, recovery assistance, and public policy development. Previously, he served as

the first executive director of the California Seismic Safety Commission. He has

chaired numerous committees including the Advisory Committee to the National Information Service of Earthquake Engineering, the Governor’s Task Force on Earthquake Preparedness, and the Advisory Group on Disaster Preparedness to the California’s Joint Legislative Committee on Seismic Safety. Mr. Olson also held a variety of research positions in various times at the Center for Environmental Design

Research, the Institute of Governmental Studies, the Mid-America Earthquake Center, and the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. As part of the

CUREE Kajima research program, Mr. Olson has had affiliations with PEER, Stanford University, Caltech, and the University of Southern California. He received his

Bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of California at Berkeley

and his Master’s degree from the University of Oregon.

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. We wrote that down plus being in

the record.

Dr. Cluff, thank you all for being here, of course. And thank you,

Dr. Cluff, for your foresight in determining where we should protect our Alaska Pipeline. Please proceed.

32

STATEMENT OF DR. LLOYD S. CLUFF, DIRECTOR, GEOSCIENCES DEPARTMENT AND EARTHQUAKE RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Dr. CLUFF. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Committee Members. I am honored to be here today. And I have a few slides to enhance my oral presentation.

I come from the perspective of a user of NEHRP products. I was

involved from the beginning. I was on the Newmark-Stever Panel

that created—helped create this program, and I have been on several other advisory committees.

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Cluff, I am going to interrupt you. Do we

have the where with all to keep the disks and reproduce the slides

for the other Members? We do. Thank you. Proceed, Dr. Cluff.

Dr. CLUFF. And I have color handouts that have been given for

all of the Members of my presentation. Thank you.

So let me move through.

[Slide.]

From the geosciences point of view, we have learned a lot from

earthquakes. We are really developing products on national hazard

maps, surface falls rupture characteristics, ground motions, regional hazard assessments, and earthquake forecasts to build on

Bob Olson’s comments about prediction. These are really the elements in the next slide.

[Slide.]

This is a slide of the San Francisco Bay area. You see San Francisco and the bay and the faults that have potential for very damaging earthquakes with forecasts of the likelihood of large, destructive earthquakes in the next 20 years, 70 percent aggregated for

the whole region. PG&E’s service territory, this is the heart of it.

And Pacific Gas and Electric is the large—one of the largest investor-owned utilities in the United States with millions of customers,

hundreds of thousands of transmission gas and electric lines at the

heart of the sixth largest economy in the world. We have 70 percent of the San Andreas faults traversing our service territory.

The earthquake risk management policy that we developed in

conjunction with the Seismic Safety Commission where I was

Chairman of the Commission right after the Loma Prieta earthquake, a program to understand the hazards and our system

vulnerabilities, a plan to implement the risk management options

dedicated staff, dedicated budget, and accountability. We have developed and are involved in NEHRP public/private partnerships.

One of the good ones across the Nation is the American’s Lifelines

Alliance, sponsored by FEMA, ALA, USGS, PG&E, the National

Bureau of Standards, and others shown on this list, are all involved to improve the performance of particularly utilities and

transportation systems across the U.S. Other partnerships, the

Lifelines User Driven Research Program at the Pacific Earthquake

Engineering Center at Berkley, a consortium of academic institutions, PG&E, Caltrans, and the California Energy Commission, and

other stakeholders, the USGS, FEMA, and the California Earthquake Center. I came up in 1996 with some money out of PG&E’s

funds, and I said I am tired of not being able to use research results from the academic community. They are good—it is good research, but we can’t implement it. We wanted to create a user-drivVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
33

en research program. We put money into it so that we set the research agenda and then the researchers learned from us what was

important. And then once results were reached, we could implement them immediately. Out of that, working with these other

partners that are on this program, we have leveraged $13 million

in user-driven research for a NEHRP program.

[Slide.]

Here is another partnership that we have with the U.S. Geological Survey. The lines on this map are the active faults, the heart

of PG&E’s territory. This program is one to help do applied research for the need for PG&E and our customers.

[Slide.]

Let me show a series of maps, same faults. This is our gas transmission pipelines, our electric system. You can see, all of these are

traversed by these faults. Our electric substations, about 100 of

these are critical to keep the lights on, and then our major service

centers and buildings in the heart of our service territory.

[Slide.]

And here are all of the PG&E facilities. On one map is the Internet GIS map within PG&E that every decision maker can have access to at any time.

[Slide.]

And then here is a new—the NEHRP project from the USGS

shake map. When an earthquake like this occurs, within two or

three minutes, we have this downloaded on to our Internet—our

decision-makers to deploy people to go to the field and know exactly where to go. We have our performance improvement for our

major customers. We have been guiding Caltrans, East Bay MUD,

the major water system in East Bay, the Bay Area Rapid Transit

District, and the San Francisco Water Department. Since Loma

Prieta, these combined expenditures for those customers only, including PG&E, is $15 billion.

Let me tell the story about the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. I was involved and invited by the oil companies to do the earthquake and

fault displacement study. The Denali Fault does cross the pipeline

route. I, with a team of earthquake engineers, delineated the zone,

how much displacement the fault could take, and then we constructed the pipeline above ground. We put in these—the designers

put in the supports with Teflon with shoes under the pipeline that

also had Teflon that would allow the pipeline to freely let the

ground move beneath it. The fault ruptured on November 3 of last

year. It crossed the pipeline.

[Slide.]

And here is the design drawing from my report to the Alaska

folks, the pipeline crossing. We designed the pipeline to accommodate faulting within a 1,900-foot wide zone. The—a yellow zone is

where we expected the rupture to take place. The November ’02

earthquake was 7.9, 18 feet of displacement horizontal, 2.5 feet

with minor compression. The red zone is where it actually displaced. We got it right, and the pipeline performed without spilling

one drop of oil. This is a NEHRP-type study that we need.

Newmark and I brought this into the NEHRP hearings to show

what things could be done.

[Slide.]

34

Here is the pipeline as the ground moved beneath it, not disrupting the pipeline. The left side photo is before. The right side

is after. The only thing you can see is that one straight segment

of it is now bowed because of two meters of compression. The pipeline was designed to accommodate that.

So let me conclude that unless seismic safety is afforded priority

that is now lacking throughout 39 states with significant earthquake exposure, the Nation will experience unacceptable, but

avoidable, deaths and economic losses from earthquakes. There is

an urgent need to fully implement the USGS advanced national

seismic system through appropriations that are consistent with

Congressional authorizations.

I recommend the Subcommittee endorse the report that will be

talked about in the next speaker, securing society against catastrophic earthquake losses from EERI. Dr. O’Rourke will present

that. And I recommend we seize the opportunity of FEMA’s new

position in the Department of Homeland Security to recognize the

synergy between addressing earthquake threats and terrorist

threats.

Last week, I was in Puerto Rico, and Anthony Lowe was there

awarding 75 million to the electric utility there. The papers got it

wrong. It should be for all hazards, to protect from earthquakes

and terrorists, not only hurricanes.

Chairman SMITH. You mean FEMA put more money down there

than our total United States earthquake NEHRP program?

Dr. CLUFF. 79 million—75 million. But I think the papers got it

right, because Anthony Lowe knows that all hazards are important.

My last recommendation is——

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Cluff, I am going to have to interrupt you.

Dr. CLUFF. All right.

Chairman SMITH. I have four minutes to make this vote. I am

guessing we should be back in about 12 minutes. My first question

after we finish the testimony is going to be what is more important

to what effect in terms of developing new and better technology

and how much of our emphasis should be on implementing that

technology? And second, how do we get the private sector more involved in doing things that is going to protect their lives and their

property?

And with that, recess at the call of the Chair.

[Recess.]

Chairman SMITH. The Subcommittee is in order. It doesn’t seem

to work. It is not his fault. Are we capable of taking testimony and

recording it without the speaker?

Mr. WEIRICH. It is very minimal. I really wouldn’t like to do it.

Chairman SMITH. I think we will ask you to record the last 20

words of Dr. Cluff. You just had—so good. Dr. Cluff, you were concluding.

Dr. CLUFF. Thank you very much. My last conclusion and recommendation was we need an independent oversight panel, similar

to what Mr. Olson mentioned, to guide and report to Congress annually.

And I want to end with a quote that is up on the board: ‘‘Where

there is no vision, the people will perish.’’ We have got to have vision to prevent the people from perishing.

35

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Cluff follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LLOYD S. CLUFF

I was invited to prepare the following testimony for the Subcommittee on Basic

Research’s hearing entitled The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program:

Past, Present, and Future. My purpose in preparing this testimony is to guide the

Committee on Science as they prepare to reauthorize the program during the 108th

Congress.

Having been involved since the inception of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), I have been asked to discuss my perspectives based on

my experience with the program throughout its lifetime. I was a member of the Advisory Group on Earthquake Prediction and Hazard Mitigation, known as the

‘‘Newmark-Stever Panel,’’ convened at the request of the President’s Science Advisor

in 1976. Our report, ‘‘Earthquake Prediction and Hazard Mitigation Options for the

USGS and NSF Programs,’’ dated September 15, 1976, formed the basis for the Congressional enactment of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977.

I have served on various NEHRP expert review committees over the past 25 years

to give guidance on ways to improve the program to reduce earthquake risks. I have

also had the opportunity to present testimony during past Congressional NEHRP

reauthorization hearings, most recently on March 1, 1990 to the Subcommittee on

Science, Research, and Technology. At that time, my testimony was from the perspective of Chairman of the California Seismic Safety Commission, where I served

California as a Seismic Safety Commissioner for almost 15 years.

For my testimony today, I have been asked to speak from the perspective of Director of the Geosciences Department for Pacific Gas and Electric Company in San

Francisco, one of the Nation’s largest-investor owned gas and electric utilities, as

well as from the perspective of Chairman of the Congressionally mandated Scientific

Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC). The SESAC was appointed by

the Secretary of the Interior to advise on the NEHRP activities of the U.S. Geological Survey. The first SESAC report to Congress, dated September 21,2002, is appended to my testimony. I have been asked to include specific comments on current

NEHRP activities, as well as to recommend how federal earthquake mitigation efforts can be strengthened.

NEHRP After 25 Years

During the 25 years since the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

was established, the NEHRP has provided insightful scientific and engineering leadership toward reducing earthquake risks. This leadership has resulted in major advances in identifying and characterizing active faults (earthquake sources) and understanding the destructive effects of earthquakes that will eventually be released

by slip on these faults. Twenty-five years ago, there was hope that short-term earthquake predictions would have been realized by now. Although that capability has

not been realized, reliable estimations of the locations of future major earthquakes,

their size, their likelihood of occurrence, and the character and extent of their effects are now possible.

Additionally, a wealth of information has been developed to enhance our knowledge of the vulnerabilities of the built environment to earthquakes. We now better

understand the factors that influence good as well as poor earthquake performance

of utilities and transportation systems, as well as specific types of structures and

buildings. This improved knowledge has resulted in useful tools that, if applied,

have the potential to bring unacceptable risks under control.

However, the risk is growing faster than our ability to provide effective mitigation. In spite of the increased knowledge and the good work that has been done,

particularly in regions of high seismic exposure, earthquake risk continues to grow

nationwide. This is largely due to (1) uncontrolled growth in earthquake-prone

areas, (2) the lack of effective land-use planning in the hazardous areas, (3) the lack

of implementation and enforcement of appropriate building standards, and (4) the

high cost of strengthening the existing built environment. This trend has positioned

the Nation in an unacceptable situation, one that will eventually result in catastrophic losses. Studies such as the 1999, National Research Council publication,

The Impacts of Natural Disasters: A Framework For Loss Estimation, show the perevent costs could reach thousands to tens of thousands dead, hundreds of thousands

injured and homeless, and direct and indirect economic losses that could exceed

$200 billion. This trend will not be reversed until the earthquake-prone communities in all 39 vulnerable states understand the threat and take action to mitigate

unacceptable risks.

36

Value of NEHRP to Private Industry

In addition to its concern for employee and customer safety during earthquakes,

Pacific Gas and Electric Company has a strong economic interest in ‘‘keeping the

lights on.’’ PG&E has vast resources in dams and power plants, transmission and

distribution systems, and administrative buildings. Although protecting these resources from earthquake damage is important, equally important is functionality

following an earthquake. The ability to continue to provide utility service to customers will assist emergency response efforts and reduce recovery time, as well as

assure a continuing income stream during a particularly challenging time.

Functionality also affects the communities PG&E serves, as businesses having gas

and electricity can remain open, lessening the overall economic impact to the community.

PG&E has been able to leverage their efforts to improve earthquake safety and

reliability of their gas and electric systems through the development of user-driven,

public/private research partnerships, funded in part by NEHRP programs. Three examples are presented below.

PG&E/U.S. Geological Survey—The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake provided an

opportunity and motivation for PG&E to focus on better understanding the nature

and character of earthquake hazards in Central and Northern California, PG&E’s

service territory. After extensive discussions with the USGS Menlo Park office in

1992, PG&E entered into a non-financial Cooperative Research and Development

Agreement (CRADA) with the USGS. We agreed to cooperate on research on earthquake hazards throughout the greater San Francisco Bay Area. Based on the success of this effort, in 1996 the agreement was modified into a financial CRADA.

Over the next few years PG&E provided $4.4 million in funding for projects with

USGS scientists that would focus on PG&E’s needs for system safety and reliability

improvements. Generally, the projects include studies to better understand the location and characteristics of specific active faults, the effects of strong ground shaking,

local site effects known to influence the degree of damage at particular locations,

and the nature of ground failure mechanisms (landslides and liquefaction). Many

projects have been completed, and the results are being used to help reduce earthquake risks not only to PG&E facilities, but also to PG&E’s industrial customers,

private homeowners, and the public at large.

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center—The research results from

the PG&E/USGS cooperative program feeds directly into another user-driven, applied research, public/private partnership, the PEER Lifelines Research Program.

Program partners include PG&E, Caltrans, and the California Energy Commission

(CEC), under the auspices of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center

(PEER), at the University of California at Berkeley.

In 1996, PG&E and the University of California entered into an agreement to

focus applied research efforts toward improving the earthquake performance (safety

and reliability) of gas and electric systems in California. The concept of the users

driving the research agenda, in collaboration with the best earthquake researchers,

was the focus of this initial partnership. PG&E engineers are intimately involved

in selecting research topics, as well as guiding the research. This collaboration provides a mechanism for research results to be immediately implemented to improve

system performance during earthquakes.

The initial funding from PG&E was $3.5 million, however, the user-driven concept

interested Caltrans for their earthquake safety and reliability research program for

bridges and highways, and a matching funding arrangement was established. The

combined leveraged funding from PG&E, Caltrans, and the CEC to support the

PEER Lifelines Research Program is now at $13 million, through 2004. We are

seeking additional partners to participate in the benefits of the research and to join

in future funding of user-focused applied research. Additional matching funding

from NEHRP funding agencies would provide opportunities to enhance the userdriver research.

American Lifelines Alliance—The formation in 1997 of the American Lifelines

Alliance (ALA) initially by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (now

with the Multi-hazard Mitigation Council within the National Institute of Building

Sciences, NIBS) is in direct response to needs for improved lifeline performance that

were identified more than ten years ago, and was specifically required in the 1990

reauthorization of the NEHRP. Leaders from lifeline organizations strongly endorsed the need for developing and adopting seismic design guidance for lifelines in

a 1997 Lifeline Policy-makers’ Workshop.

The ALA’s objective is to facilitate the creation, adoption, and implementation of

design and retrofit guidelines and other national consensus documents that, when

37

implemented by lifeline owners and operators, will systematically improve the performance of lifelines during natural hazard and human threat events. The current

participants in the partnership include FEMA, NIBS, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation, PG&E, Rohn Industries, Pima County, Arizona, and various

private sector consultants.

Although the formation of the ALA was closely tied to concerns regarding earthquake threats, the consideration of multiple hazards was determined necessary by

the ALA to facilitate decisions on design and retrofit measures to achieve improvements in reliability on a national scale, where the level of risk from various natural

hazards is highly variable. The initial focus of ALA guidance development was on

all natural hazards, including earthquakes, floods, windstorms (including hurricanes

and tornadoes), icing, and ground displacements (including landslides, frost heave,

and settlement). However, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks,

FEMA directed the ALA to address hazards posed by human threats, including

blast, chemical, biological, radiological, and cyber threats. The utility and transportation systems appropriate for the ALA process include electric power transmission

and distribution, natural gas transmission and distribution, potable water conveyance and distribution, waste water transportation and processing, oil and liquid fuel

handling, transport, and storage, highways, railroads, ports and inland waterways,

air transportation, and telecommunications.

The ALA is working closely with the Lifelines Subcommittee of the Interagency

Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction, which is charged with assisting federal departments and agencies to develop and incorporate earthquake hazard reduction measures in their ongoing construction programs. The ALA’s efforts to develop

national consensus guidance documents are aligned with many of the objectives of

the Lifelines Subcommittee. ALA products will provide appropriately qualified seismic guidance, and the Lifelines Subcommittee can help in the preparation and adoption of such guidance by federal agencies. The ALA has developed matrices that define the current status of natural and manmade hazards guidance available in the

United States for lifeline system operators and other interested parties.

ALA guidelines published in the last two years include Seismic Fragility Formulations for Water Systems, Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe, Seismic Design and Retrofit of Piping Systems, Extreme Ice Loads from Freezing Rain, and

Guidelines to Define Natural Hazards Performance Objectives for Water Systems.

Guidelines currently in preparation include those to evaluate the performance of

electric power, oil and natural gas pipelines, and waste water systems during natural hazard and terrorist threat events.

Misplaced Complacency

Many public policy-makers know that earthquakes are infrequent and assume

they can be safely ignored in favor of more pressing issues; but they can be assured

that if a catastrophic earthquake occurs on their watch, the truth will be revealed.

Public perception, it could be said, might be that the United States is not that vulnerable to earthquakes, because the number of lives lost has been exceptionally low

compared with that in other countries. The fact is, it has been a matter of luck that

earthquake deaths have not been higher in the United States. Thirty-nine states

have an earthquake threat, and it is just a matter of time before disaster strikes.

We cannot afford to rely on good fortune to minimize earthquake loss of life. Let’s

look at a few examples.

1971 San Fernando, California Magnitude 6.7 Earthquake—The San Fernando earthquake was a direct hit beneath the San Fernando Valley, a few miles

north of downtown Los Angeles. The earthquake occurred at 6:00 A.M., when most

people were safe at home. The Lower San Fernando Dam was severely damaged and

would have experienced massive failure, except the reservoir had been drawn down

for maintenance a few days before the earthquake. We were lucky that the duration

of the shaking was short. Had the earthquake lasted a few more seconds, the dam

would have massively failed, releasing the water in the reservoir onto the 80,000

people living directly downstream. The first floor of the outpatient facility at the

new Olive View Hospital massively collapsed, but it was unoccupied because of the

early morning hour of the earthquake; later in the day, the facility would have had

hundreds of patients.

1989 Loma Prieta, California Magnitude 7.1 Earthquake—In spite of the fact

that a major earthquake struck the San Francisco Bay Area on October 17, 1989,

losses were minimal; there were only 63 deaths. We take credit for the fact that we

had an aggressive program of seismic safety improvements throughout the Bay

Area, and that helped limit the losses. However, we were lucky. The center of the

energy release along the San Andreas fault was in the Santa Cruz Mountains, 30

38

to 50 miles from the major cities. Had the earthquake been closer, damage, particularly to the older building stock that had not been seismically upgraded, would have

been disastrous. It occurred at 5:04 P.M., commute time, the worst time of day for

an earthquake according to earthquake scenarios, because the streets are filled with

people and the freeways are jammed with traffic. An upper section of the Bay

Bridge dropped onto the lower deck, and the Cyprus double-decker freeway in Oakland massively collapsed. These two structural failures could have been the source

of hundreds of deaths. But we were lucky. The World Series Earthquake, as it has

been called, occurred at the beginning of the third game of the World Series between

the two Bay Area teams, the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland Athletics. The

freeways and bridges were eerily empty while people were inside, watching the

game. It was also fortunate that, because of the game, we had media coverage of

the earthquake that lasted more than two weeks, helping to raise awareness of the

earthquake threat.

1994 Northridge, California Magnitude 6.7 Earthquake—The Northridge

earthquake also occurred during the early morning hours, 4:31 A.M., on Martin Luther King Day. Had the earthquake occurred only a few hours later on the national

holiday, the near-massive collapse of the Bullocks Department Store in Northridge

would have resulted in more deaths in that one building than all the deaths (57)

in the entire region affected by the earthquake. Thousands of commercial buildings

were badly damaged and many collapsed, and many freeway bridges collapsed, but

they were all virtually empty at the time of the earthquake.

2001 Nesqually, Washington Magnitude 6.8 Earthquake—The February 28,

2001 earthquake that struck the Nesqually district of Seattle, Washington resulted

in only minor casualties and localized damage. The lack of significant damage and

casualties were due to two important factors: the focal depth of the earthquake of

was two to three times deeper (55 km) than most damaging earthquakes, and for

the past few decades the Seattle region has adopted an aggressive seismic safety

improvement program, particularly with support from FEMA’s Project Impact during the 1990s. However, just prior to the earthquake, due to Mardi gras-related riots

in Pioneer Square and the Sodo District, the police had barricaded the area to public

access. We were lucky because in this old part of the city, unreinforced masonry

walls fell into the streets when the earthquake struck, and would have resulted in

many casualties had people been allowed normal access.

2002 Denali Fault, Alaska Magnitude 7.9 Earthquake—The second largest

earthquake ever to strike the United States, the magnitude 7.9 earthquake on November 3, 2002 on the Denali fault, was a media non-event. This was partly because

the earthquake struck a very remote region of Alaska. We were lucky this large

earthquake was released on a fault in Alaska, rather than along one of the many

faults close to major population centers in California. A similar earthquake along

any of the faults associated with the San Andreas fault would have resulted in thousands of deaths and direct and indirect economic losses that could have easily exceeded $200 billion.

But it was also a media non-event because the only significant structure situated

in the path of this potentially devastating earthquake did not fail. It was not a matter of luck that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline performed so well. It was exceptional scientific assessment of the earthquake hazards and innovative engineering design

that prevented an oil spill. The Denali fault experienced 18 feet of horizontal and

2.5 feet of vertical displacement at the pipeline crossing of the fault. Thirty years

ago, state-of-the-art NEHRP-type scientific evaluations of the hazards and innovative engineering design were applied to assure the pipeline was well prepared to accommodate the earthquake.

Seventeen percent of U.S. crude oil flows through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The

State of Alaska depends on the pipeline for eighty percent of its revenue. If damaged, the pipeline could have been disabled for many months, causing gas prices to

soar. It is possible that if the pipeline had broken, the resulting environmental disaster would cause the pipeline never to be restored.

Recommendations

Earthquake Monitoring—Most of the earthquake monitoring instrumentation

that has been installed and maintained over the past 50 or more years is focused

on identifying the source of earthquakes and understanding the overall physics of

the earth. Although these seismic networks have provided important data contributing to the development of seismic hazard maps, they do not provide engineers and

emergency responders the strong-motion information needed to maximize our understanding of how essential lifelines, system components, and specific buildings were

39

affected during damaging earthquakes. There is an urgent need to fully implement

the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), designed to expand, and at some

locations, replace current earthquake monitoring systems to provide critically needed information for the benefit of the earthquake engineering and emergency response communities.

The ANSS was authorized by Congress in 2000, but is not yet fully appropriated.

Strong-motion information is critical to making the next breakthrough in understanding how to economically halt the growth of earthquake risk and reduce it to

acceptable levels. The next major destructive earthquake is overdue in a wide variety of locations across the country. The ANSS is the most important new program

needed by the NEHRP. Installing this instrumentation after the next destructive

earthquake will be too late; we need the data that can be recorded during that

earthquake.

Leadership—Leadership has been an issue since the inception of NEHRP. The Program has experienced fragmentation, frustrating the attempts to achieve the Act’s

goal of a coordinated hazard reduction effort. A few examples of the fragmentation

will highlight the problem. The budget process is divided among four agencies, four

different budget examiners at the Office of Management and Budget, and three subcommittees of the House Appropriations Committee. There is no single line item in

the President’s budget for the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, even though

there is statutory authority for the program.

The Act provides broad, multiple goals, all of which are important elements of a

comprehensive earthquake hazard reduction program. The existence of multiple

goals, tight fiscal constraints, and no strong, centralized mechanism to guide and

coordinate agency efforts and expenditures results in the available resources being

spread too thin.

The NEHRP 5-year strategic plan (Expanding and Using Knowledge to Reduce

Earthquake Losses: The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Strategic

Plan 2001–2005,’’ March 2003) should be a guiding document, and each agency’s

budget should be in step with it, but they are not. At present, there is no provision

for meaningful accountability. Without an incentive to carry out priorities, participating agencies need not follow the plan. As a result, multiple approaches to the

same problem, imbalances between user needs and federal services and products,

competition among agencies, and lack of cooperation make the program less effective.

Earthquake programs and hazard-reduction priorities are too important to risk

being lost among competing demands and priorities. In California, important earthquake programs were but a small portion of the overall responsibilities of departments responsible for emergency response, geologic hazards, and structural engineering. The State responded by establishing a Seismic Safety Commission as an

independent and single-minded body charged with making certain that earthquake

safety is never overlooked. A similar independent, permanent oversight advisory

body should be established to direct the NEHRP.

I propose that a NEHRP advisory committee be established to advise the four participating agencies (FEMA, USGS, NSF, and NIST). The committee would be composed of non-Federal Government experts from State and local government and the

private sector who are involved in reducing earthquake risks. The advisory committee would help the NEHRP agencies set goals and priorities and see that they

are being met, provide coordination, and assure that a consistent, focused national

program is followed. This body would be independent of the member agencies, and

would report to Congress annually. It would provide overall direction, stature, and

visibility to the program.

I recommend the Subcommittee consider amendments to assure the National

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and its component parts are managed in

an integrated manner. The Act should be amended to provide for strong coordination and accountability.

The Future

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program is at a crossroads, and this

reauthorization provides a meaningful opportunity for an overall look at the program. We should seize the opportunity of FEMA’s new position within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and recognize the synergies between addressing

earthquake threats and terrorist threats.

I was at the annual meeting of the Seismological Society of American in San

Juan, Puerto Rico last week, and read in the morning paper (San Juan Star, May

2, 2003) that Anthony Lowe, head of FEMA’s Mitigation Division, was in town to

give $75 million to the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority to protect the metropolitan area’s electric system against hurricane-strength winds. The FEMA could

40

have leveraged the value of this funding if it had been realized that putting electric

grids underground would also make them less vulnerable to earthquakes and terrorism. The American Lifelines Alliance, mentioned earlier, has realized that you

get more bang for the buck if you have an all-hazards perspective. I believe FEMA’s

new situation within DHS gives NEHRP an exciting opportunity to be part of a

much larger effort to protect the Nation against not only other natural hazards, but

human threats, as well.

Even greater strides could be made if other federal agencies that have responsibilities in seismic safety were included in national planning for earthquake hazards

reduction. The Department of Energy, Department of Defense, Department of

Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban Development, General Services

Administration, Veterans’ Administration, Corps of Engineers, NASA, and the Bureau of Reclamation all have (or should have) programs that address earthquakes.

The NEHRP should consider and give guidance to the efforts of these agencies.

The NEHRP needs to continue under an improved organizational structure and

proceed along the lines of the overdue, but recently published, NEHRP Strategic

Plan. The Strategic Plan outlines a course of action for the best use of existing funding and prioritizes opportunities for accelerating the program as additional funding

becomes available. It outlines a balanced and accelerated approach that calls for

Federal-level leadership and incentives focused on the adoption of proper public policy and expanded funding for the activities needed to develop new design techniques

aimed at making mitigation affordable.

A strong, viable NEHRP must include proactive implementation through increased funding, incentives for risk reduction, new public policy, and inspired leadership. As pointed out in the recent Earthquake Engineering Research Institute report, Securing Society Against Catastrophic Earthquake Losses (Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California, 2003), at current funding levels, it

will likely take 100-plus years to secure the Nation against unacceptable earthquake risks. Based on EERI’s research and outreach plan, implementing an expanded program that has three times the funding and includes full appropriations

for ANSS and NEES, will provide the needed earthquake risk reduction results in

the next 20 to 30 years. The next major earthquake will demonstrate that 100 years

is much too long to wait.

Unless seismic safety is afforded a priority that is now lacking throughout the 39

states that have significant earthquake exposure, the United States will experience

unacceptable and avoidable deaths and economic losses from future earthquakes.

We have been lucky, we cannot afford to base our earthquake public policy on dumb

luck.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee.

BIOGRAPHY FOR LLOYD S. CLUFF

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California, 1985–Present

Manager, Geosciences Department

• Responsible for assessments of PG&E facilities with respect to earthquake

and geologic hazards, soil and rock foundation conditions, and groundwater

contamination

• Program Manager of the Diablo Canyon Long-Term Seismic Program

—Responsible for technical and administrative management of the program

—Directed studies in seismic geology, geophysics, seismology, earthquake

engineering, and probabilistic risk assessment, which were required by

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the comprehensive re-evaluation of the seismic safety of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant

—Manager of PG&E’s Earthquake Risk Management Program

California Seismic Safety Commission, Sacramento, 1985–1999

Commissioner

Vice Chairman, 1986–1988; Chairman, 1988–1990 and 1995–1997; Chairman of

Research Committee, 1988–1999; Cellular Telecommunication Seismic Risk

Task Group, 1991–1992; Chairman of Committee on Acceptable Earthquake

Risk Policy for State Buildings, 1990–1991

Woodward-Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, California, 1960–1985

Vice President, Principal, and Director

41

• Responsible for technical and administrative functions related to geologic,

seismologic, geophysical, and earthquake engineering investigations and

evaluations

• Projects included siting and design studies for critical facilities worldwide

University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, 1967–1973

Associate Professor of Geology and Geophysics (Visiting)

Lottridge, Thomas and Associates, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1960

Geologist

El Paso Natural Gas Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1957–1959

Junior Geologist

University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1958–1960

Teaching Assistant

EDUCATION

Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 1951–1954

University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, B.S., Geology, 1960

REGISTRATIONS

Geologist: California No. 1725

Certified Engineering Geologist: California No. EG567

AFFILIATIONS

Association of Engineering Geologists—Board of Directors, 1966–1970; Vice President, 1967–1968; President, 1968–1969

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute—Board of Directors, 1976–1980 and

1991–1995; President-Elect, 1992–93; President, 1993–1995; Past President,

1995–1996; Learning from Earthquakes Committee, 1985–1997

California Earthquake Safety Foundation—Board Member, 1989–1997; Vice President, 1991–1997

Geological Society of America International Association of Engineering Geology—

Vice President, 1970–1974; Chairman, Commission on Seismicity, 1970–1976

Seismological Society of America—Board of Directors, 1980–1986; Vice President,

1981–1982; President, 1982–1983

Structural Engineers Association of Northern California

HONORS

U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey; John Wesley Powell Award, 2000

California Earthquake Safety Foundation; Alfred E. Alquist Medal, 1998

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; elected Honorary Member, 1996

California Academy of Sciences; elected Fellow, 1992

Structural Engineers Association of Northern California; Degenkolb Award, 1992

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Excellence Award, 1992

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Excellence Award, 1991

Woodward-Clyde Consultants; Woodward Lecturer Award, 1979

National Academy of Engineering; elected Member, 1978

International Atomic Energy Agency; Distinguished Lecturer Award, 1975

American Society for Testing and Measurements; Hogentagler Award, 1968

Listed in Engineers of Distinction, Who’s Who in Science, and Who’s Who in America

RELATED EXPERIENCE

Post-Earthquake Field Studies

Post-earthquake field studies of many destructive earthquakes throughout the world

including Hebgen Lake, Montana 1959; Alaska 1964; Parkfield, California 1966;

Caracas, Venezuela 1967; Dasht-E Bayaz, Iran 1968; Santa Rosa, California

1969; Peru 1970; San Fernando, California 1971; Managua, Nicaragua 1972;

Oroville, California 1975; Guatemala 1976; Romania 1977; Tabas, Iran 1978;

Livermore, California 1980; Algeria 1980; Egypt 1981; Mexico City 1985; Soviet

Armenia 1988; Loma Prieta, California 1989; Manjil, Iran 1991; Cape

Mendocino, California 1992; Landers-Big Bear, California 1992; Northridge,

California 1994; Kobe, Japan 1995; and Lijiang, Yunnan, China 1996; Kocaeli,

Turkey, 1999; Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999; and Duzce, Turkey 1999.

42

Active Fault Field Studies

Studies of the relationship of tectonics, seismic geology, and seismicity of many active fault zones throughout the world including those in New Zealand, Australia, Chile, Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Costa

Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, E1 Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Japan, Taiwan,

India, Nepal, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, Russia,

Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Romania, Switzerland, Spain,

Portugal, Italy, western United States, British Columbia, and Alaska. Served as

an advisor to the governments of many of these countries regarding the evaluation of earthquake and geologic hazards and risk and the formulation of seismic

safety guidelines and public policy, especially in the siting, design, and construction of critical facilities.

Publications

Authored and co-authored more than 180 technical papers on subjects relating to

seismic geology, paleoseismicity, regional seismicity, earthquake hazards and risk,

earthquake engineering, and seismic safety of critical facilities. These papers have

been published in the proceedings and journals of national and international scientific and engineering associations and societies.

Lectures

Invited lecturer and keynote speaker on seismic geology, seismicity,

paleoseismicity, earthquake hazards, engineering geology, and seismic safety at numerous national and international symposia, conferences, universities, associations,

and societies.

Research, Consulting, and Professional Activities

2002-present—Alyeska Pipeline Service Company; member, Senior Earthquake Advisory Panel to advise on seismic safety issues following November 3, 2002

Denali Fault Earthquake.

2002-present—Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee; Chairman of

committee that advises on National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

activities of the U.S. Geological Survey.

2000—National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy

of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine; member of U.S./IRAN Interacademies

Cooperative Initiative, a delegation to the Islamic Republic of Iran to normalize

relations between the U.S. and Iran.

1999–2002—World Bank and People’s Republic of China; member of Dam Safety Review Panel for Baise Dam Project, southwestern China.

1999–2001—Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant, City of San Francisco HetchHetchy Water System; advise on seismic issues of proposed construction near

Calaveras fault.

1998–2000—Federal Emergency Management Agency; member of National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program Advisory Panel.

1997–1999—National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council; member of

Committee on Assessing the Costs of Natural Disasters.

1997–1999—Institute for Business and Home Safety, the Subcommittee on Natural

Disaster Reduction, and the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy;

member of organizing committee for Public-Private Partnership, PPP–2000, Forums on Public Policy Issues in Natural Disaster Reduction.

1997–1999—Government of Portugal; Empresa de Desenvolvimento a Infraestruturas do Alqueva, S.A.; evaluated seismic hazards and risks for the proposed Alqueva Dam. The dam will create the largest reservoir in Europe; reservoir-triggered seismicity is a concern for the environment.

1996–2001—Southern California Earthquake Center; member of Advisory Board.

1996–1999—National Academy of Sciences; member of Board On Natural Disasters

to advise Congress, the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, and

government agencies with regard to reducing losses from natural disasters.

1994–2002—Greater Vancouver Water District; member of Seismic Review Board

evaluating and providing advice on the seismic safety of the district’s major

dams.

1993-present—Israel Electric Corporation; Chairman of Seismic Review Board providing advice on the seismic safety of siting and constructing a commercial nuclear power plant in Israel.

1993–1996—U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and

Electric Power Research Institute; member of Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis

Committee to develop state-of-the-art implementation guidelines and methods

43

for the performance of probabilistic seismic hazard analyses for the seismic regulation of nuclear power plants and other critical facilities.

1990–1994—Los Angeles Harbor Department; member of 2020 Program Technical

Review Committee to evaluate and provide advice on seismic hazards affecting

proposed harbor development scheduled for completion in the year 2020.

1991–1993—B.C. Hydro; member of Provincial Seismic Review Panel to evaluate

and provide advice on the seismic hazards to British Columbia’s hydroelectric

facilities and power systems.

1991—National Academy of Sciences; member of Project Site Evaluation Review

Committee, Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observation (LIGO), at

the California Institute of Technology.

1990–1992—Yukon Pacific Corporation; member of Earthquake Consulting Board

advising on the feasibility of design and construction of a Liquefied Natural Gas

Terminal near Valdez, Alaska.

1989–1990—National Academy of Sciences; member of U.S. National Committee for

the Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction.

1986–1990—The National Earthquake Prediction Council; member of Working

Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, which published two reports

(1988 and 1990) on the probabilities of large earthquakes on the San Andreas

and associated fault systems.

1986–1989—National Academy of Sciences; member of Committee Advisory to the

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), advising the Director of the USGS and Chief

Geologist on the broad spectrum of activities within the USGS.

1987–1988—National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering;

member of Super-Conducting Supercollider Site Selection Committee to review

fifty proposed sites and select seven for consideration by the Department of Energy.

1988—Department of Energy Defense Program; member of New Production Reactors Seismic Design Criteria Team to develop site-specific earthquake design

criteria for Savannah River and Idaho nuclear facilities.

1987—National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program; member of Expert Review

Committee to review NEHRP program, identify critical issues, and provide recommendations to assist in revising the Five-Year Hazards Reduction Plan and

proposed budget.

1984–1987—National Academy of Sciences; member of subcommittee to evaluate

earthquake programs of the U.S. Geological Survey.

1982–1986—High and Aswan Dam Authority, Ministry of Irrigation, Government of

Egypt, and U.S. Agency for International Development; director of a comprehensive program to evaluate earthquake activity and dam stability. There was concern for reservoir-induced seismicity and the potential for large earthquakes to

affect the Aswan High Dam and the safety of Egypt.

1982—U.S. Agency for International Development and National Science Foundation;

Chairman of Aswan High Dam Seismic Safety Review Panel formed at the request of the Government of Egypt following the occurrence of a damaging earthquake beneath the reservoir of the High Dam in 1981.

1969–1986—Commission Federal Energia Atomica and Commission Federal de

Electricidad, Mexico; advised on siting nuclear power plants in Mexico.

1982–1985—National Academy of Sciences; member of Panel on Active Tectonics.

1972–1985—Interconnection Electrica, S.A.; directed studies of seismicity and seismic hazards for the feasibility of siting large dams, reservoirs, and related hydroelectric facilities throughout Colombia, including Ituango, Canafisto, Alto

Sinu, Rio Negro, San Carlos, Penderisco, and Troneras.

1974–1985—Israel Electric Corporation; provided advice on earthquake hazard evaluations regarding the technical feasibility of siting a commercial nuclear power

plant.

1970–1985—Government of Venezuela; directed geologic and seismic studies regarding the siting of major dams, reservoirs, and related hydroelectric facilities including Yacambu, Uribante-Caparo, La Honda, La Vueltosa, and Borde Seco.

1969–1985—International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna; Nuclear Power Plant

Siting Missions. On behalf of the agency and according to the IAEA siting criteria, evaluated the siting of nuclear power plants in Mexico, Chile, Portugal,

and Venezuela. These assignments included site visits, fieldwork, evaluating the

likelihood of successful licensing, meetings with the applicant, and writing reports on behalf of the IAEA.

1981–1984—National Academy of Sciences; member of Geological Sciences Board.

1978–1984—National Science Foundation and U.S. Geological Survey; member of

Earthquake Hazards Mitigation Advisory Panel.

44

1972–1984—Washington Public Power Supply System: Hanford Nuclear Siting

Studies; responsible for geologic and seismologic investigations to select sites of

proposed nuclear power plants Satsop Nuclear Power Plant; responsible for geologic and seismologic investigations that resulted in the licensing of the Satsop

site in Washington.

1973–1983—Ente Nazionale Per L’Energia Elettrica (Italian Electric Utility, ENEL);

directed detailed seismic studies toward the licensing of Italian nuclear power

plants. Proposed sites included Tarquina, Montalto di Castro, Torrente

Saccione, and Gargano.

1981–1982—INECEL, Ecuador; directed feasibility studies for dams and hydroelectric facilities in Ecuador, including regional fault and earthquake activity

studies to assess the earthquake potential of the Salado and Coca river regions.

1979–1982—Southern California Edison Company; San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station licensing studies. Responsible for evaluations of geologic, seismologic,

and earthquake engineering factors to develop a strategy for licensing, taking

into account U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission criteria, and the seismic

issues of intervenors.

1978–1982—Atomic Energy Commission of Portugal; identified acceptable regions

for nuclear power plant sites, after a capable fault was found to traverse Portugal’s first proposed site north of Lisbon, resulting in the site being abandoned.

All Portugal was studied to identify regions where nuclear power plant sites

would have a high likelihood of being licensed, based on IAEA seismic siting

criteria.

1977–1982—Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System Studies, Northwest Pipeline Company and Fluor Engineers and Constructors; responsible for assessing

potential seismic hazards along the pipeline corridor, and their significance to

pipeline design.

1977–1982—Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant

Studies; (In 1977, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission suspended the

plant’s operating license until adequate studies were completed to address seismic issues.) Directed detailed geologic and seismic investigations to answer specific issues raised by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding the potential for surface faulting at the site and the basis for defining the vibratory

ground motions.

1981—Western States Seismic Policy Council; member of Panel on Regional Tectonics and Seismic Safety.

1981—National Science Foundation; member of committee evaluating National Program for Strong-Motion Earthquake Instrument Arrays.

1980–1981—California Public Utilities Commission; chairman of Seismic Safety Review Panel for proposed Liquefied Natural Gas Facility at Point Conception,

California. Previously unknown active faults traversing the proposed site

caused a technical and political controversy and a loss of confidence in the safety of the site. At the conclusion of the Panel’s evaluation and report, and after

extensive hearings, all seismic safety issues were satisfactorily resolved and the

site was approved for facility design and construction.

1970–1981—Comitato Nazionale Per L’Energia Nucleare, (Italian Atomic Energy

Commission, CNEN); responsible for studies regarding seismicity and geologic

conditions at nuclear power facility sites in Italy, including Brasimone, Latina,

Tarquinia, Montalto di Castro, and Busalla.

1979–1980—National Academy of Sciences, U.S. National Committee for Rock Mechanics; member of Panel on Rock Mechanics Research Requirements.

1977–1980—National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences; member of

Panel on Earthquake Research for the Safer Siting of Critical Facilities.

1972–1980—President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy; advised on earthquake hazards and risk evaluations for the San Francisco Bay Area, the Los

Angeles Metropolitan Area, and the Salt Lake City Area.

1979—UNESCO; member of Panel on Earthquake Risk and Insurance, Cocoyoc,

Mexico.

1979—National Science Foundation; member of Joint U.S./Japan Symposium,

Earthquake Safety Through Urban Design, Tokyo, Japan.

1976–1979—National Academy of Sciences; member of Seismology Committee.

1975–1979—President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy; member of

Newmark-Stever Panel to develop a national program for earthquake prediction

and hazard mitigation for the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Science

Foundation.

1978—International Association for Earthquake Engineering, UNESCO, and the

National Science Foundation; member of International Workshop on Strong-Motion Earthquake Instrument Arrays.

45

1977–1978—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Melones Dam regional and site

studies, California; directed evaluations of faults as sources of future earthquake activity, the potential for surface faulting, and the potential for reservoirinduced seismicity at the site of the New Melones Dam on the Stanislaus River.

1976–1977—U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Auburn Dam regional and site studies,

California; directed detailed fault and earthquake investigations to assess the

earthquake and faulting potential at the proposed dam site, characterize the

earthquake ground motions, and evaluate the potential for reservoir-induced

seismicity.

1975–1978—Secretary of the Interior; member of Earthquake Advisory Panel to

evaluate earthquake programs of the U.S. Geological Survey.

1975–1977—California Seismic Safety Commission; member of Task Committee on

Seismic Hazards and State-Owned Structures.

1974–1977—Pacific Gas and Electric Company; directed Regional Inland California

Nuclear Power Plant Siting Studies, extensive and comprehensive regional geologic, seismologic, microearthquake, earthquake engineering, and groundwater

hydrology studies, as part of PG&E’s evaluation of potential sites for nuclear

power plants in the inland areas of central and northern California.

1972–1977—Atomic Energy Office of Iran; directed national nuclear power plant

siting studies of seismicity and earthquake faults to select power plant sites

within the Zagros Mountains and the Persian Gulf Coast regions of Iran.

1970–1976—UNESCO; member of International Panel of Experts on Seismic Phenomena Associated With Large Reservoirs.

1972–1974—Ministry of Planning, Managua, Nicaragua; directed post-earthquake

studies and earthquake hazards evaluations to assist the people of Nicaragua

in rebuilding following the devastating 1972 earthquake. Studies resulted in a

comprehensive seismic safety plan to rebuild Managua.

1972–1974—Alyeska Pipeline Service Company; directed Trans-Alaska Pipeline

Siting Study, a comprehensive program that identified and evaluated geologic

and seismic factors to be considered in the siting and design of the pipeline.

Where the proposed pipeline crossed active faults, developed design values for

surface fault displacements.

1970–1974—California Legislature’s Joint Committee on Seismic Safety; member of

Advisory Group on Land-Use Planning.

1970–1974—California Governor’s Earthquake Council; member

1972–1974—International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna; provided advice regarding seismic and geologic criteria for the siting of nuclear power plants.

1969–1973—U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, provided advice regarding seismic

and geologic criteria for the siting and design of nuclear power plants.

1968–1973—San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission; charter

member of the Earthquake Engineering Criteria Review Board.

1970–1972—Atomic Energy Commission of Chile; provided advice regarding seismic

review and siting of nuclear power plants in Chile.

1967–1972—President of Venezuela’s Earthquake Safety Commission; provided advice regarding seismic safety in Venezuela and recommended the establishment

of FUNVISES, the National agency charged to monitor seismic safety.

1966–1970—State of Utah and the Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey; member of Governor’s Earthquake Council regarding earthquake and geologic hazards in Utah.

1969—Office of the President and Secretary of the Interior; member of Santa Barbara Channel Oil Spill Panel to evaluate the 1969 Santa Barbara Channel oil

well blow-out and recommend measures to minimize future impact.

1968–1969—Commission Federal de Electricidad, Mexico; provided advice regarding

seismic review and feasibility of the proposed Sumidero Canyon hydroelectric

project.

46

Chairman SMITH. Dr. O’Rourke.

STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS D. O’ROURKE, PRESIDENT,

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE; THOMAS R. BRIGGS PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING, CORNELL UNIVERSITY

Dr. O’ROURKE. Chairman Smith and Members of the Subcommittee, it is, indeed, an honor to be here to be able to testify

on behalf of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

This is an organization of about 2,500 people. They come from

the geosciences, the engineering, and social science communities, so

it is a very integrated group of people. We are dedicated to seismic

risk reduction in the United States.

I have a Power Point presentation that I am looking for in the

projection here.

[Slide.]

This—I think we need to recognize that the National Earthquake

Hazards Reduction Program has been a highly successful program.

It has got a number of notable accomplishments that are very important for the United States and also set a model for the rest of

47

the world. We have been able to develop very good earthquake hazard maps, seismic design provisions for new buildings, rehabilitation guidelines for existing buildings, and loss estimation methodologies, which, as I mentioned before, are a model for the rest of

the world. And FEMA has been an implementer of these particular

provisions but has worked very closely with other NEHRP agencies

that have developed the research bases for these accomplishments.

In terms of recommendations, we believe, that is the Earthquake

Engineering Research Institute, that we need to maintain a strong,

viable NEHRP. So we urge that Congress do that. We think that

there are some recommendations that could be followed for improved leadership and agency integration. We urge you to support

the Advanced National Seismic System and the George E. Brown

network for earthquake engineering simulation. We also believe

that NEHRP, during its reauthorization, should be done so with a

thought for increased funding reflecting the—our research and outreach plan.

As you know, the Advanced National Seismic System will be putting in 6,000 new stations. These are critically important for monitoring seismic events in the United States. There is a concentration

on urban centers where our risk is the highest. And the ANSS also

produces shake maps, which provide almost in real time an estimation of what the magnitude and severity of earthquake ground

motion, which is used by emergency responders. And this is a very

important aspect of this, very important aspect of information technology application.

The George E. Brown network for earthquake engineering simulation purports to put together a laboratory, which involves the

entire United States. Currently there are 15 sites at different universities across the United States that are accessible by the entire

earthquake and—earthquake engineering and other communities.

It will be establishing, through high-performance Internet, the capability of doing research and testing at very high and sophisticated levels in a way that can be done at a number of different locations contemporaneously and represents a marvelous advancement in the application of practical information technologies and a

great boost for the education system.

Some of the leadership improvements that we envision for

NEHRP involve that NEHRP should have a visible place and designated staff within each NEHRP agency, especially Department of

Homeland Security. We also recommend that some consideration

be given that OMB assign, perhaps, one of the participating examiners to coordinate the budgeting within the four agencies so that

the funds are invested—that are invested will be balanced and

prioritized in a programmatic way. We recommend that Congress

ask the President to create an independent committee of external

experts responsible for oversight of NEHRP. This oversight committee would report to Congress no less than biannually, and we

note that similar recommendations have been made by experts previously convened to provide advice on NEHRP.

NEHRP funding has been subjected to eroding levels of support.

This is really quite serious, because we are not able to accomplish

what we need to and what we are able to do. NEHRP funding has

declined by 40 percent in real dollars since 1978. And this has been

48

hurtful. We must recognize that this type of funding situation is serious and has consequences that none of us wish to have. Perhaps

in the future, funding levels could be indexed at a computer—

through the consumer price index to at least provide some protection against inflation.

And then we also urge you to consider the EERI Research and

Outreach Plan. That plan is called ‘‘Securing society against catastrophic earthquake losses.’’ This is a consensus document. It has

been thoroughly reviewed by—reviewed and approved by the community. It provides a comprehensive 20-year plan. Part of that plan

is focused on increasing current allocations by over three-fold to

about $360 million a year for the first five years. And there is an

explicit game plan given for how that money would be allocated

and spent in important areas that contribute to our seismic safety.

This recognizes still 20 times less than annualized losses from

earthquakes in the United States.

These are the five components of the program. In the written testimony, there is a demonstration of the proportion of funding for

the first 5-year period of time, where that money would be spent.

The five different programs here, you will notice one is education

and outreach. This is public education outreach. But in each of the

other programs, at least 35 to 50 percent of the funding is focused

on implementation. Now what we mean by outreach is implementation, technology transfer, and education.

Now I want to point out that there are tremendous contributions

of earthquake engineering to our U.S. national technological infrastructure. Earthquake engineering advances are leveraged beyond

earthquakes. They are leveraged to other natural disasters. They

are leveraged to civil infrastructure improvements. They are leveraged to applied information technology, and they are leveraged to

homeland security. There are examples in the written testimony

that spell some of these examples out, which I think are very important to consider. They involve active and passive controls developed in earthquake applications, which are now applied for wind

control that are being considered for blast protection, advanced geographical information systems, particularly with respect to lifeline

networks, the kinds of gas and electrical and water supplies that

Dr. Cluff was talking about. There are the ATC 20 inspection procedures and a number of others.

And I would just like to illustrate the importance of this by looking at the Applied Technology Council 20 protocols, which were developed under NEHRP for rapid investigation and decision making

with respect to earthquake damage to buildings. This was an offthe-shelf protocol coming from NEHRP that was available after the

World Trade Center disaster, and it was used to examine explicitly

and in detail 460 buildings that surrounded the World Trade Center site. And as you remember during that event, it was critically

important to restore these facilities so that we had financial market security. Most of those buildings surrounding the World Trade

Center site were buildings that were the housings of—for financial

institutes, for banks, and so forth that needed to be operational so

that the markets could start the following week.

This technology was available because of NEHRP. So our—excuse me, our final recommendations again are to have a strong,

49

1 Eguchi, R.T., J.D. Goltz, C.E. Taylor, S.E. Chang, P.J. Flores, L.A. Johnson, H.A. Seligson,

and N.C. Blais (1996), ‘‘The Northridge Earthquake as an Economic Event: Direct Capital

Losses, Analyzing Economic Impacts and Recovery from Urban Earthquake: Issue for Policy

Makers,’’ EERI Conference, Pasadena, CA, October 10–11, pp. 1–28. 2 United Nations Center for Regional Development (1995), ‘‘Comprehensive Study of the Great

Hanshin Earthquake, Nagoya, Japan: UNCRD.’’ The damage cost was estimated at 9.916 trillion

yen by the Hyogo prefectural government, which, at an average exchange rate of 100 yen = one

U.S. dollar, converts to U.S. $99.2 billion (p. 194). This does not include indirect costs following

the earthquake (for example, loss of port revenue and disruption to other business activities).

The fatality total was 5,502 (p. 42).

viable NEHRP, to consider a leadership situation in which we have

an external board of experts that can help to plan and provide

oversight for the activities of NEHRP, and then finally to remember us in terms of the funding needs and the value that this particular program supplies. It is leveraged in ways that are very, very

important for a whole variety of different technologies, and especially homeland security. We like to look at earthquakes as an example of extreme events. And some of the things that we do are

applicable to other extreme events.

So I will end with a plea and with asking your consideration for

assistance with, sort of, stemming the tide of this eroding funding

situation and thinking very seriously about the model that has

been proposed by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

for increased support for this very valuable program.

Thank you very much, Chairman Smith.

[The prepared statement of Dr. O’Rourke follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS D. O’ROURKE

On behalf of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), I am pleased

to testify before the Subcommittee on Basic Research of the House of Representatives Committee on Science, and thank the members of the House for providing this

opportunity. My testimony has been prepared in coordination with past president

Chris Poland and the other members of the Board of Directors of the Earthquake

Engineering Research Institute, and I thank them for their insights and assistance.

Benefits of NEHRP

For the past 25 years, The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program

(NEHRP) has been the backbone for protecting U.S. citizens from the deadly and

economically disruptive effects of earthquakes and for seismic risk reduction

throughout our nation. Unfortunately, over 75 million Americans in 39 states are

directly vulnerable to serious earthquakes, all Americans are vulnerable to the economic and social upheaval that earthquakes incur, and despite the remarkable advances that have been made over the past 25 years, the earthquake risk to the U.S.

remains unacceptably high. Direct economic losses from the 1994 Northridge earthquake in the Los Angeles area were in excess of $40 billion.1 One year later, a severe earthquake struck Kobe, Japan, causing over $100 billion2 in direct damage

to buildings and facilities. There were more than 5500 deaths2 as a result of the

Kobe earthquake in a country that, like the U.S., is among the most technologically

advanced in the world.

We face inevitable earthquakes that will affect our urban centers nationwide. The

cost could reach $100 to 200 billion dollars each, with the potential loss of thousands of lives. At a time when our country is faced with threats of every kind, we

need a strong and enhanced NEHRP. The problem is two-fold, involving the lack

of implementation of appropriate building standards and the high cost of strengthening the existing built environment. We need to expand the protection and technologies that NEHRP is providing to reduce cost to affordable levels and encourage

the mitigation activities that will provide the needed protection.

NEHRP not only contributes to improved seismic performance, but contributes

markedly to improved performance and reliability under both normal operation and

extreme events associated with other natural hazards (e.g., hurricanes, floods,

strong wind, etc.), severe accidents, and terrorist activities. As will be demonstrated

later in this testimony, NEHRP investments are leveraged into improved safety and

reliability of all components of the Nation’s civil infrastructure, including buildings,

50

3Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000), ‘‘Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for

New Steel Moment Frame Building,’’ FEMA–350, Federal Emergency Management Agency,

Washington, D.C. 4Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000), ‘‘Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade for Steel Moment Frame Building,’’ FEMA–351, Federal Emergency Management Agency,

Washington, D.C. 5Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000), ‘‘Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade for Steel Moment Frame Building,’’ FEMA–352, Federal Emergency Management Agency,

Washington, D.C.

transportation systems, water supplies, gas and liquid fuel networks, electric power,

telecommunications, and waste disposal facilities.

Much has been accomplished under NEHRP, and earthquake engineering and

planning have made substantial advances because of its support. Major NEHRP

products include national earthquake hazard maps developed by the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS), seismic design provisions for new buildings developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), guidelines for the rehabilitation of

existing buildings and bridges developed by FEMA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), loss estimation methodologies developed by FEMA and

FHWA, and performance-based design procedures developed by FEMA and FHWA.

Many of these products are derived from fundamental research sponsored by the

National Science Foundation (NSF) with supplemental investigations and testing by

the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).

Because of the multitude of products and the need to compress information into

a focused testimony, it is only possible to illustrate with a few select examples how

research under NEHRP has improved our ability to protect lives and property from

earthquake hazards. Through geoscience research, for example, national seismic

hazard maps have been developed and adopted by the International Building Code

in 37 states. The maps affect billions of dollars of new construction, and are used

in seismic retrofits, earthquake insurance, community planning, and the design of

schools, hospitals, bridges, dams, and power systems. Through geotechnical engineering research, for example, the effects of site response and local soil conditions

on strong shaking have been quantified. Provisions for characterizing the amplifying

effects of different ground conditions have been introduced into building codes where

they are used to design public works, housing, and critical facilities.

Geotechnical engineering research has also made enormous progress in characterizing and stabilizing soils subject to liquefaction. During liquefaction, strong ground

shaking generates high water pressures in saturated sandy soil that, in turn, converts solid ground into a liquid that loses its capacity to support structures and

moves laterally, rupturing underground pipelines and damaging building foundations and waterfront facilities. Research in geotechnical engineering has produced

effective design procedures for liquefaction, developed equipment and maps for identifying liquefiable soils, and advanced ground stabilization technologies to remove

or substantially reduce the risk of liquefaction.

The current reconstruction of the Nation’s transportation networks under the ICE

TEA and TEA–21 programs has significantly benefited from NEHRP-sponsored research, including the USGS mapping program. The newest design guidelines and

codes for bridge design being utilized in many parts of the country include advanced

seismic design provisions and proper characterization of the seismic potential. The

hundreds of billions of dollars our nation is investing in infrastructure reconstruction are better protected from significant earthquake effects because of the NEHRP

program.

Structural engineering research under NEHRP has resulted in profound improvements in the ways we analyze and design buildings for earthquake shaking, the

methods we use to rehabilitate existing structures to perform safely in future earthquakes, and the advanced technologies we apply to isolate or control buildings from

the damaging effects of seismic motion. A good example of applied structural research is the SAC project3,4,5 in which university and industry participants combined to resolve problems related to welded steel moment frame buildings. Over 200

buildings of this structural type suffered brittle fractures at welded connections during the 1994 Northridge earthquake, and 10 percent of similar steel frame buildings

in Kobe collapsed during the 1995 Kobe earthquake.3 The SAC Joint Venture was

formed with FEMA sponsorship in mid-1994 to respond to this crisis. The structural

research, which was produced under fast track conditions, resulted in practical and

cost-effective standards of practice for the repair and upgrading of damaged steel

frame buildings, the design of new steel buildings, and the identification and rehabilitation of at-risk steel buildings.

The results of structural, geotechnical, and earth science research come together

in seismic design provisions, guidelines for rehabilitation of buildings, and loss estiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
51

6 NEHRP Agencies (2003), ‘‘Expanding and Using Knowledge to Reduce Earthquake Losses:

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Strategic Plan 2001–2005,’’ FEMA, NIST,

NSF, and USGS, March. 7 Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (1998), ‘‘Incentives and Impediments to Improving the Seismic Performance of Buildings,’’ Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, June.

mation methodologies that have been distributed throughout the Nation and adopted by building codes and communities in virtually every state of the union. The engine that drives earthquake-resistant practices and seismic risk reduction is the research made possible by NEHRP. U.S. research and engineering practices for earthquakes are models for the rest of the world, and are emulated globally. Not only

does the research supported by NEHRP protect lives and property from earthquake

hazards, it distinguishes the U.S. as being at the forefront of globally important and

life-saving technology. Our nation gains leverage from earthquake engineering research through worldwide improvements in safety, protection of life, and the exportation of our technology and engineering services overseas.

Evolution of NEHRP

Over the past 25 years, NEHRP agencies have developed a wide variety of products to improve significantly the practice of earthquake engineering. During this period the agencies have evolved and adopted their own roles and specific practices

within NEHRP.

FEMA, which has oversight responsibility for NEHRP, has taken on the role of

sponsoring the development of guidelines and standards for the seismic evaluation

and rehabilitation of existing buildings and for the design of new structures. Before

FEMA involvement, there was little coordinated work in this area. The effort consists of developing consensus guidelines, code provisions, and background materials,

all of which have fostered significant improvements in design worldwide, encouraged

the adoption of appropriate codes in earthquake-prone communities, and have allowed billions of dollars to be spent better on appropriate seismic mitigation and

hardening. FEMA’s role for new buildings began in 1982 when the agency assumed

responsibility for developing and updating seismic code provisions, which have become the basis for all national seismic codes and standards. FEMA’s role for existing

buildings began with a planning workshop in 1984 that set the course for what

products were needed. Over the subsequent 18 years, the work plan, twice updated,

has been implemented and professional practice greatly enriched.

The NEHRP agencies in their latest Strategic Plan,6 provide an objective look at

what now needs to be accomplished to advance the state of practice to the next

level. Many EERI members were participants in the development of this plan, and

we endorse the balance it calls for between research and outreach activities. Unfortunately, this plan, while completed in 2000, has never been published nor implemented. Without the guidance of such a plan, integrated and effective mitigation

programs are hampered. With continued FEMA support, we look forward to the implementation of strategic planning and the development of mature tools, techniques,

and policies to reduce seismic vulnerability in the U.S.

One of the key policies needed to stimulate implementation involves financial incentives. Unlike other national programs, such as the National Flood Insurance Program, the current NEHRP legislation contains no explicit provision and no authorized funding for encouraging communities to mitigate the adverse effects of earthquake hazards. We believe that a more concerted effort to encourage mitigation is

needed and recommend that a flexible program of incentives, tailored to the specific

needs and resources of localities, be developed. EERI published a report, entitled Incentives and Impediments to Improving the Seismic Performance of Buildings,7

which outlines the opportunities. We recommend that FEMA undertake a concerted

study to identify incentives, both tangible and intangible, that have motivated seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, and design an incentive program that is applicable to both local public and private buildings. To support such a study, as much

as five percent of the increased funding recommended for FEMA under the forthcoming section, entitled EERI Research and Outreach Plan, could be allocated to design and implement this incentive program.

The USGS has successfully developed a procedure for translating earth science

into the information needed for seismic design. This process has grown from individual efforts by USGS researchers to a collaborative program that regularly produces hazard maps for use by design professionals. They have developed a hazard

mapping office in Golden, CO that works closely with various guideline and standards organizations to assure that the information is immediately useful. This collaboration has allowed the design community to assess seismic hazards on a siteVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
52

8 Applied Technology Council (2003), ‘‘The Missing Piece: An Initiative to Improve Seismic Design and Construction Practices,’’ ATC–57, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, in

press.

by-site basis with increasing detail and reliability. The information produced by

USGS affects hundreds of billions of dollars of construction each year. USGS is currently building the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) that will modernize

and expand the earthquake monitoring system in the U.S., with concentrations in

urban environments and the collection of data pertaining to actual building response. If we are to arrest the growth of earthquake risk in the United States, the

USGS must continue to refine our understanding of the seismic potential throughout the country so that we can better pin-point the areas that need concentrated

mitigation activities. This problem is so large and expensive that we can not afford

to rely solely on the current information to guide our policy decisions.

NSF research started as a program that primarily involved individual researchers

in the early days of NEHRP. Although curiosity-driven, individual researcher support is still a vigorous component of the NSF plan, a significant part of its earthquake engineering research has evolved into a collaborative effort involving engineering research centers (ERCs). There are currently three earthquake ERCs and

an additional center focused on the earth science aspects of earthquakes, each of

which involve a large number of universities, enlist the support of industry, and engage in active outreach programs and K–12 education. The Centers are geographically distributed, with headquarters in California, Illinois, and New York. They

work on problems that are both regional and national in scope, and they collaborate

in areas of common expertise and interest. NSF also sponsors collaborative programs with researchers in other countries that have a significant commitment to

earthquake engineering, such as Japan, Taiwan, and Turkey. NSF is currently

building the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation

(NEES), which will consist of state-of-the-art experimental facilities distributed

across the U.S. working in unison through advanced telecommunications and high

performance Internet. If we are to arrest the growth of earthquake risk in the U.S.,

we must discover new techniques for understanding the vulnerability of structures

and more cost efficient methods for reducing the vulnerabilities to acceptable levels.

This requires NSF sponsored basic research, coordinated research, and development,

all of which include simulation and testing with the NEES equipment sites.

As the Nation’s standards agency, NIST has been the leader in the development

of seismic evaluation, rehabilitation, and design standards for federally owned,

leased or funded facilities. It serves as the secretariat agency of the Interagency

Council for Seismic Safety in Construction (ICSSC). NIST has assisted in the development of new structural systems that have advanced the state of practice in earthquake engineering. Most recently, NIST made significant contributions to the development of a hybrid, pre-cast, reinforced concrete structural system that achieves significant construction efficiencies and cost saving without sacrificing seismic performance. This innovation, which is known as the Pre-cast Hybrid Moment Frame

(PHMRF) System, has been implemented successfully in the construction of the

Paramount, a 39-story apartment tower in San Francisco.

Unfortunately, NIST’s work over the life of NEHRP has been constrained due to

a lack of funding. The capabilities of NIST need to be expanded and leveraged to

support the development of codes and standards. NIST needs to be authorized to

provide the applied research that is needed to speed the translation of basic research into practice. NIST is in the process of publishing a report8 on this ‘‘missing

link’’ that clearly identifies the work that needs to be done.

We also recommend that the Federal Government deal immediately and in a

proactive manner with its own inventory of buildings. Federal leadership, in terms

of design requirements for federal buildings, rehabilitation standards and programs

for existing buildings, minimum seismic standards for leased buildings and federally

funded projects are a key to stimulating nationwide interest in seismic safety. We

not only need the Federal Government to lead by example, we also need to protect

the millions of federal employees and guests that occupy federal buildings that do

not meet the governments own standards for earthquake safety.

EERI Research and Outreach Plan

EERI is a national, nonprofit technical society of engineers, geoscientists, architects, planners, public officials, and social scientists. The 2,500 members of EERI

include researchers, practicing professionals, educators, government officials, and

building code regulators. The objective of EERI is to reduce earthquake risk by advancing the science and practice of earthquake engineering, improving the understanding of the impact of earthquakes on the physical, social, economic, political and

53

9 Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (2003), ‘‘Securing Society Against Catastrophic

Earthquake Losses,’’ Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, March. 10 HAZUS 99, ‘‘Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States,’’ (2000),

FEMA–366, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

cultural environment, and by advocating comprehensive and realistic measures for

reducing the harmful effects of earthquakes.

EERI convened a panel, representing a broad and multidisciplinary cross-section

of its membership, to develop a Research and Outreach Plan.9 The plan includes

both practical and basic research, and contains an outreach component that addresses implementation, education, and technology transfer. This plan began with the

careful deliberations of the panel, and has been prepared with the counsel of the

NEHRP agencies. It has undergone careful and intense scrutiny by our members as

well as experts outside our membership. It represents the first comprehensive, consensus document from the entire earthquake engineering community about what

needs to be done from earth science, through structural engineering and architecture, to social science and public policy. This plan is currently in publication and

is receiving the endorsement of most of the significant stakeholders, users, and researchers who have dedicated their careers to achieving an acceptable level of earthquake safety. As of the preparation of this testimony, the organizations endorsing

the EERI Research and Outreach Plan include Applied Technology Council, California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC), Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup

(CREW), Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC), Consortium of

Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE), Council of American Structural Engineers, Mid-America Earthquake Center, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), National Fire Protection Association, Natural Hazards Center, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), Public Entity Risk

Institute, Seismological Society of America (SSA), and Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC).

At current funding levels, we believe that it will take over 100 years to secure

the Nation against unacceptable earthquake risks. Based on the recently released

Research and Outreach Plan, Securing Society Against Catastrophic Earthquake

Losses,9 we believe that if program funding is augmented 3 times the current level,

we will achieve the needed results in the next 20 years. The cost is estimated to

be on average $330 million per year for the 20-year duration of the plan, which is

less than one twentieth of the annual projected losses from earthquakes in the

U.S.10

We believe that this Research and Outreach Plan provides the essential basis for

seismic risk reduction by providing tools that will be easily understood, feasible, cost

beneficial, and adaptable. It calls for a five-fold program, consisting of research and

development pertaining to Understanding Seismic Hazards, Assessing Earthquake

Impacts, Reducing Earthquake Impacts, Enhancing Community Resilience, and Expanding Education and Public Outreach. Detailed descriptions of topics and work

are provided in the document for each program area, and interested parties should

refer to it for specifics.

Figure 1 shows the recommended funding proportions during the first five years

of the program. Separate categories for capital investments and information technologies are indicated in each pie chart. The recommended capital investments pertain to NEES experimental facilities, ANSS, and field instrumentation. It is assumed that the first five-year cycle of the program occurs in FY04–08. The recommended annual level of funding in the first five-year period is nearly $360 million, with a yearly $330 million average over 20 years.

54

We strongly recommend that NEHRP be reauthorized at an augmented level consistent with the EERI Research and Outreach Plan. We believe that this will require

the funding authorization for FEMA related to NEHRP to be increased to approximately $70 million per year, NIST to $20 million, NSF to $140 million, and USGS

to $130 million.

We believe that the basic proportions illustrated in Figure 1 represent the appropriate funding allocations within the NEHRP program. As the level of overall funding increases, we will achieve the goal of reducing the effects of earthquakes at an

accelerating rate. As a minimum, we firmly believe that support significantly exceeding current funding horizons is critically important for ANSS and NEES in

FY04–08.

ANSS is fundamentally important for NEHRP. Advancements in earthquake understanding and earthquake engineering occur after major earthquakes. The response of the built environment to strong shaking continues to provide real time

clues to what works and what doesn’t. To maximize our understanding, we need to

know how strong the ground is shaking, and we need to understand fully the extent

of damage that has been caused. ANSS will consist of 6,000 new instruments concentrated in high-risk urban areas to monitor ground shaking and the response of

buildings and structures, together with upgraded regional and national networks

and data centers. ANSS will provide scientists with high quality data to understand

earthquakes, engineers with information about building and site response, and

emergency response personnel with near-real-time earthquake information.

Appropriations for ANSS are only proceeding at one-tenth the planned rate. Every

year that we delay the deployment of ANSS we run the risk of missing the opportunity to record the shaking in a manner that will be useful to the engineering community. ANSS is the most critical new program needed by NEHRP. Putting the instrumentation in after the next earthquake will be too late.

NEES is a nationwide resource of advanced research equipment sites networked

through the high performance Internet. The network is focused on improving the

seismic design and performance of U.S. public and private works through advances

in the technologies applied in civil, mechanical, and telecommunication systems. The

network will use state-of-the-art experimental and simulation capabilities to understand the behavior of critical facilities under complex earthquake loading and to test

and validate the analytical and computer models needed for effective engineering.

NEES will link sites throughout the U.S. and globally to create a shared resource

that benefits from open access and the contributions of leading researchers at multiple locations. Participation in NEES will involve educators, students, practitioners,

public sector organizations and interested individuals, all of whom will have access

to equipment, data, models, and software developed through the network. Because

the network is distributed throughout the Nation, it will draw attention to earthVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
55

quake vulnerability nationwide and the need for proper implementation and mitigation activities.

Support for NEES is support for our future and a significant boost for our education system. It is an effective means of promoting U.S. leadership in the engineering of critical civil and mechanical systems and in applying telecommunications to

energize the development of innovative and advanced technologies that benefit each

American citizen.

Information Technology and Earthquake Mitigation

Information technology (IT) enhances our ability to monitor seismic motion, predict how the ground will shake during a future earthquake, and model how structures respond. It provides the basis for rapid sensing and structural controls that

will make buildings perform better during seismic excitation. It provides for remote

data acquisition and interpretation coupled with rapid communication and visualization to direct emergency response. In the future, we will find that IT becomes

a unifying and complementary force for decision-making that will be embedded in

the most basic and fundamental units of our communities. Hence, IT has the potential to improve how communities accomplish the necessary tasks to reduce vulnerability, coordinate local with regional planning, and prevent catastrophic earthquake loss.

Securing Society Against Catastrophic Earthquake Losses9 presents an overview

of IT applications to earthquake engineering, some of which are paraphrased here

to highlight opportunities for mitigating earthquake hazards. New developments in

micro-electromechanical sensors for acceleration, strain, pore water pressure, and

other quantities will significantly enhance our ability to collect and process large

volumes of data. Digital video, infrared, ultrasound, radar and lasers provide unprecedented opportunities for damage assessment. Satellite imaging, remote sensing, and high-resolution aerial photography provide new capabilities to capture and

update inventory information on the natural and built environment prior to an

earthquake, and to provide near real-time damage assessments after an event. Since

high-end computers will likely realize petaflop scale (1015 floating point operations

per second) computing well before 2010, computational simulation of the ground motion in an entire region, with unprecedented accuracy in simulation of the built environment and interpretation of data collected through sensors, will soon be possible.

In the post-earthquake environment, IT is providing a more efficient way of collecting data, coordinating reconnaissance teams, monitoring reconnaissance, and

analyzing and distributing data. Information technology improves our ability to capture a wide range of observations and lessons after earthquakes. Data that would

otherwise have perished after earthquakes can now be collected, stored, and made

accessible via IT advances.

One of the most important earthquake engineering applications of IT involves the

utilization of large numbers of sensors and related large-scale data collection. Widearea wireless networking is a key technology to link sensors to modern communication networks. NEHRP-sponsored programs are already early adopters of this technology. After the Northridge earthquake, FEMA funded an upgrading of the southern California seismic network with digital, broadband recording instruments that

report on measurements in virtual real time. The upgraded network, which is

known as TriNet, has proven its ability by rapidly locating the epicenters and determining the magnitudes of several significant earthquakes within minutes of their

occurrence. Maps showing the distribution and severity of ground shaking, known

as a ‘‘ShakeMaps,’’ were released swiftly and accessible through the Internet. This

application of IT is immensely useful to emergency management officials, and the

web sites showing contours of earthquake severity have become an integral part of

the decision-making process for allocating resources and organizing emergency response. Extending these concepts, a city fully instrumented with networked sensors

could include tens of thousands of sensors providing the data needed for radically

improving the knowledge base of earthquake response; video or other imaging systems would be used in damage assessment, emergency response, and disaster recovery.

Experience with TriNet was so successful that USGS used it as a framework for

developing ANSS. As discussed previously, ANSS will expand on the regional application of advanced IT in southern California to provide nationwide coverage specifically targeted on urban areas, where much of our vital public works and critical infrastructure are located.

Another example of advanced IT development and application under NEHRP is

the support that NSF provides to deploy a large-scale permanent global positioning

system (GPS) geodetic array in southern California, known as the Southern CaliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
56

11 Expert Review Committee (1989) ‘‘Commentary and Recommendations of the Expert Review

Committee 1987,’’ FEMA–164, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, Jan. 12 Cheney, D.W. (1989), ‘‘The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program,’’ 89–473 SPR,

Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Washington, DC, Aug.

fornia Integrated GPS Network (SCIGN). The array contains 250 stations. It uses

satellite measurement data to monitor small (sub-centimeter) movements between

stations, and thus determine the earth deformations that are a prelude to serious

earthquakes. Using the SCIGN data, scientists and engineers can learn how strains

build over time before their sudden release during an earthquake.

NSF with NEHRP support is driving a revolutionary application of IT through the

creation of NEES. As discussed previously, NEES is a new major research equipment, computation, and networking initiative. The system architecture is based on

grid computing that enables coordinated, flexible, and secure resource sharing and

problem solving in real time among geographically dispersed facilities and users.

Through its IT innovations, NEES will provide a world-renown resource for earthquake engineers to conduct advanced experiments, collect data, collaborate in improved simulations, and use all this information to improve design.

In summary, NEHRP to date has successfully harnessed IT. In many ways,

NEHRP is a model for introducing IT into the public arena, where it serves as a

catalyst for further public interest and incorporation in community activities. Because NEHRP involves several engineering and science-based agencies, it is able to

benefit from and capitalize on the cross-fertilization of ideas and technologies of diverse researchers and practitioners. This is a great strength of NEHRP, which has

contributed to cutting-edge development and application of IT to protect life and

property. This type of synergy needs support, and in return leverages investments

into technologies that not only reduce losses, but substantially enhance the

functionality and reliability of our nation’s infrastructure.

NEHRP Improvements and Policy Changes

As effective as NEHRP has been in supporting research and implementation of

great value to our country, it has been subject to some significant limitations that

need to be remedied if NEHRP is to achieve its full potential. The most significant

limitations affecting NEHRP are leadership and the eroding level of funding.

A new leadership model could be of great benefit for NEHRP. We recognize that

leadership is the joint responsibility of all NEHRP agencies, with FEMA taking a

lead role. We understand and support the fact that NEHRP was wisely split among

four separate agencies, which allows the expertise of each agency to contribute to

a significant national problem. We recognize and support the need for a lead agency

with the responsibility to coordinate and facilitate the program. Unfortunately, each

agency is within a different department of the executive branch, with its own Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) examiner and Congressional oversight committee. As a result, the coordination and cooperation among the agencies are hindered, especially when it comes to the budgeting details. Previous reauthorizing legislation has attempted to correct this problem by calling for strategic planning and

an interagency coordination committee. Although these adjustments in program administration have had beneficial results, additional improvements are also needed.

We recommend that more be done to bring consistency and collaboration to

NEHRP. We believe that the program should have a visible place and designated

staff within each agency. We recommend that OMB assign one of the participating

examiners to coordinate the budgeting within the four agencies so that the funds

invested will be balanced and prioritized on a programmatic basis. We recommend

that the Congressional Oversight and the Appropriations Committee also take steps

to bring together the members who oversee each of the related agencies, so that

they too will watch the program in its entirety and promote balance. Finally, we

recommend that Congress ask the President to create an independent committee of

external experts responsible for oversight of NEHRP. This oversight committee

would report to Congress no less than biannually. We note that similar recommendations have been made by experts11,12 previously convened to provide advice

for NEHRP. We believe that it is time to take up the implementation of this recurrent advice and make the improvements that will enhance NEHRP productivity.

NEHRP funding has fallen approximately 40 percent in real dollars since its inception in 1978.6 Committees convened in the past to recommend NEHRP improvements have consistently emphasized the serious erosion in capability and potential

that the steady decline in real dollars has incurred.11,12 The report of the Expert

Review Committee10 convened to guide FEMA in the development of the NEHRP

Five-Year Plan for 1989–1993, stressed the importance of increased funding and recommended more than a three-fold increase in the annual budget. Recognition of the

57

13Federal Emergency Management Agency (2002), ‘‘World Trade Center Building Performance

Study,’’ FEMA–403, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, May.

steady decline in fiscal support is echoed today in the EERI Research and Outreach

Plan, which recommends and provides justification for a similar increase in Congressionally authorized funding. If NEHRP is to provide the seismic risk reduction

required by this country in a reasonable amount of time and achieve its potential

in developing advanced technologies to safeguard U.S. infrastructure, then increased

fiscal support for the program needs to be authorized by Congress. We strongly recommend that increases in funding consistent with those proposed in Securing Society

Against Catastrophic Earthquake Losses9 and outlined above be authorized and appropriated by Congress. To reduce the effects of inflation, the resulting funding levels should be indexed to the Consumer Price Index, as many federal activities are,

thereby protecting earthquake mitigation support against the funding erosion that

has affected NEHRP since its inception.

FEMA Transfer to the Department of Homeland Security

FEMA is the designated lead agency for NEHRP. It is well qualified for this role.

Of all NEHRP agencies, it has the most direct responsibility and experience with

reducing losses from all natural disasters. It is focused on implementation, and has

long-term collaboration and working relationships with code development organizations, professional societies, and state, local, and private sector groups responsible

for reducing earthquake hazards.

The transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) brings

about significant mission, administrative, and cultural changes for the agency, for

which it is too premature to make pronouncements and prognostications of effect or

outcome. It is not too premature, however, to voice honest and supportive concern

about such a transfer. For NEHRP to continue its mission in a productive manner

and realize its potential, it needs a strong and dedicated group within DHS to provide oversight for and to administer the program. This requires a clear identity

within DHS with designated staff and agency commitment to the program. NEHRP

must be visible, and must be maintained as a clearly identified line item in the Congressional budget.

FEMA is a results-oriented agency with expertise in the implementation of research findings. It has management responsibility in contrast to the research responsibilities of NSF, USGS, and NIST. Steps must be taken to work across the cultural divide of management and research. We believe that an external expert oversight committee will help substantially to achieve this goal.

The transfer of FEMA to DHS provides substantial opportunities. DHS will have

responsibilities for research and implementation programs to support security of

U.S. home property and assets. Earthquake hazards are an integral part of this

package, and have important characteristics in common with the types of extreme

events that DHS has been created to control. Hence, the expertise of the earthquake

engineering community under NEHRP has both immediate and ongoing value to

DHS not only in seismic risk reduction, but in the protection of our communities

from a variety of hazards, related to natural, accidental, and pre-meditated causes.

As discussed under the next heading, the research and implementation created by

NEHRP have immense beneficial effects on U.S. technology and the reliability of its

civil infrastructure. Such outcomes leverage the value of NEHRP investments well

beyond their very positive influence in reducing earthquake losses.

NEHRP Effects on US Technology and Preparedness

Investments in earthquake engineering through NEHRP have resulted in technical advances that apply beyond earthquakes to other hazards, civil infrastructure,

applied information technology, and homeland security. A few of the many examples

include passive/active building control for wind hazards, advanced geographical information systems (GIS) for lifelines and civil infrastructure management, fiber-reinforced polymers for bridge/building repair and restoration, inspection protocol for

buildings applied after the World Trade Center (WTC) Disaster, seismic monitoring

of nuclear tests, and social science contributions to federal emergency response

plans, early warning systems, and community perception of risk.

One of the most dramatic examples of the application of earthquake engineering

to extreme events occurred immediately after the World Trade Center (WTC) Disaster of September 11, 2001.13 This attack on our urban infrastructure was unprecedented and beyond planning scenarios for serious urban accidents in terms of scale

and intensity. Fortunately, procedures developed for earthquakes under FEMA

58

14 Applied Technology Council (1989), ‘‘Procedures for Post-earthquake Safety Evaluation of

Buildings,’’ ATC–20, Applied Technology Council, San Francisco, CA. 15Federal Emergency Management Agency (1996), ‘‘The Oklahoma City Bombing: Improving

Building Performance through Multi-Hazard Mitigation,’’ FEMA–352, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

sponsorship14 were available and rapidly deployed to investigate and identify the

condition of surrounding buildings. For years before the WTC Disaster, engineers

had been responding to earthquakes that caused damage at scales comparable to

and exceeding the destruction resulting from the terrorist attacks of September 11.

Through NEHRP support, they had developed the tools to deploy rapidly, examine,

and assess the condition of buildings in a simple, practical way that allows for decisions about structural integrity. This process was of critical importance in the aftermath of the WTC Disaster, when determination of building integrity surrounding

the WTC complex was needed to protect lives and property, and to decide on reoccupancy of buildings with critical telecommunications, financial banking, and securities trading capabilities essential for the restoration of world business markets.

As a result of NEHRP, the inspection procedures to initiate WTC recovery were

available ‘‘off the shelf.’’ Although an unexpected and unintended outcome of

NEHRP, this example nonetheless illustrates the immense benefits that accrue from

our nation’s investment in earthquake protection.

In other cases, the influence of earthquake engineering investments are more subtle, though still of substantial importance. For example, research and implementation of fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs) for the seismic retrofitting of bridges and

overpasses after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake were a very important catalyst

in proving the technology and advancing its practical application under field conditions. Now this technology is used routinely for repair and rehabilitation of buildings and bridges throughout the country to enhance normal functionality and extend

facility life. The use of FRPs is extending the useful life of bridges, obviating the

need to replace expensive infrastructure throughout the U.S. They also can improve

the blast resistance of many existing buildings.

Another example includes the development of active and passive control to

dampen or isolate building response from the effects of earthquake shaking. Active

control uses sensors feeding into electrically activated devices that countermand

seismic motion, whereas passive control involves the use of base isolators and resisting members to substantially reduce transient movement within structures. Active

and passive control technology developed for earthquake effects has immediate benefits for similar systems to offset the effects of natural hazards like wind and hurricanes. Active and passive control systems also have potential for reducing blast effects, thereby protecting critical facilities against terrorist attacks.

In 1996, the authors of FEMA 277, The Oklahoma City Bombing: Improving

Building Performance through Multi-Hazard Mitigation,15 suggested that the physical damage and extent of progressive collapse inflicted on the Alfred P. Murrah

Federal Building might well have been lessened if the original design had incorporated seismic detailing. Conceptually, this idea has taken root in the structural

engineering industry and is currently under study by various investigators. If validated, seismic engineering and design could make a very significant contribution to

the homeland security aspects of our built environment. Additional research in this

area is warranted.

One of the most successful loss estimation products is the software program,

HAZUS, developed through FEMA to estimate physical damage, casualties, and

other societal impacts from earthquakes. HAZUS is an excellent example of how

NEHRP-sponsored research converges in a single platform, readily transportable

through GIS and computer technology to communities throughout the U.S. HAZUS

embodies a multitude of algorithms and correlations originating from NSF- and

USGS-sponsored research into a program implemented by FEMA for national use.

The process and program architecture in HAZUS are adaptable to other natural

hazards, and are currently being applied to floods and hurricane wind. Hence,

NEHRP investments in this case have direct application for other natural hazards

because, in addition to earthquakes, HAZUS will become the platform for loss estimation related to flood and hurricane wind.

NEHRP plans for the future involve a Lifelines Initiative that is required through

public law, whereby FEMA, in consultation with NIST, will develop a plan for design and construction standards for lifelines. Lifelines include transportation systems, water supplies, gas and liquid fuel networks, electric power, telecommunications, and waste disposal facilities. They are the distinguishing characteristic of

modern communities, and deliver the resources and services necessary for safety, security, and economic well-being.

59

16O’Rourke, T.D., Ed. (1992), ‘‘The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989—

Marina District,’’ U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1551–F, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC. 17O’Rourke, T.D. and Pease, J.W. (1992), ‘‘Large Ground Deformations and Their Effects on

Lifeline Facilities: 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake,’’ Case Studies of Liquefaction and Lifeline Performance During Past Earthquakes, NCEER–92–0002, T.D. O’Rourke and M. Hamada, Eds., National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, April, pp. 5-1–5-85.

NEHRP has been a hotbed for innovation and IT applications in lifeline systems.

Research sponsored by NSF, USGS, and NIST have resulted in sophisticated models

of lifeline network performance under various damages scenarios associated with

earthquakes. Much of this work has involved innovative use of GIS, probabilistic

hazard analyses, network reliability procedures, advanced remote sensing and characterization of geotechnical hazards, strong motion simulation, and applications of

regional economic analyses and community recovery models. The overall outcome of

this activity is a rich and technically advanced framework for the simulation and

evaluation of complex infrastructure systems under extreme events.

I can attest personally to the importance of this branch of NEHRP activity by reference to NSF-sponsored research on the earthquake performance of the water supply system in San Francisco.16,17 Before the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, hydraulic network and system reliability analyses of the Auxiliary Water Supply System

(used for fire protection) in San Francisco were preformed. They demonstrated that

the water distribution pipeline network in that city would be compromised in a severe earthquake because of liquefaction-induced ground deformation and shaking effects. The City of San Francisco and the San Francisco Fire Department responded

to this research by successfully petitioning for a substantial bond issue to upgrade

and retrofit the Auxiliary Water Supply System. As part of the fire department response, special vehicles, known as hose tenders, were commissioned to convey nearly

a mile of special hose to the waterfront and hook into the fireboat, which would

pump water through the hose and portable hydrants deployed inland to locations

of earthquake-generated fire. During the Loma Prieta earthquake liquefaction-induced ground deformation, as predicted, ruptured critical water distribution pipelines, leaving the Marina without pipeline water. The hose tenders were successfully

deployed to the Marina and extinguished the major fire that erupted there. Without

these benefits of research and implementation under NEHRP, it is likely that the

fire loss from this earthquake would have been substantial, costing orders of magnitude more than the research that prevented it.

Water supply and other critical infrastructure, such as electric power, telecommunications, and transportation systems, are vulnerable to a variety of hazards

related to natural, accidental, and pre-meditated causes. The research and implementation for lifelines under NEHRP have established an excellent baseline and

ready resource for simulating and protecting our vital infrastructure networks. It

is important that Congress consider the immense leverage from NEHRP for improvements and security of buildings, transportation systems, water supplies, gas

and liquid fuel networks, electric power, telecommunications, and waste disposal facilities. NEHRP provides an enormous return on investment that substantially reduces our nation’s vulnerability to earthquakes and improves the performance of its

civil infrastructure.

Summary

The earthquake risk to the United States is unacceptably high. We are facing inevitable earthquakes that will cost the Nation $100 to $200 billion each, with the

potential loss of thousands of lives. We believe that the growth of this risk can be

arrested and reduced to an acceptable level. This requires continuous research, expanded seismic monitoring, and nationwide mitigation.

For the past 25 years, The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program

(NEHRP) has provided resources and leadership that have lead to significant advances in understanding the sources of earthquake risk and have provided useful

tools for arresting its growth. In spite of all the good work that has been done in

the regions of highest seismicity, our earthquake risk is still unacceptably high because of the lack of implementation of appropriate building standards and because

the cost of strengthening the existing built environment is too high. This trend will

not be reversed until earthquake risks are understood by communities in all 39 vulnerable states, existing mitigation procedures are used more extensively, and new

techniques are developed to better define and reduce earthquake risks.

First and foremost, we need Congress to maintain a strong and viable NEHRP.

It needs to continue under the current organizational structure and proceed along

the lines of the recently developed NEHRP Strategic Plan.6 This plan outlines a

60

course of action for the best use of existing funding and prioritizes opportunities for

accelerating the program as additional funding becomes available.

At current funding levels, we believe that it will take 100 plus years to secure

the Nation against unacceptable earthquake risks. Based on our recently published

research and outreach plan, Securing Society Against Catastrophic Earthquake

Losses,8 we believe that implementing an expanded program, which includes ANSS

and NEES with triple the funding, will allow the needed results to be achieved

throughout U.S. communities within the next 20 to 30 years. We believe that 100

plus years is much too long to wait. A strong NEHRP that includes proactive implementation through leadership, incentives, requirements, and new public policy needs

to be maintained.

A new leadership model is needed to enhance consistency and collaboration in

NEHRP. The program should have a visible place and designated staff within each

NEHRP agency, including a strong and dedicated group in DHS. Congress should

create an independent oversight committee of external experts to provide guidance on

enhancing productivity and strategic orientation for NEHRP.

The Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), authorized by Congress in 2000,

is intended to expand the current monitoring system and provide essential information. Strong motion data are critical to making the next advance in understanding

how economically to arrest the growth of earthquake risk and reduce it to an acceptable level. ANSS is the most critical new program proposed for NEHRP. Putting the

instrumentation in after the next earthquake will be too late.

The George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation

(NEES), established by NSF, will expand the state of knowledge in earthquake engineering through new methods for experimental and computational simulation. Currently many new experimental research sites are established around the country,

and a system to link them into a sophisticated testing and simulation complex is

being developed. Unfortunately, funds to carry out the research that will make use

of this new equipment and simulation technology are not available at the needed

levels. Knowledge developed through experiments and simulation methodologies

provide the essential scientific knowledge base for improving codes and guidelines.

Social science and education research will complement this by helping to understand

and communicate better the implications and choices that must be made. An immediate investment in NEES is needed to reduce the cost of seismic design and

strengthening to affordable levels and stimulate significant mitigation activities.

NEES will also advance the use of IT nationwide, set new standards for the synchronous use of geographically distributed experimental facilities, and be a significant boost for our education system.

We recommend, above all else, that NEHRP be reauthorized with increases in the

spending levels for each agency consistent with the NEHRP Strategic Plan6 and the

EERI Research and Outreach Plan. Funding for the EERI Plan,8 Securing Society

Against Catastrophic Earthquake Losses, will require $358 million per year for the

first five years, with a yearly average of $330 million over the 20-year program.

Finally, it is important to recognize the immense leverage from NEHRP for improvements in the reliability and security of buildings, transportation systems,

water supplies, gas and liquid fuel networks, electric power, telecommunications,

and waste disposal facilities. NEHRP provides an enormous return on investment

that substantially reduces our nation’s vulnerability to earthquakes and, at the

same time, improves the performance of its civil infrastructure for both normal operation and extreme events.

BIOGRAPHY FOR THOMAS D. O’ROURKE

Thomas R. Briggs Professor of Engineering, Civil and Environmental Engineering,

Cornell University, 273 Hollister Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853–3501

Education

Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1975

M.S.C.E., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1973

B.S.C.E., Cornell University, 1970

Experience

Professor O’Rourke has been a member of the teaching and research staffs at Cornell University and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His teaching

and professional practice have: covered many aspects of geotechnical engineering including foundations, earth retaining structures, slope stability, soil/structure interaction, underground construction, laboratory testing, and elements of earthquake

61

engineering. He has authored or co-authored over 280 publications on geotechnical,

underground, and earthquake engineering.

He was elected a member of the National Academy of Engineering in 1993. He

was awarded the C.A. Hogentogler Award from ASTM in 1976 for his work on the

field monitoring of large construction projects. In 1983 and 1988, Prof. O’Rourke received the Collingwood and Huber Research Prize, respectively, from ASCE for his

studies of soil and rock mechanics applied to underground works and excavation

technologies. In 1995 he received the C. Martin Duke Award from ASCE for his contributions to lifeline earthquake engineering and in 1997 he received the Stephen

D. Bechtel Pipeline Engineering Award from ASCE for his contributions to the profession of pipeline engineering. In 2002 he received the Trevithick Prize from the

British Institution of Civil Engineers and was designated as an NSF Distinguished

Lecturer. He received the 2003 Japan Gas Association Best Paper Award and the

1996 EERI Outstanding Paper Award. In 1998, he was elected to the EERI Board

of Directors and serves as President from 2003–2005. In 1998, Prof. O’Rourke received Cornell University’s College of Engineering Daniel Lazar ’29 Excellence in

Teaching Award. In 2000 he was elected a Fellow of the American Association for

the Advancement of Science and received the Distinguished Alumnus Award in Civil

and Environmental Engineering from the University of Illinois. He testified before

the U.S. House of Representatives Science Committee in 1999 on engineering implications of the 1999 Turkey and Taiwan earthquakes and in 2003 on the reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. He has served on numerous earthquake reconnaissance missions, and holds a U.S. patent for innovative

pipeline design.

Professor O’Rourke has developed engineering solutions for problems concerning

foundation performance, ground movement effects on structures, earth retaining

structures, pipelines, earthquake engineering, tunneling, and infrastructure rehabilitation, both on a research and consulting basis. He has served as chair or member of the consulting boards of several large underground construction projects, as

well as the peer reviews for projects associated with highway, rapid transit, water

supply, and energy distribution systems. He has assisted in the development and

application of advanced polymer and composite materials for the in-situ rehabilitation of water supply and gas distribution pipelines. He has developed techniques for

evaluating ground movement patterns and stability for a variety of excavation, tunneling, micro-tunneling, and mining conditions. He has developed analytical methods and siting strategies to mitigate pipeline damage during earthquakes, analyze

and design high pressure pipelines, and has established full-scale testing facilities

for transmission and distribution pipelines. He has developed geographical information systems and network analysis procedures for water supply systems in areas

vulnerable to earthquakes and other natural disasters.

He is a member of the ASCE, ASME, ASTM, AAAS, ISSMEE, EERI, and IAEG.

He is a member of the NSF Engineering Directorate Advisory Committee, and

serves on the Executive Committees of the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake

Engineering Research and the Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems. He was

chair of the U.S. National Committee on Tunneling Technology and a member of

the NRC Geotechnical Board and Board on Energy and Environmental Systems. He

is a past chair of the UTRC Executive Committee and both the ASCE TCLEE Executive Committee and Technical Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifelines. He is

a past Chair of the ASCE Earth Retaining Structures Committee, as well as past

President of the ASCE Ithaca Section, and was a member of the inter-municipal

water commission in his home town.

62

63

64

65

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. O’Rourke. Dr. Reaveley.

STATEMENT OF DR. LAWRENCE D. REAVELEY, PROFESSOR

AND CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL

ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH

Dr. REAVELEY. Chairman Smith and Members of the Subcommittee, it is with great respect that I speak to you today.

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program is a program that I know well and which I have a significant experience.

It is my deeply held belief that the NEHRP program is primarily

responsible for most of the major advances in structural engineering that have been achieved during the last 25 years.

Research interest in blast loaded structures began to wane in the

early 1970’s while the 1971 San Fernando Valley earthquake

sparked interest in seismic design to the poor performance of many

structures. Without the knowledge gained from the NEHRP program, it would have not been possible to understand nearly as well

the behavior of buildings that were recently damaged by terrorist

activities. The best example of this technology transfer is that the

modeling parameters that are contained in FEMA 356,

‘‘Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of

Buildings.’’ This document contains guidance for assessing the behavior of structural components of all building types when required

to resist the effects of various loading. These loading may range

from service conditions to extreme loading. The methodology embodied in FEMA 356 will undoubtedly be the technical basis of future performance-based design codes, which, I believe, will address

the major technical and social economic issues that are important

in the earthquake study.

There also have been great advances in understanding the nature of ground motion associated with earthquakes. In the—in Salt

Lake City, it was virtually impossible to gain the professional and

public support for the seismic design of buildings until Lloyd Cluff

and others established, through trenching studies, that the

Wasatch Fault was still an active fault-producing system. These

studies were completed in the mid-1970’s and provided the necessary proof that a major earthquake would happen in the future.

These were important benchmark studies. Out of this type of study

has grown a body of knowledge that allowed for the development

of new maps for the determination of how much ground shaking

one might expect from an earthquake anywhere in the United

States of America. These maps are now used in current building

codes. The value of these maps is that they are based upon current

scientific knowledge and will easily—be easily updated as new

knowledge is acquired. The old seismic code maps were somewhat

subjective in nature and were sometimes influenced by political

pressure. This more—this most important advancement was made

possible through NEHRP funding.

NEHRP funding for the FEMA ‘‘yellow book’’ series of publications that deal with structural engineering guidelines and standards has been critical for the process of technology transfer to the

design professional community. The typical structural engineer

would be completely lost without them. In fact, the process of creVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
66

ating these documents has clearly identified the research needs in

the overall field of structural engineering.

We have much more to learn about where and how the ground

will shake. How buildings and other structures respond to ground

motion is still at a rudimentary stage of prediction. Soil structure

interaction is not very well understood, and it is critical, because

we can not close the gap between the ground shaking and the

structure model without this information. This information will

allow the country to be more efficient in the allocation of resources.

We will have a greater knowledge as to where and with what frequency the ground will shake. We have the ability to better allocate

construction dollars within a particular structure to achieve a desired outcome following an earthquake. We will be in a better position to understand which buildings might be economically rehabilitated to resist the effects of ground motion.

The fact that there is such a limited few dollars in the NEHRP

budget is simply not justified from a basic economic point of view,

in my opinion. The expenditure of previous funds has helped minimize the losses in the most recent domestic earthquakes. Every

dollar spent on creating an earthquake-resistant structure also creates a more blast-resistant structure, or one that might be resistant to high winds. I personally had a building that I designed for

earthquake that was hit by a—the only tornado we know about in

Salt Lake. It was hit broadside, a 14-story building. It didn’t twitch

a bit. A full tornado hit it. Progressive collapse is also minimized.

If dollars are limited, which I hope they are not, my opinion is that

the following tasks, in order of priority, should be emphasized, but

all of the programs should be kept alive, because they are important.

One, strong motion networks in regions of high-probable ground

shake, ground—strong ground motion are essential to our progress.

Free field data and data from instrumented buildings are absolutely necessary for the advancement of our abilities to understand

the behavior of structures. Lack of this type of data and the almost

negligible amount of funding to study such data is a major roadblock in advancing our understanding of the physics of the earthquake problem.

I brought with me copies of the report titled, ‘‘The Plan to Coordinate NEHRP Post-earthquake Investigations.’’ The major

NEHRP agencies cooperated in the production of this report. This

report summarizes most of the issues with respect to the topic.

Two, Performance Based Engineering is an all-encompassing concept, and it should be a structure upon which all of the various elements of the program are fit together to achieve the goals and objectives of NEHRP. It must be funded.

Three, this crosses the line between governmental agencies, as

Mr. Hanson spoke. I personally believe that the most overlooked

factor in improving the overall performance of buildings is the lack

of qualified personnel at the local government level. Plan review

and inspections are critical and are not being done, even in areas

of high seismic risk. Perhaps some sort of incentives could be fashioned. Since the direct losses from a major earthquake in an urban

environment can be in the tens of billions or to the hundreds of billions, it seems that we are being foolish in not realizing the overall

67

benefit of a better funded program. The United States has never,

in modern times, experienced the impacts of what will occur if a

real big one does strike in a major urban center. I believe that economic consequences of a major earthquake and their effects on the

surviving population should drive NEHRP and be the defining parameters in setting priorities. Unless there is a significant increase

in funding, it will not be possible to create a program that can

meet the objectives associated with the visions set forth by Congress.

Now this turns out to be a common theme, which was not orchestrated and independently written by all of the panelists. There is

a need to empower a central authority to coordinate the activities

of the various agencies that expend NEHRP funds. This authority

should be charged with achieving the goals and objectives set forth

by Congress. There should be established a review mechanism

drawing on experts with leadership and technical experience to assist in identifying and prioritizing program initiatives.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Reaveley follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE D. REAVELEY

Chairman Boehlert, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is with great respect

that I speak before you today. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) is a program that I know well and with which I have significant

experience.

Introduction

The art and science of structural engineering is constantly evolving as we gain

knowledge about the performance of buildings and other structures when subjected

to extreme loads. Extreme loads may come from natural phenomenon, such as wind

or earthquake ground motion. Other conditions that lead to extreme loading can

come from accidental or purposely induced explosive forces. Although there are some

differences in the specifics of extreme loadings caused by these individual sources,

the basic effect is to cause the structural elements to deform excessively and subsequently be permanently damaged or to collapse. The primary goal of a structural

engineer is to make the capacity of a structure greater than the demand placed

upon it by the various loads that it is anticipated to experience. The capacity is determined by the size, shape, materials, and details utilized in the construction of

restructure. Different details might be utilized for different loading conditions, but

in general, a structure that is designed for one extreme loading condition has most

of the desired attributes that are required for others.

It has been primarily through examining or observing components of structures

that have experienced extreme loads that we have advanced the technology of structural engineering. In the laboratory we are able to make precise measurements

while the loading is applied. This provides the needed information for developing

analytical models that allow for predicting the performance of other structures that

may experience similar loads. We need more specific information of this nature. An

efficient way of gaining good information is to instrument buildings that are likely

to experience an extreme load. Over time, we will be able to gather needed information to develop improved computer models that will produce relatively accurate predictions for structural response and performance. This last step requires much more

empirical data than currently exists.

Comments

Now, it should be asked what has this preamble to do with this hearing titled,

‘‘The Past, Present, and Future’’ (NEHRP).

It is my deeply held belief that the NEHRP program is primarily responsible for

most of the major advances in structural engineering that have been achieved during the last 25 years. Research interest in blast loaded structures began to wane

in the early 1970’s, while the 1971 San Fernando Valley earthquake sparked interest in seismic design due to the poor performance of many structures. Without the

knowledge gained from the NEHRP program, it would not have been possible to understand nearly as well the behavior of the buildings that were recently damaged

68

by terrorist activities. The best example of this is the modeling parameters that are

contained in FEMA 356, ‘‘Pre-standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.’’ This document contains guidance for assessing the behavior of

structural components of all building types when required to resist the effects of

various loadings. These loadings may range from service conditions to extreme loadings. While developed for existing buildings, it provides guidance that may be used

for the design and construction of new facilities. FEMA 356 summarizes the state

of the art knowledge as of the late 1990’s. It was written to be able to adapt to the

increasing knowledge gained from testing and post disaster studies. It is recognized

that there are many specific areas about which we have insufficient knowledge. The

methodology embodied in FEMA 356 will undoubtedly be the basis of future performance-based design codes.

There also have been great advances in understanding the nature of ground motions associated with earthquakes. In Salt Lake City, it was virtually impossible to

gain the professional and public support for the seismic design of buildings until

Lloyd Cluff and others established, through trenching studies, that the Wasatch

Fault was still an active earthquake producing fault system. These studies (USGS)

were completed in the mid 1970’s and provided the necessary proof that a major

earthquake would happen in the future at some point in time. These were important

benchmark studies. Out of this type of study, has grown a body of knowledge that

allowed for the development of new maps for the determination of how much ground

shaking one might expect from an earthquake anywhere in the United States of

America. These maps are now used in the current building codes. The value of these

maps is that they are based upon current scientific knowledge and will be easily

updated as new knowledge is acquired. The old seismic code maps were somewhat

subjective in nature and were sometimes influenced by political pressure. This most

important advancement was made possible through NEHRP funding.

NEHRP funding for the FEMA ‘‘yellow book’’ series of publications that deal with

structural engineering guidelines and standards has been critical for the process of

technology transfer to the design professional community. The typical structural engineer would be completely lost without them. In fact, the process of creating these

documents has clearly identified the research needs in the overall field of structural

engineering.

There have been tremendous advancements during the past 25 years that have

allowed for the development of a rational base upon which to build. Current code

requirements are more firmly founded on scientific principles and are certainly more

rational than previous generations of building code requirements. But, they are deficient with respect to what they might be if further development work is funded. We

have much more to learn about where and how the ground will shake. How buildings and other structures respond to ground motion is still at a rudimentary stage

of prediction. Soil-structure interaction is not very well understood.

Better information will allow the country to be more efficient in the allocation of

resources. We will have greater knowledge as to where, and with what frequency,

the ground will shake. We will have the ability to better allocate construction dollars within a particular structure to achieve a desired outcome following an earthquake. We will be in a position to better understand which buildings might be economically rehabilitated to resist the effects of ground motion. The economics of

structural rehabilitation is an emerging area of study that needs much work. Rehabilitation is a serious concern in that it can be very costly, but with improved knowledge of design and construction methods it can produce buildings that are safe and

that can meet various performance expectations. There are some buildings that can

be rehabilitated with simple and relatively inexpensive techniques. There are others

that are simply too costly to improve. We are beginning to understand this process

better, but there is much to learn in this area. New materials and energy dissipation devices are making a difference in being able to economically rehabilitate structures.

It is too costly to replace all of the inadequate structures that are vulnerable to

ground shaking or to other extreme loads, so it is imperative that we learn how to

economically improve those structures that are a threat to life, those that are critical to the economic vitality of the country, and those that are critical to the functioning of our cities.

A Relevant New Report

A very important new report has just been produced in partnership with NIST

by the Applied Technology Council (ATC). The ATC document number is 57, and

it is titled ‘‘The Missing Piece: Improving Seismic Design and Construction Practices.’’ This document deals with the subjects of this hearing and was produced by

69

some of the leading professionals associated with the NEHRP activities. A portion

of the preface to this document is as follows:

PREFACE

In 2001, the Applied Technology Council (ATC) commenced a broadly based effort

to define a problem-focused knowledge development, synthesis and transfer program

to improve seismic design and construction practices. Input was sought from seismic

design and construction industry leaders, and a Workshop was convened in the summer of 2002 to develop the program. THE MISSING PIECE: IMPROVING SEISMIC DE- SIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES is the result of an industrial collaboration. It

provides a framework for creating a knowledge bridge and allows the Nation to

more fully realize its NEHRP investment in practical terms—safer buildings.

THE MISSING PIECE: IMPROVING SEISMIC DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES

had its genesis in the strategic planning process for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), which was undertaken by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from 1998 to 2001. In the course of that strategic planning process, representatives from the design and construction industry

determined and documented, as one of their major findings, that a technology transfer gap has emerged within NEHRP, and that it limits the adaptation of basic research knowledge into practice. To resolve this problem, industry participants recommended that NEHRP agencies develop a much-expanded, problem-focused knowledge development, synthesis and transfer program that will:

1. Develop standards and guidelines that incorporate the best knowledge available in a practical way.

2. Facilitate the development of new mitigation technologies.

3. Improve the productivity of the engineering and construction industries.

Included in this report are:

• A definition of what needs to be done;

• Background information on the impetus for THE MISSING PIECE: IMPROVING

SEISMIC DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES program, on how technology

transfer works, and a history of the decline in engineering and construction

productivity in the United States; and

• THE MISSING PIECE program plan.

THE MISSING PIECE: IMPROVING SEISMIC DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES

program emphasizes two subject areas, with a total of five Program Elements proposed:

• Systematic support of the seismic code development process.

Program Element 1 Provide technical support for the seismic practice and code

development process.

Program Element 2 Develop the technical basis for performance-based seismic

engineering by supporting problem-focused, user-directed

research and development.

• Improve seismic design and construction productivity.

Program Element 3 Support the development of technical resources (e.g., guidelines and manuals) to improve seismic engineering practice.

Program Element 4 Make evaluated technology available to practicing professionals in the design and construction communities.

Program Element 5 Develop tools to enhance the productivity, economy and effectiveness of the earthquake resistant design and construction process.

The full body of the report (ATC 57) is provided in Appendix A. The goals and

objectives set forth in program elements one through five captures the vision of

NEHRP.

Specific responses to the questions contained in the invitation to testify at

the hearing are provided as follows:

• Discuss how research in structural engineering has improved our ability to

protect lives and property from earthquake hazards? How has the focus of

NEHRP structural engineering research evolved since the inception of

NEHRP?

70

There have been great strides made in our ability to design and construct facilities that are earthquake resistant to earthquake ground motion. The developments

over the last twenty-five years are remarkable, and can be traced to the NEHRP

program. The advent of computer technology has greatly facilitated this advancement.

Structural engineering research has evolved from dealing with assumed static linear behavior to realistically confronting the problem of non-linear time dependent

behavior. This requires component testing that considers structural dynamics and

the full range of large displacement behavior. Computers are critical but they will

not eliminate the need for the physical testing of structural components. There is

a notion of that computer models can replace the need for actual physical testing,

but this is not true at this time. Physical testing is necessary for the calibration

and development of new simulation models.

The advent of the concept of performance-based design is a product of trying to

develop standards for the seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings.

• How would you prioritize limited federal funds among specific NEHRP research and mitigation activities (earthquake monitoring, hazard assessment,

performance-based engineering, lifeline reinforcement, seismic rehabilitation,

code development and adoption, education and outreach, post-earthquake response and investigation, etc.)?

The fact that there is such a limited few dollars in the NEHRP budget its simply

not justified from a basic economic point of view. The expenditure of previous funds

has helped minimize the losses in the most recent domestic earthquakes. Every dollar spent on creating an earthquake resistant structure also creates a more blast

resistant structure. Progressive collapse is minimized. If dollars are limited my

opinion is that the following tasks in order of priority should be emphasized, but

all of the programs should be kept active because they are important:

1. Strong-motion networks in regions of highly probable strong ground motion

are essential to our progress. Free field data, and data from instrumented

buildings are absolutely necessary for the advancement of our abilities to understand the behavior of structures. Lack of this type of data, and the almost

negligible amount of funding to study such data as has been recorded, is the

major roadblock in advancing our understanding of the physics of the earthquake problem. Significant expenditures are required to install and maintain

the networks, and for providing a Major Contingency Fund for post-earthquake detailed analysis of individual buildings. Also, complete damage surveys in and around areas of intense ground shaking are greatly needed. Only

then will we be able to calibrate our models of structural vulnerability. Current damage prediction models are based on opinion, not statistically viable

data. Our understanding of soil/structure interaction is very primitive. We

need data from instrumented buildings to be able to predict what the actual

loading from earthquake ground motions will be. We have crude models that

are currently being used (see Appendix B).

2. Performance Based Engineering (PBE) is an all-encompassing concept. To be

able to implement the vision of mitigating the effects of a major earthquake

in this country, it will take a major coordinated effort. PBE should be a

structure upon which all the various elements of the program are fit together

to achieve the goals and objectives of NEHRP. It must be funded.

3. I personally believe that the most overlooked factor in improving the overall

performance of buildings is the lack of qualified personnel at the local government level. In most locations outside of California, there are few qualified

building officials to address the seismic plan checking issue. In most jurisdictions, plan-checking fees are considered general revenue, and are not utilized

to insure compliance with the building codes. Code development and adoption mean very little if the codes are not enforced. It is a sensitive issue for

the Federal Government to deal with, but it is imperative that this issue be

addressed. Perhaps some sort of incentive program can be devised.

• What are the major impediments to improving the overall seismic performance

of buildings, both new and existing? Is the pace and extensiveness of code development and adoption improving? Is there anything the Federal Government

can do to facilitate increased adoption of seismic codes in areas of high seismic

risk? Is seismic rehabilitation an economical use of earthquake mitigation

funds?

The major impediment to improving the performance of buildings lies in the lack

of code enforcement at the local level. This was stated previously. The other major

71

impediment is the lack of financial incentive to create a seismically resistant structure. Developers expect to sell a new building prior to the next earthquake, and the

existing stock of vulnerable buildings cost considerably more to improve than what

it takes to correctly build a new building.

The pace and format of code development has improved. FEMA has greatly influenced positive major changes in this area. The pace is adequate, but funding for

code development and maintenance is critical. The process is just too demanding to

be effectively done by volunteer efforts.

Seismic rehabilitation is very effective in certain situations. There are certain situations where the consequence of failure is unacceptable. Generally, it can be cost

effective if accomplished within a window of opportunity that is provided as part of

a remodel program that deals with an updating of architectural finishes. Federal

funds might be used to provide incentives, but they cannot possibly fund the total

cost of improving privately owned buildings.

• What factors have limited the success of NEHRP, and what policy changes

would you recommend to remove these limitations? How can the NEHRP participating agencies improve planning, coordination, and general administration of NEHRP to better meet the vision for the program set forth by Congress?

The most obvious factor that has limited the success of NEHRP has been insufficient funding. There is a huge amount of beneficial research that could be accomplished over time if a continuous flow of sufficient funds were made available. These

research projects exist across the range of NEHRP activities.

The most difficult task for the NEHRP program officers is setting the program

priorities when there are limited funds available for competing worthy program elements. Since the direct losses from a major earthquake in an urban environment

can in the tens of billions of dollars, it seems that we are being foolish in not realizing the overall benefit of a better-funded program. The United States has never

experienced the impacts of what will occur if a ‘‘real big one’’ does strike a major

urban center. It seems that the element of decision-making that is missing has to

do with the economic realities of such an event. I have come to believe that major

loss of life is not the defining issue. I believe that the economic consequences of a

major earthquake, and their effects on the surviving population should drive NEHRP

and be the defining parameters in setting priorities. Unless there is a significant increase in funding, it will not be possible to create a program that can meet the objectives associated with the vision set forth by Congress.

There is a need to empower a central authority to coordinate the activities of the

various agencies that expend NEHRP funds. All agencies are producing valuable

contributions, but an effective program requires an oversight authority to integrate

the various activities. This authority should be charged with achieving the goals and

objectives set forth by Congress. There should be established a review mechanism,

drawing on experts with leadership and technical experience, to assist in identifying

and prioritizing program initiatives.

Closing

It is my view that the USGS, NIST, NSF, and FEMA all have strong roles to play

in achieving the NEHRP objectives, but there needs to be a strong central coordinating authority to manage the program. Each agency cannot operate independently. Performance-based engineering should be the structure upon which the various elements of the program are fit together to achieve the goals and objectives of

NEHRP. The NEHRP program is critical to our nations future. It has been underfunded and needs to be renewed. The Nation’s economic health may depend upon

the successes of this program. Every structural advancement made in this program

will be applicable to other hazards, be they manmade or otherwise.

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

BIOGRAPHY FOR LAWRENCE D. REAVELEY

Chair and Professor, University of Utah, Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, 122 Sough Central Campus Drive, Suite 104, Salt Lake City, Utah

84112–0561; Telephone: (801) 581–6931; Fax: (801) 585–5477; E-mail:

reaveley@civil.utah.edu

Education

Ph.D. Civil Engineering, University of New Mexico, 1971

M.S. Civil Engineering, University of Utah, 1964

B.S. Civil Engineering, University of Utah, 1963

Academic Experience

January 1993-present—Professor and Chair, Department of Civil & Environmental

Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.

1975–1993—Adjunct Professor (various rank and intervals), Department of Civil &

Environmental Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.

1970–1972—Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Professional Experience

1974–January 1993—Vice President, Reaveley Engineering, Inc., Salt Lake City,

Utah.

1971–1973—Chief Engineer and Manager, Construction Division, Davidson Lumber

Sales, Salt Lake City, Utah.

1967–1970—Research Assistant, University of New Mexico, Eric C. Wang Civil Engineering Research Facility, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

1964–1967—Structural Design Engineer, J.F. Patrick Structural Consulting Engineers, Salt Lake City, Utah.

1963–1964—Materials Engineer, Utah Department of Transportation

1959–1962—Intern, Precast/materials Division, Utah Sand & Gravel (Monroe)

Professional Registration

Registered Professional Engineer, New Mexico.

Professional Affiliations

American Concrete Institute

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Society of Engineering Education

Chi Epsilon Civil Engineering Honor Society

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

Structural Engineers Association of Utah

Patents

Patent Application ‘‘T-Structure Externally Reinforced with composite Materials’’

(Inventors: Chris Pantelides and Lawrence Reaveley) U–2434. Docket No.

11240, USSN: 859, 935. May 1998.

Composite Connections for Precast Walls, Patent U–2434. Pending, 1999.

Funded Research (Co-P.I., unless otherwise noted)

‘‘FRP Composite Confined Rectangular Columns,’’ Federal Highway Administration/

Utah Department of Transportation. Amount $161,924. Sept. 2002–Dec. 2004.

‘‘Long-term Structural Monitoring of Post-tensioned Spliced Girders and Deck

Joints,’’ Federal Highway Administration/Utah Department of Transportation.

Amount $194,5000. Mar. 2001–Jun. 2004.

‘‘Fatigue Tests of Cracked and Repaired Aluminum Connections of Overhead Sign

Structures,’’ New York State Department of Transportation and Utah Department of Transportation. Amount $70,572. Dec. 2001–Dec. 2003.

‘‘Long-term Durability of Carbon CFRP Composites Applied to R/C Concrete

Bridges,’’ National Science Foundation Contract CMS 0099792. Amount

$211,787. Sept. 2001–Aug. 2003.

‘‘Long-term Durability of Carbon FRP Composites Applied to R/C Concrete Bridges,’’

Federal Highway Administration/Utah Department of Transportation. Amount

$173,000. Mar. 2001–Jun. 2004.

‘‘Long-term Structural Monitoring of Prestressed Girders on New I–15 Concrete

Bridges,’’ Utah Department of Transportation. Amount $60,161. Jun. 1999–Dec.

2000.

103

‘‘Cyclic Pushover Research Study on South Temple Structure,’’ Federal Highway Administration/Utah Department of Transportation. Amount $270,031. May 1999–

Jun. 2003.

‘‘Strengthening of R/C Beam-to-column connections with carbon fiber composites,’’

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Arnount $38,000. Apr. 1999–

Dec. 2000.

‘‘Center of Excellence: Center for Composites in Construction,’’ State of Utah Department of Economic and Community Development. Amount $90,000. Jul.

1998–Jun. 1999.

‘‘Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Joints with Carbon Fiber Composites,’’ Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Amount $130,028. Feb.

1998–Sep. 1998.

‘‘Structural and Geotechnical Testing of the South Temple I–15 Overpass Bridge,’’

Utah Department of Transportation. Amount $64,314. Feb. 1998–Dec. 2000.

‘‘Structural and Geotechnical Testing of the South Temple 1–15 Overpass Bridge,’’

Federal Highway Administration. Amount $187,253. Feb. 1998–Dec. 2000.

P.I. ‘‘Bridge Deck Slab Study,’’ Utah Department of Transportation. Amount

$42,000. July 1998–July 1999.

Dr. Lawrence Reaveley, Dr. William Van Moorhem, Dr. Rand Decker, Principle Investigators. ‘‘Open Burn/Open Detonation Risk Assessment Ground Motion and

Related Effects.’’ Tooele Army Depot. Amount $50,000. Dec. 1996.

P.I. ‘‘Bridge Deck Reinforcement.’’ SIKA Corporation. Amount $5,000. June 1998–

June 1999.

‘‘Structural Testing on I–15 South Temple Bridge,’’ Federal Highway Administration/Utah Department of Transportation. Amount $245,000. June 1999–Dec.

2000.

‘‘Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Joints with Carbon Fiber Composites,’’ Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Amount $117,000. Oct.

1998–Sep. 1999.

‘‘Strengthening of R/C Beam-to-column connections with carbon fiber composites,’’

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Amount $35,000. Apr. 1998–

Dec. 1999.

‘‘Center of Excellence: Center for Composites in Construction,’’ State of Utah Department of Economic and Community Development. Amount $90,000. Jul.

1998–June. 1999.

‘‘Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Joints with Carbon Fiber Composites,’’ Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Amount $130,028. Feb.

1998–Sep. 1998.

‘‘Structural and Geotechnical Testing of the South Temple I–15 Overpass Bridge,’’

Utah Department of Transportation. Amount $32,600. Feb. 1998–Jul. 1999.

‘‘Structural and Geotechnical Testing of the South Temple I–15 Overpass Bridge,’’

Federal Highway Administration. Amount $66,400. Feb. 1998–Jul. 1999.

‘‘Strengthening of Bridge Joints using Carbon Fiber Composites,’’ National Science

Foundation. REU Supplement. Amount $10,000. Sep. 1997–Aug. 1999.

‘‘Strengthening of Bridge Joints using Carbon Fiber Composites,’’ National Science

Foundation. Amount $132,648. Sep. 1997–Aug. 1999.

‘‘Strengthening of Bridge Joints using Carbon Fiber Composites,’’ University of Utah

Matching. Amount $24,000. Sep. 1997–Aug. 1999.

‘‘Testing of Precast Concrete Connections for Seismic Regions using Carbon Fiber

Composites,’’ XXsys Technologies. Amount $142,875. Mar. 1997–Jun. 1999.

‘‘Full-scale Testing of Bridge of Interstate I–15,’’ Utah Department of Transportation. Amount $10,000. Jun. 20, 1996–Jun. 31, 1997.

‘‘Repair/Retrofit of Bridge using Fiber Composites,’’ Utah Department of Transportation. Amount $32,000. Sep. 30, 1995–Jun. 30, 1997.

Published Articles, Books, or Manuals

Gergely, J. and Pantelides, C.P. ‘‘Design of CFRP composite for seismic retrofit of

R/C bridge,’’ J. of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Under Review, Aug. 1999.

Hofheins, C.L., Reaveley, L.D., Pantelides, C.P., and Volnyy, V.A. ‘‘Behavior of welded plate connectors for precast wall panels,’’ ACI Structural J., Under Review,

Jul. 1999.

Ganzcrli, S., rantelides, C.P., and Reaveley, L.D., ‘‘Performance-based design using

structural optimization.’’ Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics, Under

Review, July 1999.

Volnyy, V.A., Pantelides, C.P., Gergely, J., Hofheins, C.L., and Reaveley, L.D. ‘‘Carbon fiber composite connections for precast wall panels,’’ ACI Structural J.,

Under Review, Jul, 1999.

104

Gergely, I., Pantelides, C.P., and Reaveley, L.D. ‘‘Shear strengthening of R/C Tjoints using CFRP composites,’’ J. Composites for Construction, ASCE, 3(4),

Nov. (1999).

Pantelides, C.P., Gergely, I., Reaveley, L.D., and Volnyy, V.A. ‘‘Retrofit of R/C

Bridge Pier with CFRP Advance Composites,’’ J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 125(10),

Paper Ref. No. ST18969, Oct. (1999).

Gergely, I., Pantelides, C.P., Nuismer, R.J., and Reaveley, L.D. ‘‘Bridge Pier Retrofit

Using Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Composites,’’ J. Composites for Construction,

ASCE, 2(4), 165–174, (1998).

Co-Project Director and Co-Team Leader, concrete. ‘‘Development of Guidelines for

the Seismic Strengthening of Existing Buildings.’’ ATC 33 FEMA 273, in Balloting.

Co-Project Director, and Co-Team Leader for reinforced concrete structures. 1998,

‘‘Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Building Structures.’’ ATC 33/

FEMA 273.

Lead guideline writer, post-earthquake inspection and evaluation volume. ‘‘Sac Joint

Venture Program to Reduce Earthquake Hazards in Steel Moment Frame

Structures, Phase 2.’’ 2000 (in progress)

Original author, ‘‘Seismic Rehabilitation of Single Family Dwellings—A Handbook.’’

Based on original document prepared for the Comprehensive Emergency Management Agency, State of Utah. ATC–39. 1999.

Miller, J. and Reaveley L. ‘‘Hotel Utah Remodel and Seismic Upgrade,’’ Seismic Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures, edited by Gajanan Sabnis, Avanti Shroff,

and Lawrence F. Kahn. ACI 1996.

Mills, L., Reaveley, L. ‘‘Similitude Studies in the Dynamic Response of Reinforced

Concrete Beams,’’ Vol. lI, Technical Note DE–TN–72–015, New Mexico, July,

1972.

Reaveley, L., Mills, L. ‘‘Similitude Studies in the Dynamic Response of Reinforced

Concrete Beams,’’ Vol. I, CERF, January, 1972.

Taylor, Porush, Tillman, Reaveley, and Blackham. ‘‘Seismic Code Decisions Under

Risk,’’ NSF Grant No. BCS–8820148.

Dr. Phillip C. Emmi, Principal Investigator, USGS Funding Agency; L.D. Reaveley,

Project Consultant. ‘‘A Demonstration Project with Salt Lake City and Salt

Lake County on Seismic Risk Assessment and Hazard Mitigation through Land

Use Planning: Part Two,’’ 1989.

Applied Technology Council Projects

ATC–21, ‘‘Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A

Handbook,’’ funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1989.

Project Engineering Panel Member.

ATC–22, ‘‘A Handbook for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings,’’ funded by Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1989. Project Engineering Panel Member.

ATC–26, ‘‘U.S. Postal Service Manual for seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings,’’

funded by the United States Postal Service. Member Project Engineering Panel.

ATC–28, ‘‘Development of Recommended Guidelines for Seismic Strengthening of

Existing Buildings, Phase I: Issues Identification and Resolution,’’ funded by

FEMA, 1990. Member Project Engineering Panel and ATC Board Contact.

ATC–36, Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodologies and Data Base, for Utah.’’

Consultant.

ATC–39, Seismic Rehabilitation of Single Family Masonry Dwellings—A Handbook.

Original Author.

ATC–41, SAC Joint Venture, Program to Reduce Earthquake Hazards in Steel Moment Frame Structures, Phase 2. Lead Guideline Writer, Post-Earthquake Inspection and Evaluation.

Professional Service Activities

Jan. 2000–Apr. 2003—Member, Board of Directors. Applied Technology Council.

Jul. 1998–Jul. 2000—Utah State Capitol Preservation Board. Board member appointment form.

1996–1999—Member, Executive Committee, Technical Activities Division, Structural Engineering Institute, The American Society of Civil Engineers.

1996–1998—Member, Code Resources Development Committee (BSSC). For the

Building Code (2000).

1996–1998—Member, Steering Committee, Incentives Impediments to Mitigation

Project, EERI.

1996—Chair, Nominating Committee, EERI 1997.

1994–1997—Member, Special Design Values Panel. Building Seismic Safety Council

(BSSC). Procedures for design based on new generation seismic maps.

105

1994–present—Member, Partners in Education Committee, American Institute Steel

Construction. Chair 1999.

1992–present—Member, ACI Committee #369 Seismic Rehabilitation and Repair.

1993–1995—Member Codes and Standards Committee, American Concrete Institute

(ACI 318–95).

1991–1997—Member, Provisions Update Committee (seismic BSSC), NEHRP 1994

and 1997 Editions.

1991–present—Member TS12 Isolation and Energy Dissipation Subcommittee

(BSSC), NEHRP, Chair 1994 cycle.

1970–present—Member, ASCE 7, Loads Standard, Seismic Loads Subcommittee,

Chair 1998.

1984–1991—Member, Advisory Board of Utah Geological Survey, Chairman, 1989–

91.

1980–present—Founding member, Structural Engineers Association of Utah.

1985–1991—Member, Board of Directors of the Applied Technology Council.

2000–2003—ASCE Representative to the Board of the Applied Technology Council.

Honors and Awards

1997—Engineering Educator of the Year, Utah Engineers Council.

1996—Governor’s Medal for Science and Technology.

1989 Engineer of the Year, Utah Engineers Council.

1988—Special Award for Implementation Action, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. USGS & FEMA.

American Concrete Institute’s National Structural Engineering Award for 1998.

‘‘Historic Hotel Utah Remodel and Seismic Upgrade,’’ Special Publication 1610,

Seismic Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures, 1996. This award recognizes advanced concepts and techniques related to structural engineering. Awards are

made to the author or co-authors of a peer-reviewed paper published by the Institute.

Applied Technology Council’s Premier Award—the ATC Award for Excellence for extraordinary achievements in seismic rehabilitation of buildings.

College of Engineering, Outstanding Service Award, ‘‘In recognition of your leadership efforts and commitment to enhancing the educational experience of our

students during conversion to semesters.’’

106

107

DISCUSSION

Chairman SMITH. Are you suggesting, Mr. Reaveley, that there

wasn’t collusion in——

Dr. REAVELEY. I am suggesting——

Chairman SMITH [continuing]. Your more resolved clause of all of

the witnesses?

Dr. REAVELEY. I am suggesting that I never saw their testimony

when I wrote this. I have seen it since, and I am amazed at some

of the common experiences we have come to and recommendations.

Chairman SMITH. Each panelist will have five minutes, and I will

begin with the question that I suggested earlier and that is, just

very briefly, the relationship between what government effort

should be in additional research to develop new and better technology and the efforts in implementing what we already have. And

start with you, Mr. Olson.

Mr. OLSON. Thank you very much. I have a perspective on this

that is a governmental perspective. Research is terribly important.

The Federal Government is excellent at supporting research. When

you move out of the research, and I am working on some projects

like this right now, you move into whole different spheres. And for

example, we would like to see more done by local governments. It

is the distribution of power in the United States. It is the federal

system that we have to work through to make things happen in the

public sphere, and so the Federal Government can do a number of

things, including regulate things like nuclear power plant safety.

In other cases, the initiative and responsibility really belongs to

the state. And so you have to find ways to encourage states to take

action in areas they are responsible for. And as Dr. Reaveley mentioned, at the local level, and then you have to depend on local developments to understand the risk and to take actions that they

are responsible for.

Chairman SMITH. Okay. But again, the balance—how much—if

you were going to come up with a percentage, how much of our effort should go into implementing what we already have versus additional research, whether it is federal, state, or local.

Mr. OLSON. I guess I can make some enemies here, what the

heck. I would say we need 40 percent addressed to implementation

and the complexities associated with it.

Chairman SMITH. And well, let us just go down the line, Mr.

Cluff, and then we will end up with you, Mr. Lowe.

Dr. CLUFF. Yes. Thank you. I come—the perspective of using

NEHRP products within a large operating utility and working with

a lot of other utilities and transportation providers. I would like to

enhance the comments I made on the public/private partnership

where you can leverage the funds. Get the NEHRP groups. We

have NEHRP funding from NSF, from USGS, and the universities

that work with the users, and you allow the users to drive the

agenda. That has been the missing problem. On the model we set

in the San Francisco Bay Area to allow the users to drive the agenda and then the researchers willing to produce the products that

we can immediately implement. The problem has been that it takes

15 to 20 years for a research result to get into effective implementation. With the projects that we have in the pier center, we are

108

able to implement within a few days after we get a research result,

because we have structured how the research is done to get a result we can use.

Chairman SMITH. Now this is in private sector——

Dr. CLUFF. Yes.

Chairman SMITH [continuing]. You are talking about mostly?

Dr. CLUFF. Yes.

Chairman SMITH. So when it comes out of their own pocketbook

and somebody proves to them that they can add to the assurance

that their structure isn’t going to be damaged, it is relatively short

time for implementation.

Dr. CLUFF. That is right. But it is—but it—we need to provide

that model so that more users will get involved to take advantage

of this and put money where their mouths are.

Chairman SMITH. And so somehow part of the question is should

we be looking at some ways to better encourage the private sector

to implement this? I mean, whether it is a homeowner that is going

to build a house that is more structurally sound for tornadoes or

hurricanes or earthquakes, it seems like the insurance company

would say, ‘‘Look, we are going to really cut your rates,’’ but that

hasn’t happened, to my knowledge.

Dr. CLUFF. We really need a mechanism, as Dr. Reaveley mentioned, to motivate those people who have control over building

practice and so forth to do it right.

Chairman SMITH. And Dr. O’Rourke, your comment and then Dr.

Reaveley.

Dr. O’ROURKE. Excuse me. I would like to make a distinction between implementation of research and research which is

implementable. I think when you do research that you want to find

come into practice, you have to be thinking about the implementation when you design the research program. And there are some

very good models out there. Dr. Cluff referred to one with respect

to the Bay Area. The other earthquake engineering research centers also are working with what we call test beds. For example, the

Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research

works in—with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

to look at water supply and electrical systems. This is very important, because what it does is it enjoins the researchers with an actual system, gets them talking to the engineering personnel and

the management personnel, and also gets them to learn that the

technical problems aren’t always the only problem that one has to

face.

There are important economic repercussions from earthquake

damage. There are important community issues at hand. And when

we look at the research being implementable in an integrated way,

which not only involves geoscientists and earthquake engineering,

but also social scientists, economists and people that understand

the community, then we are able to walk across these divides and

put together a program that not only addresses the industry issues,

but addresses some of the knottier, more difficult community implementation issues——

Chairman SMITH. My time has expired, Dr. O’Rourke——

Dr. O’ROURKE. Sure.

109

Chairman SMITH [continuing]. But I am going to ask you and Dr.

Reaveley to briefly comment, and then we will pass it on to——

Dr. REAVELEY. I think one thought that has been introduced is

the difference between applied research and basic research. This

earthquake program needs an awful lot of applied research. Relative to the appropriation of money to the local and private sector,

we should try to build some incentives to bring on people in a patterning way. And then I don’t know how you ever reach down to

the building official department level, but they need help and

badly, because if in the private sector, outside of institutions, if it

is never—if the plans aren’t done right and not checked, and then

if they are not checked in the field, we will never get earthquake

or any high load-resistant structure actually completed.

Chairman SMITH. Congresswoman Lofgren.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been, I think,

a very helpful hearing and one that I am very interested in. As you

know, I represent San Jose, California. And anybody who went

through Loma Prieta, as I did, remembers it well. And actually San

Jose fared fairly well, largely because of we had some good luck,

but we also had good engineering. And that just proves that we—

you know, you can make people and communities safer if you work

at it. And so I think it is enormously important that this be reauthorized.

But I am also concerned about funding levels. And as a matter

of fact, Mr. Chairman, I think—I am going to be circulating a letter

to the appropriators about funding for this earthquake effort, and

I am hopeful that maybe we could make that a bipartisan effort,

because we can authorize away, but if we don’t put the resources

in, we are going to pay a terrible price. I mean, it is only a matter

of time. It is not an if, it is a when issue. And I do know that the

work that we did, for example, in San Jose, saved us hundreds of

thousands, millions of dollars. So I am hopeful that we might be

able to work together on that.

Chairman SMITH. And if the gentlelady would yield, that was one

of my questions also is why wasn’t ANSS even in the budget.

Ms. LOFGREN. Right.

Chairman SMITH. And so is it left to Congress to do things that

apparently our experts are suggesting should be done? Thank you.

Ms. LOFGREN. I would very much—obviously, we need to pay

some attention to ANSS, and I think we should fund it more aggressively so we can get it done. And I guess the question for Mr.

Lowe is what efforts have been made to get an adequate budget request for ANSS in the President’s budget? Did you all ask and get

turned down or——

Mr. LOWE. Well, I am—of course, I am not from USGS, so it is

a little difficult to——

Ms. LOFGREN. Right.

Mr. LOWE [continuing]. Do that. I do think, quite frankly, the

way that Section 206 has been constructed, yes, we would be—

FEMA would, in fact, as the lead agency, be the ones to move that

forward. Heretofore, I am not aware of that occurring in that fashion. I do know that there was consultation, you know, with the

Committee and so on and so forth to be able to do what has been

done. But that is exactly why I am calling for a management plan

110

so we can carry out the spirit of Section 206. When the PCC, the

principals of the other NEHRP agencies and we sat down and decided upon a management plan, specifically as a basis was Section

206, so that we all could, in fact, coordinate our budgets and move

forward and go to OMB and ask for what Congress told us to do,

either request or the recommendation anyway. So——

Ms. LOFGREN. So if I could, the——

Mr. LOWE. Each agency, up to this point, has been left——

Ms. LOFGREN. Right.

Mr. LOWE [continuing]. In essence——

Ms. LOFGREN. Right.

Mr. LOWE [continuing]. Up to their own processes to make requests for their initiatives.

Ms. LOFGREN. And I understand. I mean, with the new Homeland Security Department, and I also sit on the Homeland Security

Committee here, there is so much to do in terms of reorganization

and the like. It—I just think that to wait while that reorganization

goes forward, as, indeed, it must, and not to address the funding

issue in this funding cycle would be a mistake. And I think, hopefully, we can remedy that.

Mr. LOWE. We are prepared to move forward with our management plan working with PCC and, of course, the ICC, which is the

program level, to leverage that. Obviously in the Department of

Homeland Security, we have also dispatched one of our NEHRP

staff over to science and technology, who will begin to try to leverage some of the resources there to help us achieve the NEHRP vision as well as to put together a fairly strong——

Chairman SMITH. If the gentlelady would yield again——

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes, certainly.

Chairman SMITH [continuing]. I would be more than generous on

the five minutes. But still, in our NEHRP authorization bill three

years ago, a little over three years ago, we specifically said that

FEMA would guide the budget, a coordinated budget process for

NEHRP. And I guess I hear you say that the individual agencies

have sort of been on their own, but it seems to me that if the law

says FEMA would coordinate and guide that budget process to

have a coordinated budget, that should happen.

Mr. LOWE. I agree with you. And again, that is exactly why we

called for the first meeting of the PCC to re-establish what we

needed to do specifically, not just the letter but the spirit of what

Section 206 offered. And so I appreciated Section 206 as a call to,

in fact, direct the principals to manage—if you will, lead this—the

NEHRP.

Chairman SMITH. I mean, the law said you had to do it.

Mr. LOWE. That is right.

Chairman SMITH. What more do we need to make sure it is

done? We ask for reports, but the reports were not timely, and it

has been only recently we have received those reports. So maybe

somehow more——

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, if I could, too, it—the report itself, which we

just received, doesn’t really have any numbers in it. And I am just

sort of wondering how we could end up with a five percent reduction in the earthquake program in the proposed budget consistent

111

with the strategies that are outlined in the plan without budgetary

numbers.

Mr. LOWE. Again, what you have there doesn’t really represent

what I am talking about.

Ms. LOFGREN. I see.

Mr. LOWE. I think we can do more, and I think we can do it, certainly, in the ’04 budget cycle. And frankly, I think it was quite

clear when we had our PCC with the principals that we were all

committed to doing that. Because the strategic plan is passed, we

all know where we are going. That is a consensus document. We

all agreed. We all agreed that it is important to do that. We also—

part of the management plan was to pick out exactly what is the

staffing expertise we need from all of the agencies who participate

in this process. So I am, frankly, fairly confident that the agencies

are going to work collectively as a coordinated body to fulfill fully

Section 206.

Ms. LOFGREN. How much money do we need, do you think? Have

you reached that conclusion?

Mr. LOWE. No, I can’t say we have. What I would like to be able

to do is in our annual performance plan be able to chart out where

we are with what we have now——

Ms. LOFGREN. Um-hum.

Mr. LOWE [continuing]. And then be able to come back and tell

you, okay, our performance metrics will show here is where we are,

provide it X amount investment more, this is where we are. So you

can see what we can achieve given whatever resources that we

have.

Ms. LOFGREN. Just a final, maybe, question or observation, and

I don’t want this to be taken as an offensive comment, because it

is not meant in that way. I am—I wonder whether, especially now

that FEMA has been assigned to the Homeland Security Department, whether FEMA is the best home for this activity. And I say

that not to be critical of FEMA, but I—to the extent that FEMA

has—is diverted to other activities, that is going to be enhanced,

I think, now because of the new Homeland Security responsibilities. And I am not—I don’t have a vision for another home for this

activity, but I am wondering if—you don’t even have to answer

now, but if people have thoughts about what might work better

than FEMA, especially now that you are Homeland. And we are

going to keep you very busy at—in the Homeland Security Department.

Mr. LOWE. Well, I don’t—frankly, I think that FEMA is a good

home for it now more than even—ever before, because DHS, Department of Homeland Security, is an all-hazard agency. But the

all-hazard paradigm is a natural hazard paradigm. An earthquake,

just as we saw in New York, is vitally important. When we began

to do mitigation work in New York, where did we go? We came to

FEMA. Where did we go in FEMA? We came to the NEHRP partners. We did the—had the retrofit designs for the bridges, for the

tunnels, for the harboring that is occurring, $417 million worth,

and other work.

Ms. LOFGREN. Oh, and by the way, I mean, your agency did a

spectacular job in that activity. I mean——

Mr. LOWE. But these are NEHRP earthquake——

112

Ms. LOFGREN. Right.

Mr. LOWE [continuing]. Is what I am saying. These are earthquake designs to harden for manmade intrusions. Very significant.

One of the things that we talked about among our NEHRP agencies, even about this testimony today, is how everybody felt, if you

will, about, really, bringing forward the possibilities that are created for moving the earthquake agenda down the road with our

ability to use our lessons learned in a manmade environment. And

everybody is very positive about that, and so I think that is what

you see in the testimony. The ability that we have now working

with S&T and all of our NEHRP partners is probably greater than

it has been before, because it is all hazard. When we start talking

about earthquake, we are talking about an all-hazard design

for——

Ms. LOFGREN. I am still—I certainly appreciate that comment,

and I think it something that we may want to even think about

further as we go forward, because clearly FEMA has many

strengths as an agency, but the fact that it took so long to get answers, and we really don’t have the answers now, may indicate

that there is—the focus isn’t quite on the science that we want.

And maybe there is a better home.

Chairman SMITH. Well, it has been—in fact, one of our Members

of the Science Committee suggested that the lead agency be USGS.

And also, there was a suggestion that we have sort of a rotating

directorate that would rotate every 18 months or two years that

could temporarily be assigned within FEMA or within another

agency. But I mean, you have to——

Mr. LOWE. I would like to comment on that.

Chairman SMITH [continuing]. Understand that that is a concern.

Mr. LOWE. Yeah, I have—we have thought about it on a couple

of different fronts. First, in terms of the research agenda, yes, we

are not a research agency. We use that. We apply that in a reallife situation, so we are interested in research practice. And that

is the way—that is a bias that we are going to have, because it

needs to be real for FEMA to be able to use to save lives and property. Very true. My thought, which I—is outlined in the testimony,

is to create a research subcommittee, which we have done, under

ICC with a moving chair to talk about what that research agenda

ought to be and then to be able to float that upwards so we can

establish priorities, whether it is increasing knowledge or research

or practice, opportunities and, again, float that up.

But the next piece, really, that has always been planned and is

in the strategic plan that we have never operationalized during the

life, as I understand it, of the NEHRP program is that PCC structure. You have got a lot of folks when you look. And I won’t go back

into my slides, but when you look at all of the advisory groups, we

have a lot of advisory groups. But what has got the strategic plan

into your hands was a drive—if you will, some really strong driving

motion at the highest levels to make it happen, because we have

got folks who are technical, who are very committed, who can do

a lot, and who have done a lot. But right now, we need some commitment at the highest policy levels of all of these agencies at this

point.

113

And I think that is where you are going to see, frankly, the

movement. It doesn’t—and it really—and with that model, it really

doesn’t matter where your head is, because the management plan

is we are a leadership of equals. The management plan is going to

be the product of all of the NEHRP partners. It is not going to be

just a FEMA show at all. And so I welcome your comments. I welcome what you see fit to do, however.

Chairman SMITH. We will start a second round. I don’t know

what your schedule is, and I know and apologize for the length of

time that we have held you here. I need some help understanding

a little better our seismic technology and what the potential might

be and is it worth pursuing if we can increase our lead time on

warning by another eight or ten seconds? So in terms of the seismic

technology that is there, is the United States the leading country?

Is Japan the lead country? Who would be the lead country for the

mechanics of early warning from our technology? You, Mr. Cluff.

Dr. CLUFF. Mr. Chairman, I would say that we are close to being

the lead. We are working very closely with the Japanese. They

are—they have a big program on earthquake prediction, but their

experience shows that they really missed it with the Kobe earthquake. They were—focused all of their money and attention on the

area around Tokyo. The people running that program were not

paying attention to the Kobe area where we, working with them—

I had been over there personally and worked on the active faults

in the Osaka area, and we knew that fault that released the Kobe

earthquake was an active fault. So they kind of have to redirect

their activities. I think trying to short-term predict an earthquake

is not socially responsible. I think the forecast that the USGS is

doing, the shake—real-time shake maps and so forth is where the

future is, and that technology needs a lot more funding to get it

dispersed through ANSS throughout the country so we don’t miss

an opportunity. We have a big earthquake in the mid part of the

continent where we don’t have enough instruments right now. It

will be another several hundred years if we miss recording that

earthquake. We have got to get those in. Congress authorized a lot

of money to do that. The appropriations are not there. And the

budget at the USGS has been cut back. And they lack support from

the Department of Interior. I serve on that advisory committee

through the Department of Interior, and our committee is very distressed that the USGS does not have strong support from the Department of Interior for their budget on critical items.

Chairman SMITH. And I guess it makes me wonder about somehow doing a better job in communication. Apparently a tremendous

lack of understanding about earthquakes, awareness of the technology that is available. I am not advocating, necessarily, more

building codes, but certainly a—at least not an aggressive building

code program in more high-risk areas. I mentioned insurance that

seemed like would be—if you are going to build a building. So we

have ended up without some of the understanding and initiative.

And I would also suggest, respectfully to our appropriators, there

is somewhat of a lack of appreciation and understanding on the

part of our appropriators. So I think a letter would be very advisable.

Mr. LOWE. I agree with those comments, if you were asking.

114

Chairman SMITH. And Mr. Reaveley, you had a comment.

Dr. REAVELEY. Just to the insurance issue. Heretofore, the insurance industry has been very slow at recognizing the difference between a bad structure and one that might have some resistance.

I was in a meeting a week ago where it looks like they are going

to start taking that into account in premiums. But if there could

be some incentives somehow to get the insurance companies involved with recognizing the difference between buildings, then we

would probably put some incentive back into the private sector to

do a better job if they could get a break on insurance by doing it

right.

Chairman SMITH. Is there enough damage from earthquakes or

potential damage for privately owned homes and the information

and technology of the potential building type structures that

can——

Dr. REAVELEY. Yes.

Chairman SMITH [continuing]. Dramatically improve their resistance to earthquakes?

Dr. REAVELEY. Absolutely. There has just been a project finished

in Los Angeles to improve that housing stock. It goes all the way

from individual homes to the biggest buildings we have where if we

merged at least the basic technologies to address seismically deficient buildings and how to improve them. We don’t have all of the

answers, and we need an awful lot more work on finding the best

and economical ways to do that.

Chairman SMITH. If it is a home loan with HUD or VA or Agriculture, now we require, for example, that if it is an identified potential flood area, we require flood insurance. Do we do any of that

with any of our federal loans for home ownership——

Dr. REAVELEY. Not that I know of.

Chairman SMITH [continuing]. To help encourage——

Dr. REAVELEY. And some agencies have stopped writing earthquake insurance in areas, because of the damage and the loss. It

may be too big a hit for them to take. I know that Lloyds of London

bailed out of the Salt Lake Area years ago when they looked at

what it was really going to—what was really going to happen.

Chairman SMITH. How much increase in cost would it take for

a private home versus a—I don’t know how you categorize different

sizes of buildings, if we are retrofitting versus what it takes in initial structure?

Dr. REAVELEY. Two to three percent in a brand new building, at

the very maximum. One to two percent, maybe, on the new structure to go from a bad structure to a good structure of building cost.

That is all we are talking about. Small, small amounts. When we

try to deal with the existing structure to fix it, we are going in—

then we run into historical things and that. We can run the cost

up between 20 percent of the cost to renew the structure even to

100 percent in the rehab. And there is where the balance is how—

to finding out what we can fix economically and that which you

should walk away from.

Chairman SMITH. And what are you suggesting that we change

it to—what would it be to include tornadoes?

Dr. REAVELEY. Multi-hazard is the term that I think FEMA

would use.

115

Mr. LOWE. Well, it has been, but you know what, I think we

should be using the word ‘‘all-hazard’’, and the reason we should

be using the world ‘‘all-hazard’’ is we are not dealing in silos of

hazards any more. I think we are all saying that you know what,

if you do certain things, it is going to protect you from a bunch of

different hazards, natural, manmade, whatever. That is all-hazard,

not multi-hazard.

Chairman SMITH. Yes.

Mr. LOWE. So I would suggest——

Chairman SMITH. Representative Lofgren.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. I think this is a very useful discussion.

And it is, you know—comparing this discussion with, kind of, what

is accepted in California is interesting and forcing me to kind of

think through what happens if New Madrid lets loose. You know,

we are not ready here in the East or Midwest. And in California,

we are readier, although we are never fully prepared. I think that

if we were to advocate, I guess this may not be in our Committee’s

jurisdiction, but loan sources along with the information packets.

That would go a long way. I mean, I know, actually, in the San

Francisco Bay Area everybody knows there is going to be more

earthquakes. And if the faults let loose, you know what is going to

fall down. And people go and repair buildings. I mean, the cities

have gone on reinforced masonry projects. Individual homeowners

are trying to, you know—the structural unsoundness of the California garage under the apartment. I mean, people are attending

to that. And I think the people in the Midwest and East aren’t familiar with it.

And I think that there are certainly things that can be done that

would save lives in addition to ANSS. I mean, you know, to have

a little warning does matter. I mean, even a little short warning

can mean the difference between whether you die or whether you

don’t die. And so that is important, but I think it is the ability actually to get this information, these maps and these sensors out

across the country and maybe even especially not in California is

essential because I—just think what the economic damage to this

country would be if we had a large event again, and I think we

will. The only question is when. So I don’t know if you agree with

that, Dr. Reaveley, but——

Dr. REAVELEY. Let me just say I agree totally with that, but don’t

think that what you felt in San Jose from Loma Prieta is a big

earthquake. It is a moderate earthquake.

Ms. LOFGREN. It got my attention.

Dr. REAVELEY. It absolutely got your attention, but it is not what

we are going to see.

Ms. LOFGREN. Right.

Dr. REAVELEY. And in modern time, we haven’t had anything——

Ms. LOFGREN. Right.

Dr. REAVELEY [continuing]. That is going to challenge that built

infrastructure the way the big one will.

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. I wonder, Dr. O’Rourke, you had commented on the priorities and what we needed to do. I had a question, really, about another agency that we haven’t discussed at all

and the role that they might play and that is NIST. I mean, we

have talked about needing to get this information out into the pubVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
116

lic arena. NIST sets standards. Their budget has been devastated

in the proposed budget. I don’t—maybe—Dr. O’Rourke, maybe that

is—you are not the right person to ask this, but——

Dr. O’ROURKE. Well, I think everybody at this table shares that

perspective. And there are varying degrees of articulation that we

could provide for it. But certainly at the EERI Board of Direction,

this has been a concern. As you mentioned, NIST is the national

standards developer for this country, and their allocation of resources from the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

has been very, very small, almost minuscule in the last several

years. If they are to do the things that they are capable of to provide the kind of technical device—advice and development that

they are able to do, they need to have an enhanced budget. They

need to have enhanced resources and to play a much more significant role through those resources in this program. So you are right,

absolutely. And it is part of our common perspective, I am sure,

that NIST needs to play a stronger role.

Ms. LOFGREN. Is there a role to play? I mean, building codes are

a product of state and local and will remain so and should remain

so. But California has dramatically upgraded its building code relative to seismic, and it has shown in terms of our losses. And my

sense is that that has not actually happened in other parts of the

country who are very much at risk and that there needs to be—

I don’t know that we need to mandate so much as there needs to

be some information flow to the Midwest and to the East about the

hazards and risks, because I don’t know that the legislators and

city council members are even aware of this.

Dr. REAVELEY. The code is out there, and it is a common code

that we are all working to, essentially with variations. The difference between the good practice in California, and there is poor

practice as well——

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes.

Dr. REAVELEY [continuing]. Is in the enforcement level. It is the

will at the local level to do something about it. There are building

officials who lose their jobs in other jurisdictions for enforcing what

the codes would require. And that is what I am talking about some

incentives at the local level to actually use the knowledge we have

instead of building more bad buildings.

Ms. LOFGREN. Um-hum. Well, and I guess the insurance issue

is—that comes into it. And certainly California has had to take

over the insurance, because the loss estimates are so huge that the

private market couldn’t even cope with it. But I think if insurers

took a look at the exposure in the Midwest, it is actually larger

than what we have in California under——

Chairman SMITH. Would the gentlelady yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Certainly.

Chairman SMITH. Do I understand you to say there is, in effect,

a federal national building code that can be—that is in place that

can be adopted locally by municipalities

or——

Dr. REAVELEY. One of the panel referred to it this morning or

this afternoon. The IBC 2000 is a—essentially a national code. And

multiple states are adopting it, and it is based upon a very thorVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
117

ough overall look at the country’s problem from the mapping program of the USGS. Now——

Chairman SMITH. I was thinking of a building code.

Dr. REAVELEY. It is a building code. The maps are built into the

building code, and there is a document available and it is being

adopted state by state, which is a uniform look at what is good

practice. We have that document. It came, really, out of multiple

agencies, but I would, I guess, really have to point to FEMA as the

one that pushed, along with ASCE and the building officials. It is

a joint effort to make this happen. It was something that we

couldn’t even think that might happen, but it had converged in this

last—for the IBC 2000 from multiple scattered documents where

we were conflicting requirements. We pretty well got rid of those.

Chairman SMITH. We have kept these folks for about——

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes.

Chairman SMITH.—4c—let us see, 2c hours.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, though. This has been very

helpful.

Chairman SMITH. Do you want to ask——

Ms. LOFGREN. No, I think that, actually, this has been a very

useful hearing, because it is really stimulated some ideas and

issues that I wasn’t thinking about when I walked in here, so——

Chairman SMITH. Well, I am not through yet. I have one more

question for——

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay.

Chairman SMITH [continuing]. Mr. Lowe.

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I will listen to your question and answer.

Chairman SMITH. And that is the—I was told last week that our

Emergency Management Program Grants are being transferred—

the 4.4 million are being transferred to border security. Are you

going to have any input how that is used? I mean, that is part of

the NEHRP budget.

Mr. LOWE. Well, as you know, that money was put into the

EMPG grants before, and that is—and that whole fund is being

transferred over to border security, so there is certainly NEHRP

money, as you are referring to, as well as other resources that are

being transferred over to border security. We certainly are going to

try to make sure that that is done in an orderly way and a sufficient—but once they are transferred into the EMPG pot, it means

that states have a flexibility to spend them as they choose, and

so——

Chairman SMITH. Well, so you are not going to work with ODP

on the——

Mr. LOWE. No, what I am trying to say is there is a certain

amount of flexibility that already came from having the money in

EMPG. Now with all of that now going over to ODP, that flexibility

will remain. We absolutely are going to work with ODP to make

sure it works and to try to make sure that we even can have a better job of making sure we know exactly how states are using the

money, so——

Chairman SMITH. I hope you were against that transfer, but

other than that, give me the general rationale of why that decision

was made.

118

Mr. LOWE. Well, that is a first responder pot that is there. I

think it was Secretary Ridge’s belief that it—having, kind of, all

grants administered and monitored in one place would be a much

more efficient way of providing an all-hazard grant. And so that

seems to—is the rationale for doing that, as I understand it.

Chairman SMITH. We are going to call this——

Ms. LOFGREN. Could I just do a——

Chairman SMITH. Certainly.

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Quick follow-up on that, because I

was actually not aware of that transfer? Will the grants that

were—the money that was transferred, are they being treated in

the same way using the same formula as the first responder? The

reason why I ask is that California is currently receiving, I think

it is $3.57 per capita under the First Responder Grants. Wyoming

is getting $37 per capita. And——

Chairman SMITH. They live farther apart.

Ms. LOFGREN. Farther from the—and so there is some sense that

this is not a good idea in California. And I would be very concerned

if these—if this additional money now is morphed into this strange

formula. Do you know the answer to that?

Mr. LOWE. As I understand it, the first responder grants are

really modeled after the Patriot Act. And so—which is—you know,

there is a base level, and then there is some more. So it is a little

different in terms of what you are talking about. There is no designation for earthquake funds now or——

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay.

Mr. LOWE [continuing]. Would they be in the future. So I think

that kind of answers your question.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you.

Mr. LOWE. Can I take a little bit of a liberty to say something

about insurance incentives?

Chairman SMITH. Yes, what do you think?

Mr. LOWE. Yes. I just want to say a little bit about it. As you

know, I am also the Federal Insurance Administrator and do have

the NFIP, which is the National Flood Insurance Program. And one

of the things that we thought would be useful is to try to work with

the private sector to create an all-hazard insurance policy, which

would help spread the risk of, if you will, all of the major hazards

across a larger policy base. And so in doing that, it might very well

be an earthquake pool, let us say, in California, who would pick up

a piece, the NFIP with its 92 insurance companies would pick up

the flood piece. We would have a hurricane piece. There would be

other pieces. It would also, obviously, create a certain amount of

soundness in trying to deal with the terrorism piece.

Now the significance of that is the NFIP, just very quickly, is

built on insurance, the promise of insurance if certain mitigation

actions occur after the hazard areas are defined. And so ANNS,

NEES, all of those are—ANSS, excuse me, are all very critical to

such a system. But we think that that is a model that is worth

looking at. So we would encourage that and just wanted you to

know that those are the sorts of things we were thinking about.

I just want to mention that Executive Order 12699 does say that

for federally owned, leased, assisted, or regulated new building construction, it needs to be in accordance with that design standard.

119

And so in other words—and that is the NEHRP standard. That is

the 2000 standard. So that is there. And so it might be a matter

of compliance to reach some of what you are talking about.

Chairman SMITH. Let us conclude by, if you wish, maybe taking

up to one minute, and I will just raise my hand when your 60 seconds are up, of any last thoughts that you would like to pass on

to the Committee as we write the NEHRP reauthorization. And we

will start at this end, Mr. Reaveley, with you, and go down the

line.

Dr. REAVELEY. Just fund us. And fund the broader program, and

make it a focused program. I worry that we have—that we are not

focused and coordinated on what our goals and objectives are.

Chairman SMITH. Dr. O’Rourke.

Dr. O’ROURKE. I echo that. I think that this program has done

great service and value for the United States, that it is a model for

the rest of the world, that it contributes not only to our seismic

safety, but, as you have heard in this testimony from all different

sources, has had a profound influence on our homeland security

and other natural hazards. And so it is—needs support. It needs

the funding. And you also asked for priorities. I think ANSS, and

also NEES, are two model programs that have terrific opportunity

to do the kinds of things you want it to do. They are on the table.

They are there. They are well thought out. They are visionary. And

with support for those two projects, you will get a lot of leverage.

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Cluff.

Dr. CLUFF. Yes, I support the need to expand the funds, increase

the funding in line with what the EERI comprehensive program

has called for, at least a three times expansion. When we look at

the losses that we certainly can get from earthquakes, on a cost

benefit ratio, it is very clear. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline is a good

example on the money that was saved from a potential environmental disaster. It was a non-event in the press. When asked—

when I had been asked can we afford to increase the budget for the

NEHRP program, when I look at the consequences, we can’t afford

not to.

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. Mr. Olson.

Mr. OLSON. I believe my colleagues have said it all very well.

Being educated in political science, I look back and I would like to

just suggest that maybe it is time to look back at the chartering

legislation that was passed in 1977 and to take a look forward to

the next 20 years and see what it ought to say, because that chartering legislation then is what the agencies implement and report

to you on. And I think that may be a policy—it might be just time

to look at that policy issue. Thank you.

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. Mr. Lowe.

Mr. LOWE. Yeah. I just would want to re-emphasize that the important thing here seems to me to really drive this program toward

results, and the results, of course, are saving lives and property.

We have all of the makings of that. We have a strategic plan. We

are developing an annual plan working with all of our stakeholders

and then, of course, the work that will come out of the research coordinating committee. And so we are developing a performance

management program. That is vitally important, and so we would

like, certainly, the Committee’s strong consideration of what we are

120

trying to do here and to give the strategic plan and the structure

we have set up along with the management plan, among all the

PCC leaders, the NEHRP agency leaders, if you will, to work, because we believe that you will be pleased with the success if you

do.

Thank you.

Chairman SMITH. Let me close in saying thank you all very much

for the sacrifice of your time being here. Thank you for your expertise and interest and advice. Without objection, the record of this

committee hearing will remain open for, how long, 48 hours?

The CLERK. Five days.

Chairman SMITH. Five days in order to have comments from

other Members of the Committee and, with the permission of the

panelists, to possibly ask you additional questions that haven’t

been answered. And with that, the Committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(121)

Appendix 1:

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

122

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES G. GROAT

DIRECTOR, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been an active participant in the National

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) for twenty-five years. Within

NEHRP, USGS provides the fundamental earth sciences information, analyses, and

research that form the foundation for cost-effective earthquake risk reduction measures. Earthquakes are the most costly, single event natural hazard faced by the United

States. Twenty-five years of work by USGS, in close cooperation with the three

other NEHRP agencies (Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and National Science Foundation

(NSF)), has yielded major advances in earthquake preparedness and monitoring, as

well as a vastly improved understanding of earthquake hazards, effects, and processes. Through NEHRP, USGS is poised to build on these accomplishments, helping

to protect lives and property in the future earthquakes that will strike the United

States. In FY 2003, USGS received $46.6 million in appropriated funds to support

NEHRP work. The three major activities of USGS within NEHRP and the percentage of funds supporting these activities are given below:

— Assessment and quantification of seismic hazards. The USGS produces and

demonstrates the application of products that enable the public and private

sectors to assess earthquake risks and implement effective mitigation strategies. (40 percent)

— Operation, modernization, and expansion of real-time earthquake notification

and monitoring systems. The USGS operates the national program in collecting, interpreting, and disseminating information on earthquake occurrences throughout the U.S., and significant earthquakes worldwide, in support of disaster response, scientific research, national security, earthquake

preparedness, and public education. (40 percent)

— Increasing scientific understanding of earthquake processes and effects. The

USGS pursues research on earthquake processes and effects for the purpose

of developing and improving hazard assessment methods and loss reduction

strategies. (20 percent)

The work of USGS Earthquake Hazards Program is focused on the Nation as a

whole and on five broad geographical regions, addressing particular regional needs

and problems in areas where the earthquake risk is the greatest. These regions are

Southern California, Northern California, the Pacific Northwest (including Alaska),

the Intermountain West, and the central and eastern United States (including Puerto Rico).

Approximately one-fourth of the USGS NEHRP funding is used to fund activities,

investigations, and research outside USGS. Each year we support approximately

100 research grants at universities, state governments, and in the private sector.

The USGS is engaged in some 16 cooperative agreements to support the operations

of 14 regional seismic networks maintained by universities. In a cooperative effort

with NSF, USGS provides support to the Southern California Earthquake Center,

a leading effort in earthquake research at the University of Southern California. By

involving the external community, through research grants and cooperative agreements, the USGS program increases its geographical and institutional impact, promotes earthquake awareness across the Nation, encourages the application of new

hazards assessment techniques by State and local governments and the private sector, and increases the level of technical knowledge within State and local government agencies.

USGS NEHRP ACTIVITIES

Earthquake Hazard Assessments. The USGS carries out quantitative earthquake

hazard assessments on national and regional scales. The national seismic hazard assessments are used to form the seismic safety elements of model building codes for

the United States. These maps integrate results of geologic mapping, field studies

of fault locations and slip rates, analyses of seismicity patterns and rates, and crustal deformation measurements. The maps are prepared in digital format and give,

at some 150,000 grid points nationwide, the severity of expected ground shaking (in

terms of horizontal acceleration and velocity) over exposure times of 50, 100, and

250 years. The maps and their associated databases are used also to predict earthquake losses and to define insurance risks. Periodic review and revision of these

123

maps, as new data become available, is a high priority in the USGS NEHRP program. The latest revision of these maps was completed in 2002.

The national scale earthquake hazard maps do not take into account variations

in the amplitude and duration of seismic shaking caused by local geologic structures

and soil conditions. For example, artificially filled land and shallow geologic basins

filled with loosely consolidated sediments tend to amplify and extend earthquake

shaking to dangerous levels. The USGS works in areas of high to moderate seismic

risk, such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Memphis, to produce largescale maps and databases that show the variations in ground shaking patterns that

can be expected from local conditions.

In addition to not taking into account variations in local geology, the national

scale assessments do not take into account the time dependence of earthquake occurrence. For example, if a large, magnitude 8 earthquake occurs on the northern

San Andreas fault in California tomorrow, is unlikely that an earthquake of similar

magnitude will occur on the same fault a year from now, simply because a large

portion of the tectonic strain in the region will have be relieved. Studies of the regional ‘‘strain budget’’ result in forecasts of the probabilities of future earthquakes

on individual active faults and across the region as a whole. The USGS is in the

process of publishing an exhaustive study of the earthquake probabilities in the San

Francisco Bay region. This study estimates a 62 percent chance of an earthquake

of magnitude 6.7 or greater in the region before 2031.

Earthquake Monitoring and Notification. The USGS is the only agency in the

United States responsible for the routine monitoring and notification of earthquake

occurrences. The USGS fulfills this role by operating the U.S. National Seismograph

Network (USNSN), the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC), the National Strong Motion Program (NSMP), and by supporting 14 regional networks in

areas of moderate to high seismic activity. All of these efforts are being integrated

into the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). Rapid and reliable information

on the location, magnitude, and effects of an earthquake is needed to guide emergency response, save lives, reduce economic losses, and speed recovery. Additionally,

the seismic data from routine network operations are essential to define and improve the models of earthquake occurrence, fault activity, and earth structure that

underlie earthquake hazards assessments and research on earthquake effect and

processes.

The same analysis systems and facilities that process data for domestic earthquakes use data from the Global Seismograph Network (GSN) to monitor foreign

earthquakes. Notifications of large foreign earthquakes are provided to the Department of State, the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, the Red Cross, and the

news media.

The ANSS is an effort to integrate, modernize, and expand earthquake monitoring

and notification nationwide. This effort was authorized in the last reauthorization

of NEHRP in 2000 (P.L. 106–503). Although appropriations have not reached the

authorized level, significant progress has been made in the development of the

ANSS. A management structure is in place that includes regional implementation

and advisory groups with national level oversight and coordination. By the end of

2003, USGS and its regional partners will have installed some 400 new seismic sensors in urban areas of the United States. These areas include Los Angeles, San

Francisco, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Reno, Anchorage, and Memphis. Data from earthquake sensors in urban areas can be used to produce, within a few minutes of an

earthquake occurrence, a map showing the actual severity and distribution of strong

ground shaking caused by an earthquake. Emergency management officials and

managers of transportation, communication, and energy grids use these

‘‘ShakeMaps’’ to direct the response to the earthquake, minimize it effects, and

speed recovery. Data from these ‘‘Shake Maps’’ can be imported into FEMA’s

HAZUS GIS based loss estimation tool to provide extremely reliable results. Some

form of ShakeMap capability now exists in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and

Salt Lake City.

ANSS sensors in urban areas also provide the data necessary to improve earthquake resistant building design and construction practices. These instruments will

provide quantitative data on how the ground actually shook during an earthquake.

These data will serve as the input to engineering studies to improve site characterization and infrastructure (bridges, buildings, lifelines, etc.) performance, such as

the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)

sponsored by NSF.

Better Understanding of Earthquake Processes and Effects. With the goal of improving hazard assessments, earthquake forecasts and earthquake monitoring products, USGS conducts and supports research on earthquake processes and effects.

This is a effort to increase our understanding of the tectonic processes that lead to

124

earthquakes, the physics of earthquake initiation and growth, the propagation of

strong shaking through the Earth’s crustal and surficial layers, and the triggering

of landslides, rock falls, and other ground failures by seismic shaking. This research

is based on theoretical, laboratory, and field studies and addresses many of the fundamental problems of earthquake occurrence and consequences.

Working with User Communities. The USGS believes that all of its work under

NEHRP must relate to reducing public risk from earthquake hazards. We make

strong efforts to engage the communities of users of our information, assessment

products, and research.

The development of the national seismic hazard maps involves an exhaustive

process in which we engage seismologists, geologists, and engineers on the regional

and national levels. Regional workshops are held at which new data and studies on

earthquake hazards are presented and discussed. The changes that will result in incorporating the new results into revised maps are also presented and discussed.

Every effort is made to reach a consensus on the validity of the new results and

on the resulting changes in the hazard maps. At the national level, we work with

FEMA, the National Institute of Building Safety, the Building Seismic Safety Council, the Building Officials Conference of America, and the American Society of Civil

Engineers to ensure that the maps are of maximum practical use to the engineering

and construction communities.

Our work on regional hazard assessments in northern and southern California,

Seattle, and Memphis is carried out in participation and collaboration with regional

and local governments and local interest groups. These groups provide essential

input on what information is needed and the form in which it is needed to be of

greatest practical use.

Within the ANSS management structure, there are six regional advisory committees and a national steering committee. These committees are made up of engineers,

seismologists, and emergency management officials. The regional advisory committees ensure that the implementation of ANSS meets regional requirements; the national committee ensures that the program is developed as an integrated system

with national operating standards and equipment specifications.

In 2002, under the authority of P.L. 106–505, USGS established a Scientific

Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee to advise USGS on its roles, goals, and objectives within NEHRP, to review its capabilities and research needs, and to provide

guidance on achieving major objectives and performance goals. Members of this

committee have backgrounds in geology, seismology, and engineering and represent

academia, State governments, and the private sector. The Committee has met three

times during the past year and has provided two reports to this committee on its

findings.

The USGS maintains close ties with professional groups such as the Seismological

Society of America, the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, and the American Geological Institute. We also work closely with and support regional groups

such as the Central United States Earthquake Consortium, the Western States Seismic Policy Council, the Cascadia Region Earthquake Working Group, and various

state geological surveys and seismic safety commissions.

At the federal level, in additional to working with our NEHRP colleagues, we

have strong ties to the Tsunami Warning Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Bureau of Reclamation, and various elements of the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Transportation.

The USGS has worked with the Red Cross and other agencies to prepare Sunday

paper inserts on earthquake awareness for San Francisco and Anchorage. A USGS

employee wrote the pamphlet ‘‘Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country’’ which

was published and distributed throughout southern California by FEMA, the State

of California, the Red Cross, and the Southern California Earthquake Center.

Promoting the International Exchange of Earthquake Information and Research.

Since the beginning of NEHRP, USGS has had formal, active scientific exchange

programs with Russia, Japan, and the Peoples Republic of China. In prior years,

before development of the Internet and the demise of the Cold War, these exchanges

were rather stiff and prescribed with formal annual meetings at which details of

joint research projects were negotiated. The annual meetings continue, but in addition to them there is a continual flow of information, ideas, and results between participants on all sides through electronic mail and personal visits. The USGS also

has exchange programs with institutes in France, Italy, Turkey, Mexico, and Canada.

In the case of a large, foreign earthquake, when there are lessons to be learned

that have applications in the United States or when assistance is requested, the

USGS will send teams of scientists to carry out post-earthquake investigations. DurVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
125

ing the 25 years of NEHRP the USGS has sent teams to investigate earthquakes

in dozens of countries including Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Chile, China, Columbia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Turkey, Yemen, and Yugoslavia. Most of these investigations have led to scientific reports that are provided

to the host country and many have led to extensive collaborative work between

USGS and foreign scientists.

SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENTS OF NEHRP

The USGS has made substantial progress in earthquake awareness, preparedness, and safety during the past 25 years. Immense efforts have gone into planning

earthquake emergency response, retrofitting existing structures, and ensuring that

new structures are built to withstand expected shaking levels. The USGS has contributed to these efforts through its hazard assessment, monitoring, and research

efforts.

Earthquake Hazard Assessment. The flagship product of the USGS under NEHRP

is the series of national seismic hazard maps. These seismic hazard maps are the

scientific basis of seismic provisions in building codes enacted throughout the U.S.

to prevent loss of life and limit damage during large earthquakes. Ten years ago

these code maps were based on four broad, qualitative zones that were used to describe the earthquake hazard nationwide. This depiction and classification of the

Nation’s earthquake hazard was completely inadequate. Today these maps consist

of 150,000 grid points each with a quantitative estimate of the expected shaking at

each point. The 1996 national seismic hazard maps are directly included in design

maps in the NEHRP Recommended Provisions, published by the Building Seismic

Safety Council and FEMA. In turn, these Provisions are used in the 2000 International Building Code (IBC), which is the merging of the three major national

model codes. The IBC and the International Residential Code have now been adopted by jurisdictions in 37 states. Thus, this NEHRP product, the set of national seismic hazard maps, is being used to make billions of dollars of new construction each

year safer from earthquakes.

The national seismic hazard maps are also used in the FEMA retrofit guidelines,

ensuring that older buildings are strengthened so that they withstand future earthquakes. These maps and associated products are also used in the design of highway

bridges, landfills under EPA regulation, and dams, as well as the setting of earthquake insurance premiums and the cost of re-insurance. The California Earthquake

Authority uses the seismic hazard maps for California, produced by USGS and the

California Division of Mines and Geology, to set earthquake premiums for the state

earthquake insurance program. Pension funds apply these maps, made under

NEHRP, to evaluate the risks to their portfolios of properties. Presidential executive

orders specify that new and leased federal buildings must adhere to the NEHRP

Recommended Provisions. The State of Oregon recently upgraded to seismic zone 4

along the southern part of its coast, largely based on hazard information presented

in USGS seismic hazard maps.

Another major advance in hazard assessment work occurred in the 1990’s when

USGS created formal field offices in Pasadena, Memphis, and Seattle. The purpose

of these field offices was to bring our scientists in direct contact with the regional

users of the results of our studies. Personnel at these field offices, and at our regional center in Menlo Park, California, have been very successful in working with

local interests and creating products that will allow these interests to effectively and

efficiently address their earthquake risks.

Earthquake Monitoring and Notification. The USGS has also realized major improvements in its ability to provide timely and informative earthquake reports and

information. Twenty-five years ago basic earthquake data processing (location and

magnitude determination) was done by hand. Scientists made measurements on

paper seismograms with rulers and used slide rules to compute epicenters and magnitudes. Earthquake notification was performed by individually dialed telephone

calls. It took at least an hour to develop the photographic paper that recorded the

seismic data, make the measurements, analyze the data, and make the phone calls.

This was the time required to process one earthquake! Today digital data flows from

hundreds of seismometers over dedicated communication links to regional and national data centers. At these centers computers that ‘‘read’’ the seismograms using

complex analysis programs process the data. Epicenters and magnitudes are generated automatically and instantaneously and the results are broadcast within seconds.

The concepts underpinning the Advanced National Seismic System are allowing

USGS to capitalize on the revolution in information technology of recent decades to

achieve dramatic advances in real-time seismic data analysis and rapid earthquake

notification. The most noteworthy result of this is the ‘‘ShakeMap’’ product. CompleVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
126

menting ShakeMap is a suite of other real-time earthquake products such as earthquake paging and e-mail services, real-time earthquake location maps, automatic

Web pages for significant events, and aftershock probability estimators. Recently we

established a Web-based interface to provide Internet users with a means of recording individual earthquakes experiences and compiling these into summary maps of

shaking intensity (‘‘Did-You-Feel-It?’’). These additional products provide rapid, reliable, and comprehensive information about U.S. and worldwide earthquakes.

Understanding Earthquake Processes and Effects. Progress made in earthquake

hazard assessments during the past 25 years have their roots in pioneering USGS

field, laboratory, and theoretical research focused on understanding the basic physical processes of earthquakes. Key results include:

— Improved models of seismic energy attenuation as a function of distance

from an earthquake;

— Use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) to determine the rate at which

faults are being ‘‘loaded’’ (stressed) by the movement of tectonic plates that

make up the Earth’s outer shell;

— Discovery and documentation of large, prehistoric earthquakes through a

new field of study known as paleoseismology through identifying evidence of

past earthquakes in trenches dug across faults, in riverbanks, and from

drowned coastlines;

— Quantifying the effect of soils and near-surface conditions in amplifying

strong ground motion; and,

— Advances in earthquake forecasting through improved understanding of the

physics of fracture and friction of rocks in fault zones.

IMPROVING NEHRP

The USGS believes that, although the coordination between NEHRP agencies is

good, it could be substantially improved. Coordination between USGS and NSF on

NEHRP matters takes place more on a collegial basis, rather than being driven by

NEHRP; however, FEMA has recently taken steps to establish a Research Coordination Committee, which may improve the overall coordination. The USGS believes

that stronger direction to the overall NEHRP program would be constructive. Because of provisions in the last legislation authorizing NEHRP, USGS now benefits

from the advice and guidance of its Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee. This committee has proven invaluable in providing sound direction to our

NEHRP activities. The USGS suggests that a similar advisory body to the entire

NEHRP effort would provide the stimulus and guidance to ensure greater coordination, cooperation, and planning.

NEHRP CHALLENGES AND USGS PLANS

Although much has been accomplished under NEHRP, much work remains to be

done to ensure safety and reduce economic losses in future earthquakes. The country’s population and economy continue to grow in earthquake prone areas. Exposure

to earthquake risk continues to increase. Emergency officials, lifeline managers, the

news media, and the public expect immediate, reliable, and complete information on

the location, magnitude, impact, and effects of any and all earthquakes.

Earthquake hazard information used in model building codes is applied for public

safety only; that is to keep the structure from collapsing. The building may be a

total loss, but the inhabitants are expected to be safe. Financial and engineering interests are now pursuing the more sophisticated, and more complicated, concept of

performance-based design. Under this concept, the structure is designed and constructed so that it will meet a desired performance level during and after an earthquake. For example, the owners and occupants of a structure housing a national corporate headquarters may want it designed so that it will be completely functional

immediately after a strong earthquake. Performance based design concepts require

more extensive and complete data on the nature and variation of ground shaking

and building from earthquakes.

Going forward, USGS will continue to build on existing USGS earthquake monitoring, assessment, and research activities with the ultimate goal of providing the

Nation with earthquake products that promote earthquake mitigation and facilitate

earthquake response. At the heart of this effort will be a continued emphasis on delivering information that is useful, accessible, and easily understood. By working

closely with policy-makers and emergency planners, USGS will ensure that they

have the most reliable and accurate information possible about earthquake hazards

and that our products are tailored to their needs. The USGS will participate in local

and national earthquake mitigation planning exercises and help train emergency responders, contingency planners, risk managers, the media, and others in how to use

127

earthquake hazard assessments and real-time information products. The USGS will

also continue to work directly with communities to help them understand their

vulnerabilities to earthquakes and to plan mitigation actions. Critical decisions for

earthquake preparedness and response, including continued corporate and government operations, are often made far from areas of high seismic hazard. So that informed and appropriate actions can be taken, USGS will continue to work to ensure

that earthquake hazard information and products are useful and familiar to decision-makers even in regions of low seismic hazard.

Advanced National Seismic System. The ANSS initiative is intended to contribute

to reducing loss of life and property in earthquakes through monitoring actual

ground shaking levels in urban areas and the dynamic performance of structures

and lifelines in earthquakes. ANSS is intended to collect this information through

a nationwide network of sophisticated shaking monitors, placed both on the ground

and in buildings in urban areas in seismically active regions. Under the ANSS initiative, USGS had added 400 new seismometers in urban areas and 18 new

seismometers to the regional networks it supports.

One component of ANSS is the instrumentation of buildings. To date, two buildings have been instrumented under the ANSS initiative. Currently, the spacing of

seismometers is not sufficient to correlate the ground shaking to the performance

of specific buildings. If hundreds of buildings in high-risk areas are instrumented

with seismometers, engineers can determine how specific types of buildings respond

to earthquake shaking. Although model building codes set earthquake resistant

standards for broad, general classes of structures (i.e., wood frame, residential) on

a generic soil type, these instruments will provide data about how more complicated

buildings (i.e., steel-moment frame and non-ductile concrete frame) buildings perform during earthquakes and how to design buildings that will perform well during

violent shaking.

The instrumentation of structures in seismically active areas provides engineers

with critical information they need to determine how buildings respond to earthquakes. This information includes:

— the coupling between the building foundation and the underlying soils;

— the role of torsion of columns in building shaking;

— the performance of commonly used systems such as shear walls combined

with a moment-frame structure; and,

— the ability of mathematical models to predict the performance of buildings

during strong shaking.

The closely spaced seismometers could also be used to identify areas of special engineering problems, such as high amplification and focusing, that will require special building design before the destructive earthquake occurs. This in turn will allow

identification of locations where seismic strengthening of buildings is needed the

most, ensuring the cost effectiveness of the mitigation.

A goal of ANSS is improved reliability, timeliness, and breadth of USGS real-time

earthquake products for emergency response purposes. ShakeMap, in particular, requires access to a modern seismic network with digital strong motion recording capabilities and real-time telecommunications feeds. Few U.S. urban areas possess

this type of modern technology. For this reason, ShakeMap is currently only available in a handful of cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Salt Lake City).

We note that the instruments and automatic analysis systems being deployed and

developed within the ANSS effort can detect, locate, and determine the severity of

large, non-natural events that generate seismic energy, such as explosions and impacts.

Earthquake Warnings. As the ANSS system develops, it will be technically possible, under some conditions, to issue warnings within a few tens of seconds of the

initiation of strong ground shaking. The seismic waves that carry strong shaking

travel at about two miles-per-second. If an earthquake occurs 100 miles outside of

an urban area, data from ANSS sensors near the epicenter can immediately be

transmitted over robust communication links to a data analysis center. Here the

data can be analyzed automatically to determine that a strong earthquake has occurred. This could be done within a few seconds. A warning could then be issued

via radio to the urban area that strong earthquake shaking is imminent. The warning would give school children time to get under their desks, allow surgeons time

safely pause their procedures (if possible), and provide time to suspend the pumping

of toxic materials and other hazardous activities. The USGS is taking the lead in

demonstrating this capability; however its implementation must be done in cooperation with local and regional governments.

128

Integrating essential data for expanded urban hazard assessments. Most current

USGS earthquake hazard assessments are compiled on regional or national scales.

These estimates typically are limited to calculating hazards on hard rock conditions

as opposed to the actual soil conditions beneath cities and lifelines. At scales needed

for urban planning and development, assessments need to account for the amplifying effects of soils and the potential for ground failures, such as liquefaction and

landslides.

USGS pilot urban assessments in Oakland, Seattle, and Memphis have shown the

usefulness of detailed urban assessments. Central to this effort will be the integration of data on local geology, site conditions, and ground motions needed to produce

detailed urban hazard maps. These data integration efforts will require partnerships with state geological surveys and local agencies. As these hazard assessments

evolve, they will allow estimates of potential earthquake losses to building stocks

and critical lifelines. This is one of the keys to developing cost effective mitigation

strategies to reduce future earthquake losses.

Earthquake Hazards in the Eastern United States. The USGS earthquake program devotes approximately 75 percent of its resources to work in the Western

United States, primarily because the hazard there is greater. However, history demonstrates that a catastrophic quake could also strike a major city in the Eastern

United States. Four damaging earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 7 centered in the New Madrid, Missouri, area struck the Mississippi Valley in 1811–1812.

Charleston, South Carolina, was devastated by a magnitude 6.7 shock in1886, and

a magnitude 6.0 quake struck the Boston area in 1755.

USGS studies show that urban areas in the Eastern United States will incur far

greater damage and far more deaths in a quake of a given magnitude than those

in the West for several reasons: (1) for the same magnitude earthquake, shaking

affects a much larger area, (2) most structures are not designed to resist earthquakes, and (3) population density is high and residents are not routinely educated

about seismic safety.

USGS is developing the methods and understanding that could improve our understanding of the earthquake hazard in the East, where the causative earthquake

faults are rarely exposed at the surface and the subsurface conditions beneath major

cities are poorly documented. More thorough and accurate assessment of the seismic

risk faced by major urban centers in the East will reveal the greatest vulnerabilities

and serve as key input to evaluate possible mitigation strategies.

Earthquake Hazards in Alaska. Alaska has the greatest exposure to earthquake

hazard of any state. Because of the relatively small urban population, many assume

the risk is low compared to the rest of the country. However, the impact of a devastating earthquake in Alaska can extend far beyond its borders, both by generating

deadly tsunamis and through economic consequences. Alaska is a major source of

natural resources for the rest of the Nation, a major transportation and commercial

node of the Pacific Rim being the 5th busiest air cargo airport in the world, and

of significant importance to national defense.

Capitalizing on new national facilities. As described in the 2003 National Research Council report, Living on an Active Earth: Perspectives on Earthquake

Science, continued progress toward evaluating earthquake hazards will increasingly

require integrative, physics-based research involving theoretical studies of processes

controlling earthquake phenomena, sophisticated numerical modeling, in situ,

ground-based, and space-based field observations, and laboratory simulations. Research, data collection, and monitoring facilities developed during the first 25 years

of NEHRP are aging and becoming obsolete. Recent and proposed U.S. government

investments in a number of major earth science and engineering facilities (e.g.,

ANSS, the NSF-coordinated EarthScope initiative—including the Plate Boundary

Observatory, USArray, and the San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth, the

George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), and

a future interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) satellite mission) offer, for

the first time, the breadth and depth of data required to truly address the physical

nature of earthquakes.

The USGS will take advantage of these new data streams to perform earthquake

hazard focused experiments on scales never before possible. To improve long-term

hazard assessments, USGS will also create region specific earthquake occurrence

models that simulate the multiple factors operating in active fault systems. A major

goal will be to understand the criteria for the occurrence of earthquakes within a

fault system and the impact of one quake on the system through the many processes

that transfer stresses. To determine if earthquakes are predictable, USGS will build

models of earthquake likelihood, akin to weather forecast models.

Earthquake Prediction. Reliable prediction of the time, place, and magnitude of

future earthquake is the ‘‘holy grail’’ of earthquake science. The USGS spent considVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
129

erable effort on earthquake prediction during the early days of NEHRP (1978–1990).

After strong efforts and at least one dramatic failure, based mostly on a phenomenological approach, USGS concluded that earthquake prediction would not be possible

without a foundation based on a complete understanding of earthquake physics and

processes. During the past decade, we have seen considerable progress in the understanding of earthquake processes. This progress in understanding could contribute

to advancing reliable earthquake prediction. But, in order to do so, it would be necessary to review the current state of knowledge, identify the scientific problems that

should be addressed, and develop a strategy to address these issues.

CONCLUSION

After 25 years of NEHRP, USGS has become a world scientific leader in seismic

hazard studies. In implementing the results of these studies to mitigate the effects

of earthquakes, USGS has actively collaborated with state geologic surveys, emergency response officials, earthquake engineers, local government, and the public.

This has resulted in dramatic improvement in building safety and earthquake response in the United States. But there is still much to be done. By integrating

USGS earthquake information with data from new national initiatives, such as

ANSS, USGS will be able to develop a new generation of effective and efficient

earthquake hazard assessment and mitigation tools. These tools will be used to further reduce losses of life and property in the future earthquakes that are certain

to strike our nation’s seismically hazardous regions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to submit this statement.

BIOGRAPHY FOR CHARLES G. GROAT

On November 13, 1998, Dr. Charles G. Groat became the 13th Director of the U.S.

Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Groat is a distinguished professional in the earth science community with over

25 years of direct involvement in geological studies, energy and minerals resource

assessment, ground-water occurrence and protection, geomorphic processes and

landform evolution in desert areas, and coastal studies. From May to November

1998, hie served as Associate Vice President for Research and Sponsored Projects

at the University of Texas at El Paso, following three years as Director of the Center for Environmental Resource Management. He was also Director of the University’s Environmental Science and Engineering Ph.D. Program and a Professor of Geological Sciences.

Prior to joining the University of Texas, Dr. Groat served asp Executive Director

(1992–95) at the Center for Coastal, Energy, and Environmental Resources, at Louisiana State University. He was Executive Director (1990–92) for the American Geological Institute. From 1983–88, he served as assistant to the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, where he administered the Coastal Zone

Management Program, and the Coastal Protection Program.

From 1978–1990, Dr. Groat held positions at Louisiana State University and the

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources which included serving as professor for

the Department of Geology and Geophysics, and as Director and State Geologist for

the Louisiana Geological Survey. He also served as associate professor (1976–78) at

the University of Texas at Austin, in the Department of Geological Sciences, and

as Associate Director and Acting Director of the Bureau of Economic Geology.

Dr. Groat received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Geology (1962) from the University of Rochester, a Master of Science in Geology (1967) from the University of Massachusetts, and a Ph.D. in Geology (1970) from the University of Texas at Austin.

Among his many professional affiliations, Groat is a member of the Geological Society of America, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American

Geophysical Union, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologist. He has

also served on over a dozen earth science boards and committees and has, authored

and contributed to numerous publications and articles on major issues involving

earth resources and the environment.

Dr. Charles G. Groat was born in Westfield, New York, March 25, 1940. He currently resides in Reston, Virginia, with his wife, Barbara. He has two grown children.

130

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PRISCILLA P. NELSON

SENIOR ADVISOR, DIRECTORATE FOR ENGINEERING,

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Introduction

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:

I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony from the National Science

Foundation (NSF) concerning the Subcommittee’s reauthorization of the National

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). NEHRP was established in

1977 and operates as an effective multi-agency partnership; NSF is privileged to

serve as a NEHRP agency. We are confident that NEHRP—in collaboration with

other federal agencies, local and state governments, colleges and universities, and

private sector organizations throughout the country—will continue to take crucial

steps toward meeting the challenge of reducing deaths, injuries and property damage caused by earthquakes in the years to come.

In order to provide context for the NSF involvement in NEHRP, let me first discuss the broader NSF mission in order to place in context my extended discussion

of the role of NSF in the NEHRP partnership.

The NSF Mission

Recent years have seen acceleration in rates of change in society and in the world

at large. In this era of dynamic change, in which science and technology play an

increasingly central role, NSF has remained steadfast in pursuit of its mission: to

support science and engineering research and education for the advancement of the

Nation’s well being. Knowledge is our strongest insurance for preparedness. The

Foundation is that main source of funding for the growth in fundamental scientific

knowledge and, at the colleges and universities funded by NSF, scientists and engineers are working to provide more effective predictions and to discover ever more

effective approaches to prevention and amelioration.

The perspective of each NEHRP agency is critical to creating a complete picture

of the Nation’s vulnerability to earthquakes—an understanding that leads to effective mitigation and hazard reduction. Collectively, we cover the spectrum from natural and social sciences to engineering, from discovery to implementation, from response to mitigation. With the vulnerability of the Nation to natural hazards growing increasingly complex, we need an integrated, multi-agency perspective to make

significant progress.

Role of NSF in NEHRP

NSF supports research and educational activities in many disciplines, and this is

reflected in our role within NEHRP. Our role complements the responsibilities assigned to our principal partners in the program: the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NSF is involved in continuing strategic

planning with the other NEHRP agencies in order to further interagency coordination and integration.

Legislation authorizing NEHRP called for NSF to support studies in the earth

sciences, earthquake engineering, and the social sciences. Since 1977, NSF investments have supported growth of vibrant hazards-related research communities in

engineering, geosciences, and in the social sciences. Leadership from the engineering

research community has been important to technology transfer of research outcomes

into practice and into improvements in codes and standards. NSF’s investments in

center-based research (the Earthquake Engineering Research Centers—EERCs, and

the Southern California Earthquake Center—SCEC) have been very important for

the integration of social sciences into engineering and geoscience research questions,

and NSF’s investments in IRIS (Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology)

have resulted in an effective global network for seismic monitoring. The EERCs are

recognized for global leadership in the development of new concepts of performance

based earthquake engineering (PBEE), and consequence-based approaches to understanding the performance and vulnerability of complex infrastructure systems.

NSF’s centers programs provide very useful institutional arrangements for conducting complex holistic research, and this tradition will be carried into the George

E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) project as

it becomes fully operational at the end of FY 2004.

During 2002, NSF supported the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

(EERI) to develop a long-term research and education plan to advance the state-ofthe-art and the state-of-the-practice in earthquake engineering and earthquake loss

reduction. The result is a comprehensive, community-held vision that includes buyVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
131

in from all sectors and disciplines including academics, practicing engineers and

geoscientists, social scientists, and government employees and regulators. The plan

takes advantage of opportunities presented by high performance computing, information systems, simulation and visualization. Integral to the outcome is the commitment by EERI to maintain and update this vision, and to coordinate with other

kindred organizations and programs including the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS, a project of the USGS) and the NEHRP agencies.

Earthquake and hazards-related research and educational activities are supported

in many of the programs at NSF, including particular contributions from the Social,

Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE), the Geosciences (GEO) and the Engineering (ENG) Directorates. Fundamental seismic research is funded in GEO, while

ENG supports fundamental earthquake engineering. Social science research related

to earthquake hazard mitigation and preparedness is supported through the SBE

and ENG Directorates. Significant progress continues to be made in these programs

in understanding plate tectonics and earthquake processes, geotechnical and structural engineering, and the social and economic aspects of earthquake hazard reduction.

In addition to the four NEHRP-funded earthquake centers, numerous individual

investigator and small group projects related to earthquakes are also supported by

NSF. Other NEHRP-related NSF activities include programs involving earthquake

research facilities, post-earthquake investigations, international cooperation, and information dissemination. In the remainder of this testimony, recent highlights of

such activities will be discussed briefly.

Research Facilities

NEHRP legislation has reinforced NSF’s own expectations regarding the important role for NSF to ensure that U.S. researchers have the required facilities to conduct cutting-edge research well into the next century.

The George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)

Previous NEHRP legislation called for NSF, in collaboration with the other

NEHRP partners, to develop a comprehensive plan for modernizing and integrating

experimental earthquake engineering research facilities in the U.S. That plan was

completed and implemented as an NSF Major Research Equipment and Facilities

Construction project—the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES). In 1999, the NEES project was authorized for NEES construction between FY 2000 and FY 2004. The FY 2004 budget request includes the

final increment of $8.0 million for completion of this $81.8 million project.

NEES will be a networked simulation resource of fifteen geographically-distributed, shared use next-generation experimental research equipment sites. The NEES

sites were identified through peer-reviewed proposal competitions and include facilities under construction in California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New

York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah.

The NEES experimental capabilities will lead to new tools for modeling, simulation, and visualization of site, structural, and nonstructural response to earthquakes

and tsunami effects. NEES will provide an unprecedented engineering capability for

attacking major earthquake problems with coordinated multi-organizational teams,

producing convincing results that can be adopted into building codes and engineering practice.

• NEES experimental research equipment, located at U.S. universities or offcampus field sites, includes shake tables, geotechnical centrifuges, a tsunami

wave basin, large-scale laboratory experimentation systems, and field experimentation and monitoring installations.

• The NEES network links nation-wide users and equipment sites through a

high performance Internet system that will include web-based collaborative

tools, data and simulation software repositories. The NEES network also provides access to leading edge compute resources.

• Through the network, researchers can remotely interact with each other and

with their experimental and simulation tools via ‘‘telepresence’’ tools.

NEES will also serve as a major educational tool. Undergraduate and graduate

students throughout the U.S. will be able to access the network for data, information, and course material as well as to participate in various experiments. Involvement with NEES will also enable students to sharpen skills in utilizing modern information technology tools and resources. These learning opportunities could be

made available for pre-college students as well as college students, ushering in an

unprecedented appreciation for earthquake problems and a new age for earthquake

engineering education.

132

Proposal competitions for all equipment sites and the NEES Internet-based network were completed by FY 2002. All awards are by cooperative agreement and all

projects are on schedule and at budget. The sites and the network will be operational by September 30, 2004. Internet sites for NEES are established as http://

www.nees.org for the sites and the overall project, and http://www.neesgrid.org for

the network.

From FY 2005, the NEES network and facilities will be maintained and operated

by the NEES Consortium. The NEES Consortium will provide the leadership, management, and coordination for all the NEES shared-use resources. The NEES Consortium was incorporated on January 31, 2003 and already has more than 250

members in the short 8 weeks since its formation.

The NEES experimental capabilities will lead to new tools for modeling, simulation, and visualization of site, structural, and nonstructural response to earthquakes

and tsunami effects. NEES will provide an unprecedented engineering capability for

attacking major earthquake problems with coordinated multi-organizational teams,

producing convincing results that can be adopted into building codes and engineering practice. NEES experimental resources and data are expected to be used annually by approximately 1,000 U.S. researchers and students, and the Consortium is

expected to develop as a broad and integrated partnership in earthquake engineering community, both within the U.S. and abroad, as equipment sites around the

world join the NEES network.

We expect NEES to lead to a new age in earthquake engineering research and

education. It should be well worth the large investment. We look forward to keeping

the Subcommittee informed about its development.

EarthScope

Progress in earthquake prediction and hazard mitigation is critically dependent

on results of studies that probe fundamental earthquake processes. Knowledge of regional tectonic conditions enables geophysicists to establish the long-term level of

earthquake hazards. Understanding stress accumulation provides the basis for identifying and interpreting earthquake processes. Knowledge of the rupture process,

particularly the effects of the local geology on ruptures, provides the basis for estimates of ground shaking. The compelling need for such knowledge has led to the

development of the EarthScope project, first authorized and funded in FY 2003.

EarthScope is also an MREFC project, developed with partnership from USGS

and NASA. EarthScope will apply modern observational, analytical, and telecommunications technologies to investigate the long-term structure and evolution of

the North American continent and the physical processes controlling earthquakes

and volcanic eruptions. When fully deployed, EarthScope’s components will include

modern digital seismic arrays, global positioning satellite receivers, strainmeters

and new satellite radar imagery, and an observatory deep within the San Andreas

Fault.

The need for knowledge about earthquake processes also explains the intellectual

support at NSF for the USGS project—the Advanced National Seismic System

(ANSS). ANSS is a permanent national network of shaking measurement systems

that will make it possible to provide emergency response personnel with real-time

earthquake information, provide engineers with information about building and site

response, and provide scientists with high-quality data to understand earthquake

processes and solid earth structure and dynamics. ANSS includes a strong emphasis

on urban areas and the response of buildings to shaking. Discussions are underway

to link the ANSS resource with EarthScope, NEES and the NSF research programs.

NSF expects strong synergy among EarthScope, ANSS and the NEES network,

and we will be sure to keep the Subcommittee informed about their progress.

Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS)

In 1984, the seismological community created the IRIS initiative: the Incorporated

Research Institutions for Seismology. The IRIS constituency, now at 100 members,

includes virtually all U.S. universities with research programs in seismology, plus

44 foreign affiliates. Through IRIS, NSF supports two instrumentation programs

that are needed for seismology to take advantage of the many advances in instrumentation and computer technology that have taken place: a permanent network—

the Global Seismographic Network (GSN)—in cooperation with USGS; and a portable seismic array—the Program for Array Seismic Studies of the Continental

Lithosphere (PASSCAL).

The GSN plan for 120 stations evenly placed throughout the world has been essentially completed. The past two years have seen a number of accomplishments.

Use of the GSN seismometers in a rapid analysis of damaging earthquakes has been

invaluable. Attention is now being directed toward the much more difficult job of

133

instrumenting the large gaps in the network consisting of the major ocean basins

of the world. The IRIS GSN is a founding member of the Federation of Digital Seismographic Networks (FDSN). Other participating networks include Canada, Germany, the French Geoscope, Italy’s Mednet, and Japan’s Poseidon. FDSN stations

worldwide now total about 180.

The PASSCAL plan is for a portable array of 1000 seismic instruments for detailed study of the lithosphere and rapid response to monitor earthquake occurrence

or possible earthquake precursors. The PASSCAL Instrument Center is at the University of New Mexico. 600 PASSCAL instruments are now available for fieldwork

and they are being used in a number of projects in the U.S. and throughout the

world.

The IRIS Data Management Center (DMC) was developed to handle the extremely

large volume of digital data that is generated, stored, and accessed by the seismological community. Data is provided through Data Collection Centers in Albuquerque and San Diego to the data archive/mass store in Seattle. Users have network access to the archive and to IRIS headquarters for more general information

services. All FDSN data, from 180 stations worldwide, and all PASSCAL project

data are available at the DMC, which serves as the first FDSN archive for continuous data. Over 14 terabytes were stored in the DMC at the end of 2002 and it continues to grow at about 3 terabytes per year. A measure of the success of IRIS’s

effort is the remarkable number of investigators making use of DMC data. In 2002,

there were more than 45,000 data requests serviced by the DMC for seismic data.

Global Positioning Systems

NSF has supported development of several GPS networks. The NSF- and USGSfunded Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) has provided the impetus

for the development of a large-scale permanent GPS geodetic array in southern California focused on earthquake hazard assessment—a new and ambitious concept for

the use of GPS technology. SCEC organized the southern California geodetic community through establishment of the Southern California Integrated GPS Network

(SCIGN). SCIGN brings together networks and GPS expertise at UC–San Diego,

UCLA, MIT, USGS and JPL/NASA. Funding is garnered from many sources, with

an implementation plan developed by the SCIGN Steering Committee used to guide

resource allocation. The permanent array is now complete at 250 stations.

PANGA is an 18-station permanent GPS network installed in the Pacific Northwest with support of NSF and the Canadian Geological Survey in collaboration with

the Central Washington University, University of Washington, and Oregon State

University.

The University NAVSTAR Consortium (UNAVCO) has become UNAVCO, Inc., a

non-profit membership-governed organization that supports and promotes Earth

science by advancing high-precision geodetic and strain techniques such as the Global Positioning System (GPS). UNAVCO, Inc. was formed in response to community

support of its role as lead organization for community-based planning and management of new initiatives such as the EarthScope Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO),

by establishing corporate oversight, and through the already-established community

workshops and working groups.

NSF supports separately a number of investigations utilizing the UNAVCO GPS

equipment in crustal distortion areas that are prime candidates for future earthquakes. Seismically active areas occupied to date within or near the U.S. include

California, New England, the Caribbean, Colorado, Hawaii, Wyoming, and Montana.

Outside the U.S., important distortion areas in Turkey, Iceland, Greenland, Asia,

and South America are being monitored.

NSF Research Centers

Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC)

The Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) was founded in 1991 as an

NSF Science and Technology Center, and continues under support from NSF and

the USGS. The SCEC headquarters are at the University of Southern California,

and the Center includes eight core university partners. Other universities, state and

local governments, and private companies are participating in the research and outreach activities. The primary science goal of SCEC is to develop a comprehensive,

physics-based understanding of earthquake phenomena in southern California

through integrative, multidisciplinary studies of plate-boundary tectonics, active

fault systems, fault-zone processes, dynamics of fault ruptures, ground motions, and

seismic hazard analysis.

134

Earthquake Engineering Research Centers (EERCs)

NSF funded three new earthquake engineering research centers (EERCs) in October 1997. Each EERC is a consortium of several academic institutions—with an administrative headquarters at a designated campus—involved in multidisciplinary

team research, educational and outreaches activities. The EERCs are combining research across the disciplines of the earth sciences, earthquake engineering, and the

social sciences, and some of the research conducted at the EERC’s is funded by

FEMA.

The Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE) is headquartered at the University

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. MAE’s mission is to reduce losses across societal

systems through the development of consequence-based engineering approaches that

are founded on advanced technologies for characterizing seismic hazards and the response of the built environment.

The Multi-disciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER)

has its headquarters at the State University of New York at Buffalo. MCEER’s vision is to help establish earthquake resilient communities and its mission to discover, nurture, develop, promote, help implement, and, in some instances pilot test,

innovative measures and advanced and emerging technologies to reduce losses in future earthquakes in a cost-effective manner. MCEER places significant emphasis on

the seismic response of networks and critical facilities.

With its administrative headquarters at the University of California at Berkeley,

the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) focuses on earthquake

problems in areas west of the Rocky Mountains. The main focus for the PEER Center is performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) that includes socio-economic evaluation of whether the seismic performance is cost-effective and suitable

to the owner and society.

The three EERCs are not involved only in research and technology advancement

for the mitigation of earthquake damages. In order to meet the needs of future professionals in the field, they are educating hundreds of undergraduate and graduate

students in the latest analytical, computational and experimental techniques. They

also reach out to K–12 students to inspire even younger generations in earthquake

engineering: An example is PEER’s ‘‘Learning with LEGO’’ Program, which brings

annually over 500 K–12 students from socio-economically disadvantaged areas to

the campus for an open house and shake-table demonstration.

The EERCs also engage in a variety of outreach activities to the public. Keeping

the public abreast of scientific and technological advancements is a continual activity, essential to better understanding of natural hazards, policy issues, and disaster

mitigation as it applies to the individual.

• MCEER has worked with the Discovery Channel to develop three programs

related to earthquakes.

• The PEER Center worked with the California Academy of Sciences to develop

the Academy’s Earthquakes! Exhibit, which is visited by over one million people annually, and focuses on earthquake preparedness and safety.

Post-Earthquake Investigations

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, NSF funded quick response

research awards that mobilized more than 50 faculty and students to begin the process of observing, recording, and evaluating the impact on the public, the structures,

and the organizations involved in response. The National Hazard Research Application and Information Center (NHRAIC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder—

a Center funded through NSF with contributions from many federal agencies including FEMA and USGS—coordinated much of the social science research, and the

NSF-funded Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems (ICIS, http://www.nyu.edu/

icis) provided on-site facilitation and coordination for researchers arriving at the

WTC site. It is the mission of ICIS, in addition to its location, that rendered it ideal

for coordinating the NSF sponsored research: to focus on developing resources and

networks to sustain, renew, and improve the Nation’s infrastructure system by integrating different perspectives and disciplines into infrastructure planning, engaging

users and communities that host infrastructure services and facilities.

In large part, the reason that NSF could move so fast following the events of 9/

11 was that there had been so much practice in multi-agency coordinated post-disaster investigations following major earthquakes in the United States and abroad.

Areas struck by major earthquakes represent natural laboratories, offering unusual

opportunities to collect time-sensitive information and to learn vital lessons about

earthquake impacts. This data importantly serves to test models and techniques derived from analytical, computational and experimental studies, and to observe and

document effects on the natural and built environment and resulting social, ecoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
135

nomic, and policy impacts. For these reasons and for nearly 30 years, NSF has supported post-disaster investigations in conjunction with the Earthquake Engineering

Research Institute (EERI) ‘‘Learning from Earthquakes’’ (LFE) project. The postearthquake investigations involve quick-response teams of researchers, deployed

with close coordination to USGS and other NEHRP agency activities. Recent events

investigated with NSF support include: the 2001 earthquakes in Nisqually, Washington; Peru; India; the 2002 earthquakes in Italy; El Salvador, and Alaska; and the

2003 earthquake in Colima, Mexico.

The three EERCs are also active in post-earthquake reconnaissance. The Centers

initiated their program following the success of the previous MAE Center initiative

in sending students to areas around the world hit by earthquakes. Four MAE applicants traveled to Taiwan to engage in a hands-on field assessment exercise. For future events, plans call for a group of EERC faculty and 12 graduate students to

spend 10 days visiting earthquake sites to complete hands-on field assessment exercises. Also, MCEER’s expertise in earthquake reconnaissance was used to collect

and disseminate perishable data in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack for later study

to gain a better understanding of how resilience is achieved in physical, engineered

and organizational systems.

International Collaborative Earthquake Research

The National Science Foundation aims at nothing less than U.S. world leadership

in science, engineering, and technology. Earthquakes are a global hazard. Many

countries find collaborative research and the sharing of information essential in

meeting this challenge and the U.S. is no exception. Like the other NEHRP agencies, NSF has a long history of cooperating with other countries—such as China,

Mexico, Italy and Japan—facing similar seismic risks. There have been some recent

developments that serve as excellent examples of how NSF’s efforts enable U.S.

earthquake researchers to collaborate effectively with international colleagues.

Following the 1999 earthquakes in Izmit, Turkey, and Chi-Chi, Taiwan, NSF

made awards to 23 U.S. research teams, each involving collaborators in Turkey and/

or Taiwan. In 2002, researchers from the U.S. and other countries gathered in Turkey for a workshop on continuing research needs and opportunities. The research

outcomes from this program are providing much needed data on strong ground motion near fault ruptures and attenuation of ground motion with distance from the

causative fault. The vast number of recording stations, especially in Taiwan, and the

similarity between fault systems in the Western U.S. and those in Turkey and Taiwan will greatly aid seismic code development in the United States. The data base

to address the required set-back distances from faults, ground motion estimates

close to faults, and similar questions will increase by more than ten times due to

the results of research on the Turkey and Taiwan earthquakes.

The response of modern high-rise structures designed under Turkish and Taiwanese codes that are very similar to codes in the United States has been documented through this research, as have the effects of construction quality, code enforcement and specific seismic design. This will directly lead to better design and

construction techniques to minimize damage from earthquake loading. In addition,

a very important determining factor in loss of life and property during earthquakes

is the level of preparedness of individuals, companies, national and international institutions and government agencies prior to the earthquake. Several research

projects addressed these issues, and information gathered has proven to be invaluable to emergency planners in the United States.

Individual researchers also engage in international collaboration. For example, an

NSF award to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the University of California at

San Diego includes a significant international component. The researchers will complete experimental studies on the effect of earthquake-induced lateral ground

spreading due to liquefaction on pile foundations, both in full size and centrifuge

model conditions. The research will take advantage of the NEES experimental facilities in the United States, and facilities operated by the National Research Institute

for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED) in Japan, including the world’s

largest shake table (15m by 20m) at Miki City. This research constitutes the first

opportunity for direct comparison of results in controlled experimental environments

between centrifuge and full size tests to be conducted at NIED. The NEES network

will be used both during experiment conduct and collaborative development of engineering interpretations and computer simulations.

NEHRP, Agency Coordination, and the Future

The results of NSF research are carried forward into implementation through the

involvement of the researchers themselves in professional organizations, and

through activities managed by our three sister agencies. In this respect, NSF fundVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
136

ing enables a knowledgeable research community to be prepared to answer questions posed by seismic events themselves, and by observations of the performance

of the built environment and socio-political systems during and after earthquake

events. NSF-funded research enables changes warranted in engineering practice,

and enhances understanding and assessment of risks and uncertainties in natural,

physical, and social environments.

NSF-funded fundamental research in base isolation devices was taken up by NIST

where methods of test for these systems and provisions for design were developed.

NIST’s contributions made it possible for the engineering profession to include base

isolation in design of new structures and seismic upgrades, and FEMA funds were

instrumental in making the early applications of base isolation systems possible. In

a similar sequence of knowledge transfer and implementation, NSF-funded research

on geographic distributions of hazards, liquefaction potential and ground instability

have directly fed into microzonation assessments and the USGS-produced

ShakeMaps. These maps are, in turn, used in HAZUS (HAZards United States), a

GIS-based (Geographic Information Systems) technology that FEMA developed and

that allows users to compute estimates of damage and losses that could result from

an earthquake.

The future is bright for the NEHRP agencies, and recent actions have been taken

that will enhance coordination of plans and efforts:

• FEMA has set up a Subcommittee on Research that is chartered to identify

synergies among research and development programs and to identify ways existing programs can work together more effectively; including enhances linkages between ANSS, NEES, EarthScope and the research programs at USGS

and NSF.

• Under USGS leadership, the NEHRP agencies have worked during FY 2002

to create a ‘‘Plan to Coordinate NEHRP Post-Earthquake Investigations’’ that

establishes how the agencies will coordinate and share information in the

event of a significant national or international earthquake. In FY 2003, the

agencies are working to modify this plan to provide clarity concerning how

the agencies will interact if/when NIST declares an NCSTA (National Construction Safety Team Act) investigation following an earthquake.

• The NEHRP agencies have the challenge to continue evaluation and updating

of the strategic plan, and to maintain the strong ties with stakeholders that

were so important to the success in creating the original plan in FY 2001.

• The NEHRP agencies also have the challenge to develop an all-agency Internet portal for dissemination of information about research opportunities and

outcomes, news releases, plans and activities in a form that can be easily

accessed by the research community, government organizations, and the public at large.

The new research plan of EERI that lays out a road map for research and technology transfer, and with the end of construction for NEES in FY 2004 and the start

of grand challenge research projects using this network and equipment, the initiation of the EarthScope project, continued development of ANSS, and with the coordinated NEHRP post-event response plan in-place—NEHRP is poised to accomplish great things.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to present this testimony.

NSF is very excited about what NEHRP has been able to accomplish in the past,

and what we expect will be possible to achieve in the future.

BIOGRAPHY FOR PRISCILLA P. NELSON

Dr. Priscilla Nelson is Senior Advisor for the Directorate for Engineering (ENG)

at the National Science Foundation (NSF). She has been at NSF since 1994, and

has served as Director of the Civil and Mechanical Systems (CMS) Division, Senior

Engineering Coordinator, Program Director for the Geotechnical Engineering program, and as Program Manager for the NEES (Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation) project that represents an $82 million federal investment in cyber

infrastructure and earthquake experimentation equipment to be completed between

FY 2000 and FY 2004.

Dr. Nelson was formerly Professor of Civil Engineering at The University of Texas

at Austin. She has received three earned advanced degrees including Master’s degrees in both Geology (Indiana University) and Structural Engineering (University

of Oklahoma). In 1983, she received her Ph.D. from Cornell University in

Geotechnical Engineering. Dr. Nelson has a national and international reputation

in geological and rock engineering, and the particular application of underground

137

construction. She has more than 15 years of teaching experience and more than 120

technical and scientific publications to her credit.

Dr. Nelson is Past-President of the Geo-Institute of the American Society of Civil

Engineers (ASCE), a lifetime member and first President of the American Rock Mechanics Association, and currently served on the Executive Committee of the American Geological Institute. In addition to these, she has many other professional affiliations including: the Moles (an organization of the heavy construction industry),

the American Underground-Construction Association, the Association of Engineering

Geologists, the International Tunnelling Association, and the American Society for

Engineering Education. She has served as a member of and liaison to several National Research Council boards and committees. Dr. Nelson has been a part of several major construction projects, including field engineering responsibilities during

construction of the Trams-Alaska Pipeline System, and serving as a consultant to

the U.S. Department of Energy and the State of Texas for the Superconducting

Super Collider project. She is a member of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review

Board, appointed by President Clinton in 1997 and reappointed in 2000.

138

PREPARED STATEMENT OF S. SHYAM SUNDER

CHIEF, MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH DIVISION,

BUILDING AND FIRE RESEARCH LABORATORY,

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

Introduction

As a representative of one of the four primary federal agencies that comprise the

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), I congratulate the

earthquake community and our three partners—the Federal Emergency Management Agency as lead, the United States Geological Survey, and the National Science

Foundation—as we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the founding of NEHRP.

NEHRP has been an extraordinary, and often exemplary, collaboration between

federal agencies, State and local governments, and the private sector.

During its first 25 years, NEHRP has contributed in very significant ways to reduce our nation’s vulnerability to earthquakes and NIST is proud to have been a

part of that record of accomplishment.

While it is difficult to quantify loss prevention through the adoption of improved

mitigation practices, and such measures are very much needed, there is no doubt

that NEHRP products and results have contributed in significant ways to reduce the

loss of life and economic losses from earthquakes. In addition, the loss of life from

earthquakes in the United States has been small compared with similar earthquakes in other countries.

My testimony traces how NIST has contributed to the success of NEHRP. It also

reflects upon the broader public safety challenges the Nation now faces and how

NEHRP can contribute to meeting those challenges.

Earthquakes and Creation of NEHRP

Earthquakes are among the most frightening and devastating natural disasters.

They strike virtually without warning, last only seconds, but can leave death and

destruction in their wake.

Seventy-five million Americans in 39 states face significant risk from earthquakes. On an annualized basis, earthquake losses amount to about $4 billion a

year, while a single earthquake has a loss potential of $100 billion or more.

For example, the 1971 San Fernando earthquake in California killed 65 people

and caused $500 million in damage. The 1994 Northridge earthquake caused losses

in excess of $40 billion, with $15 billion in insured property losses alone.

The San Fernando earthquake led Congress to pass the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to ‘‘reduce the risks of life and property from future earthquakes

in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective

earthquake hazards reduction program.’’ Pursuant to the Act, the Executive Office

of the President developed the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

and issued a program plan in June 1978.

Pre-NEHRP Efforts

Prior to the creation of NEHRP, NIST and many other government, private-sector

organizations and universities were conducting research on ways to improve the

seismic design of constructed facilities.

NIST began work in earthquake hazards reduction with its organization in 1969

of the U.S.-Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects under the U.S.-Japan Program

in Natural Resources. This successful bilateral program continues to this day, with

the 35th annual meeting slated to be held next May.

NIST work also included its significant investigation of the performance of structures in the 1971 San Fernando, California, earthquake.

Also, in 1972, the Applied Technology Council, an organization created by the

Structural Engineers Association of California, called for a cooperative effort of practice, research, and government to produce up-to-date seismic design and construction provisions. A subsequent ATC study completed in 1978 produced design provisions that were a significant advance on existing provisions.

Role Assigned for NIST in NEHRP

NIST was a natural part of NEHRP because of its long-time role in providing

measurements, standards, and technology to help Federal, State, and local government agencies and the private sector protect the Nation and its citizens from natural as well as manmade threats.

As part of NEHRP, NIST took on three assignments:

139

• First, to develop seismic design and construction standards for consideration

and subsequent adoption in federal construction, and encourage the adoption

of improved seismic provisions in State and local building codes;

• Second, to assist and cooperate with federal, State, and local agencies, research and professional organizations, model code groups and others that are

involved in developing, testing, and improving seismic design and construction provisions to be incorporated into local codes, standards, and practices;

and

• Third, to conduct research on performance criteria and supporting measurement technology for earthquake resistant construction.

In addition, as part of the USGS-led Post-Earthquake Investigation Program established by the NEHRP Reauthorization Act of 1990, NIST took on another assignment:

• Fourth, to participate in NEHRP post-earthquake investigations and analyze

the behavior of structures and lifelines, both those that were damaged and

those that were undamaged, and to analyze the effectiveness of the earthquake hazards mitigation programs and actions and how those programs and

actions could be strengthened.

Products and Results from NIST’s Problem-Focused R&D

Through laboratory based problem-focused R&D NIST has made important contributions to earthquake safety over the years. Examples include our products and

results related to:

• bridge column reinforcing requirements,

• rehabilitation of welded steel moment frame connections,

• test methods for passive and active seismic energy absorption systems, and

• precast concrete frames.

One example is our work with industry and others on precast concrete frames (Attachment A provides summaries of the other examples).

While construction with this type of frame has not been extensive in high seismic

regions of the United States, it has enormous benefits in construction speed and

quality control.

In 1987, NIST initiated a project to develop a precast beam-to-column connection

that was economical, easy to construct, and capable of resisting earthquake loads.

A few years later, Pankow Builders, a California general contracting firm specializing in quake-resistant construction, provided funding through the American Concrete Institute (ACI) to further develop the concept. Close collaboration among

NIST, Pankow Builders, and the University of Washington resulted in a hybrid connection that combined the use of low-strength reinforcing steel for energy absorption

with high-strength pre-stressing steel.

Tests at NIST and on a five-story precast building at the University of California

at San Diego demonstrated that the concept worked. NIST-developed guidelines and

results were used to obtain approval from a code evaluation service. In addition, the

American Concrete Institute issued standards and the International Building Code

has adopted provisions that allow use of the system.

Recently, Pankow Builders used the hybrid connection to build a $128 million, 39-

story building in San Francisco. Topped out in June 2001, the building is the tallest

concrete frame building built in a high seismic region.

Several other structures using the hybrid connection have been built, are underway, or on the drawing board.

We are very proud of our collaboration with Pankow Builders, the University of

Washington and others and are gratified that this design innovation and the contributions of its developers have been widely recognized. This work has won numerous awards, most recently the Harry H. Edwards Industry Advancement Award of

the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute.

Lessons Learned from NIST’s Post-Earthquake Investigations

Throughout its history, NIST scientists and engineers have been called in to investigate building failures following fires, earthquakes, high winds, terrorist attacks, construction accidents, and other events.

Tragically, we learn many lessons following an earthquake about what type of design and construction works and what does not. Our goal is to investigate and document building performance and the adequacy of current codes and practices, as well

as to identify research needed to mitigate the impact of future earthquakes.

140

Our investigators have traveled not only to earthquake sites in the United States,

including the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 and the Northridge earthquake in

1994, but also to those places around the world including Japan, Romania, Nicaragua, Mexico, Armenia, and—most recently—Turkey. The investigation following

the 1999 earthquake in Turkey was a cooperative effort led by the USGS, with participation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Since NIST is not a regulatory agency and does not issue building standards or

codes, the institute is viewed as a neutral, ‘‘third-party’’ investigator. Our investigations are fact-finding, not fault finding. The focus is on improving public safety and

on deriving lessons for the future. And, by law, the data, analysis, and reports resulting from NIST investigations may not be used in litigation.

Formation of ICSSC and Federal Construction

One of the early accomplishments of NEHRP was to involve federal agencies with

construction responsibilities. Federally-constructed facilities comprise one of our nation’s largest building sectors. It was realized early in the NEHRP that it was vital

to assist the more than 30 federal agencies that are involved in one way or another

in construction to implement earthquake hazards reduction elements into their ongoing programs.

In 1978, the White House directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency

to form an Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction (ICSSC).

ICSSC was assigned to develop and implement seismic deign standards for federal

construction. NIST, with funding from FEMA, has provided the secretariat for

ICSSC since its inception, and the Director of NIST (or the Director’s designee) has

chaired the ICSSC since 1982.

Not only did the ICSSC provide up-to-date seismic design and construction standards and practices that federal agencies used for their own new buildings, but it had

a broader effect as well. An executive order issued by the President in 1990 required

both federal and federally-assisted homes, such as new homes with FHA or VA

mortgages, be designed and constructed using these standards.

This federal mandate was welcomed by the national standards and model building

code organizations since it provided incentive for state and local governments to

adopt and enforce up-to-date standards and codes to be eligible for federally-assisted

construction.

The bottom line result was that NEHRP’s broad goal of making adequate seismic

resistance available for all new U.S. building construction was achieved. This successful outcome would not have been realized without a NIST study that was crucial

to the issuance of the executive order. That study revealed the modest cost implications of the recommended seismic provisions as determined by trial designs.

ICSSC was much involved in support to federal agencies in implementation of the

executive order for new buildings. It continues today to provide support for the assessment of the equivalency of model building codes to the NEHRP recommended

provisions—the most recent assessment was issued in late 2001—and the development of proposed changes to model codes.

The ICSSC turned next to the challenge of evaluating and strengthening existing

buildings by developing seismic safety standards and assisting federal agencies in

implementing a second executive order. That executive order called for agencies to

inventory buildings they own or lease and estimate the costs of mitigating unacceptable seismic risks.

The ICSSC developed policies and practices for evaluation and strengthening of

existing federal buildings. This included seismic safety standards for existing buildings, which were updated recently; guidance to the federal agencies on implementation of the executive order; assistance with estimating the costs of mitigating unacceptable seismic risks; and extensive review and comment in drafting the resulting

report.

Currently, ICSSC is developing a handbook for the seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. This handbook will facilitate implementation of the seismic rehabilitation plan for federal buildings when a policy decision is made to proceed.

Major Challenges for the Future

NEHRP has come a long way. But, it faces many challenges in meeting its legislative mandate to ‘‘reduce the risks of life and property from future earthquakes in

the United States.’’

Four of the key challenges faced by NEHRP are to:

• fill the technology transfer gap between basic research and practice,

• develop and implement seismic safety standards for lifelines,

• develop and implement a multi-hazard approach to risk mitigation, and

141

• better coordinate post-earthquake investigations.

Challenge #1: Filling the Basic Research to Practice Gap in Earthquake Engineering

Just as NEHRP strives for better ways to improve the performance of construction

during an earthquake, NIST and its three NEHRP partners are continually looking

for better ways to carry out our mission.

Early in 2001, a NEHRP Strategic Plan was approved by each of the four participating agencies. This plan, developed in partnership with stakeholders, has identified the emergence of a technology transfer gap that limits the adaptation of basic

research knowledge into practice. The plan recommends a much-expanded problemfocused research and guidelines development effort:

• to develop future design, construction, evaluation, and upgrade guidelines and

standards of practice, and

• to facilitate the development of new mitigation technologies.

It further recommends that NIST, in partnership with FEMA and other NEHRP

agencies, should develop a coordinated plan to support this effort.

NIST looks forward to working with its NEHRP agency partners and with industry, academia, and the broader stakeholder community to address this gap.

As a first step, NIST requested the Applied Technology Council, a non-profit corporation to advance engineering applications for natural hazard mitigation, to convene a workshop of national leaders in earthquake design, practice, regulation, and

construction in July of 2002.

The purpose of the meeting was to assess the state of knowledge and practice and

to suggest an action plan to address the gap between basic research and practice.

Recently completed, the action plan identifies industry priorities in two areas:

• support for the seismic code development process through technical assistance

and development of the technical basis for performance standards; and

• improved seismic design productivity through the development of tools and

guidance and evaluation of advanced technologies and practices.

This action plan fits within the broader research and outreach plan developed by

the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute titled ‘‘Securing Society Against

Catastrophic Earthquake Losses.’’ It also incorporates issues raised under Challenge

#2 below.

NIST now looks forward to working with the stakeholder community to explore

ways to best meet those needs via a public-private partnership. We expect this effort

will build on NSF-funded basic academic research, including that conducted as part

of the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation

(NEES) Consortium.

Challenge #2: Developing and Implementing Seismic Safety Standards for

Lifelines

While up-to-date seismic provisions for building codes are available today, there

are no nationally accepted standards or guidelines for lifelines, except for highway

structures and nuclear facilities.

Lifelines include all types of transportation (highways, airports, railways, waterways, ports and harbors), communication, and utility (electric power, gas and liquid

fuels, water and wastewater) systems. They provide the physical infrastructure that

support most human activities.

The American Lifelines Alliance, with support from FEMA, is working on the development of guidelines and standards for lifelines. Concurrently, the ICSSC has

completed an initial survey of lifelines that are the responsibility of federal agencies.

It has begun a major effort to identify the needs for standards and guidance for

these lifelines, with an initial focus on electric power generation, transmission, and

distribution facilities. It is anticipated that implementation of the lifelines plan

would be primarily through the existing voluntary standards system with a possible

executive order requiring agencies to adopt and use the standards for federal lifelines.

While these initial public and private sector efforts are laudable, I believe NEHRP

has much work to do before the Nation will have seismic standards and guidelines

for lifelines similar to those we already have for new and existing buildings.

Challenge #3: Developing and Implementing a Multi-Hazard Approach to

Risk Mitigation

Seismic hazards are one of many significant hazards that must be considered in

design and construction. From the viewpoint of an owner or end-user, a multi-hazVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:02 Aug 31, 2003 Jkt 086870 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\050803\86870 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
142

ard approach to risk mitigation is desirable since it likely will yield more cost-effective solutions. This is especially true for existing construction, where seismic retrofit

investments may be better justified when made in conjunction with needed functional and security upgrades.

A careful consideration of regional hazards such as earthquakes and high winds

shows that these hazards pose a major risk since they coincide with geographical

areas that have seen significant population growth and development in recent years.

The risks from fire hazards are spread across the Nation, while the risks from terrorist or technological threats are limited to certain critical facilities or locations. In comparison with the $4 billion annualized loss estimate for earthquakes, the annualized loss estimate for extreme winds is about $8 B/year and for fire hazards

is about $12 billion a year. Similarly, in comparison with the $100 billion loss potential for a major earthquake, a single hurricane event has a loss potential of as much

as $50 billion. Major earthquakes, high winds, and other extreme hazards have one

thing in common—they are all low probability, high consequence events.

There is significant merit to multi-hazard risk mitigation if practicable tools, practices, and guidance can be developed. Examples include:

• improving overall structural integrity by mitigating progressive collapse,

where NIST is already working with the private sector to develop needed

tools and guidance;

• conducting multi-hazard vulnerability assessments using an integrated

framework based on standard information representation models and interoperable software tools; and

• evaluating the cost-effectiveness of alternate risk reduction technologies and

strategies using integrated software tools for making cost-risk trade-offs.

I believe NEHRP has a unique opportunity to provide national leadership in

charting the course for a multi-hazard approach to risk mitigation, while continuing

with its important risk reduction mission for earthquakes. The development of the

HAZUS regional loss estimation model—that now covers earthquakes, wind, and

floods—is an excellent example of how NEHRP has already demonstrated this kind

of leadership.

Challenge #4: Coordinating Post-Earthquake Investigations

NEHRP has long supported post-earthquake investigations, and in 1990 Congress

specifically authorized the establishment of a coordinated program to conduct such

investigations with leadership to be provided by the United States Geological Survey. Consistent with this legislation and the recent NEHRP Strategic Plan, an implementation plan has been completed to coordinate future post-earthquake investigations.

In the aftermath of the World Trade Center disaster, Congress has given NIST

additional authorities—beyond those NIST already had—through the National Construction Safety Team Act. The legislation, which is modeled in many ways on the

National Transportation Safety Board, was introduced by the House Science Committee and signed into law by President Bush on October 1, 2002.

That law, Public Law 107–231, established NIST as the lead agency to investigate

building performance, emergency response, and evacuation procedures in the wake

of building failures that result in substantial loss of life or that posed significant

potential of substantial loss of life. Currently, NIST is conducting two major investigations: a building and fire safety investigation of the September 11, 2001, World

Trade Center building collapses; and the February 20, 2003, fire at The Station

nightclub in West Warwick, R.I. The act calls for NIST to establish investigative

teams including public and private-sector experts.

NIST is developing agreements for future investigations with other federal agencies, and with the private sector so that we can quickly and effectively deploy investigation teams and so that we can share the results of those investigations and related research.

The National Construction Safety Team Act gives NIST the authority to dispatch

teams of experts within 48 hours when practicable. The law gives the teams a clear

authority to:

• Establish the likely technical cause of building failures;

• Evaluate the technical aspects of procedures used for evacuation and emergency response;

• Recommend specific changes to building codes, standards and practices;

• Recommend any research or other appropriate actions needed to improve the

structural safety of buildings, and/or changes in emergency response and

evacuation procedures; and

143

• Make final recommendations within 90 days of completing an investigation.

The act gives NIST and its investigation teams comprehensive authorities to:

• Access the site of a building disaster;

• Subpoena evidence;

• Access key pieces of evidence such as records and documents, and

• Move and preserve evidence.

Congress anticipated the NCST Act to be applicable to building failures caused

by earthquakes. The Act specifies that the NIST Director develop implementing procedures that ‘‘provide for coordination with federal, State, and local entities that

may sponsor research on investigations of building failures, including research conducted under the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977.’’ In addition, the

Committee Report 107–530 published by the House Science Committee on June 25,

2002, states that ‘‘The Director should clearly define how earthquake researchers

and Teams will carry out their responsibilities in a coordinated fashion in cases

where building failures have been caused by an earthquake.’’

NIST’s responsibilities under the NSCT Act have been incorporated in the recently completed plan to coordinate post-earthquake investigations issued by the

four agencies comprising the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. The

plan (USGS circular #1242) states that, within 48 hours, NIST will examine the relevant factors associated with building failures that occur as a result of the earthquake and will make reasonable efforts to consult with the other NEHRP agencies

prior to determining whether to conduct an investigation under the Act. Any NIST

investigation conducted under the authority of the Act will be limited to building

failures on one or more buildings or on one or more class or type of buildings selected by NIST.

Conclusion

As we look to the future, I believe NEHRP will continue to play a vital leadership

role in making the performance of our buildings and lifelines highly measurable and

predictable. This measurement and prediction ability will provide the critical underpinning upon which to achieve specified levels of performance and seismic risk reduction via workable and practicable solutions. Our nation will be safer and more

secure for it.

We at NIST look forward to contributing our part to address the challenges that

lie ahead.

Attachment A

Products and Results of NIST Problem-Focused R&D

Bridge Column Reinforcing Requirements

Immediately following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, NIST dispatched a

team to document and investigate structural damage caused by the earthquake. In

particular, many bridge columns suffered either significant damage or failure. As a

result, design requirements for bridge columns in seismic zones were modified. However, the adequacy of these design modifications was not verified.

NIST initiated a project in the 1980s to provide the necessary verification, consisting of two full-scale bridge column tests. The challenges arose from the size of

the test specimens and the need to apply horizontal seismic loads in addition to

vertical gravity loads. The series of column tests was the first of its kind and as

such, provided important benchmark data. The tests also verified the adequacy of

the revised design specifications.

In addition, NIST tested companion 1/6-scale bridge columns and the results indicated that the behavior of full-scale bridge columns could be extrapolated from

small-scale bridge column tests. This finding suggests that high costs associated

with full-scale tests are not always necessary and less expensive small-scale tests

may be sufficient.

Welded Steel Moment Frame Connections

Steel framed buildings traditionally have been considered to be among the most

seismic resistant structural systems. The January 17, 1994, Northridge Earthquake,

however, caused unexpected damage to many welded steel moment frame buildings.

In general, the damage was confined to beam-to-column connections that suffered

brittle fracture in the flange welds.

144

In response to these failures, NIST initiated a project to study methods to modify

existing buildings to improve their seismic performance, in collaboration with the

American Institute of Steel Construction, the University of Texas, the University of

California at San Diego, and Lehigh University. Eighteen full-scale tests were conducted on three different methods to reduce the stresses at the beam-to-column connections.

The result of this multi-year effort was the publication of comprehensive guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of existing welded steel frame buildings as an AISC

Design Guide. The guidelines provided experimentally-validated response prediction

models and design equations for the three connection modification concepts that

shift loading from the welded joints into the beams, thus enabling the structure to

absorb the earthquake’s energy in a non-brittle manner.

Test Methods for Structural Control Devices

Structural control devices, such as seismic isolation and passive energy

dissipators, have been installed in numerous structures throughout the world and

have proven to be effective in reducing both motions and forces during earthquakes

and strong winds. Still these devices are generally produced in small quantities,

specifically for each application.

To guarantee that the devices will perform as the designer expected, many building codes and guidelines recommend that the devices be tested before installation.

While some of these standards describe a limited number of specific tests, widely

accepted test standards do not yet exist. Such standards are useful to designers,

manufacturers, and contractors, since they will make the process of validating these

devices consistent.

To address the issue NIST has developed two sets of testing guidelines. The

Guidelines for Pre-Qualification, Prototype, and Quality Control Testing of Seismic

Isolation Systems was issued in 1996. ASCE has developed and is currently balloting a national consensus standard based on the NIST-developed isolation device

testing guidelines.

While seismic isolation is generally accepted in earthquake engineering practice

and recognized in the building codes in high-seismic areas, passive structural

dampers are still gaining acceptance and semi-active devices are still in the development phase. NIST has just issued Guidelines for Testing Passive Energy Dissipation

Devices.

BIOGRAPHY FOR S. SHYAM SUNDER

Dr. Shyam Sunder is Chief of the Materials and Construction Research Division

in the Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) at the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST). He is responsible for planning and directing the

overall scientific and technical programs, controlling the budget, and recruiting personnel for the Division. The Materials and Construction Research Division provides

leadership for BFR’s Homeland Security, Advanced Building Materials, and Advanced Construction Technology Goals.

In his current position, Dr. Sunder:

• is working with the BFRL Director Jack Snell to develop and implement the

Laboratory’s homeland security efforts via a public-private response plan involving a broad coalition of organizations;

• is the lead investigator for the NIST building and fire safety investigation

into the World Trade Center disaster;

• is a member of the Executive Group of the Cement and Concrete Reference

Laboratory of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) that is

co-located at NIST;

• leads BFRL’s Construction Integration and Automation Program in partnership with FIATECH, a consortium established by the Construction Industry

Institute (CII) in cooperation with NIST, and is a member of CII’s Breakthrough Strategy Committee;

• represents NIST on the four-member Interagency Coordination Council for

the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP);

• is designated by the NIST Director to chair the Interagency Committee on

Seismic Safety in Construction (ICSSC)—a group that recommends policies

and practices to its 32 member-agencies on improving the seismic safety of

federal buildings nationwide; and

• is U.S.-side chair of the Wind and Seismic Effects Panel established under the

U.S.-Japan Cooperative Program on Natural Resources (UNJR).

145

Dr. Sunder was chief of the Structures Division from January 1998 until June

2002 when the Building Materials Division was merged with the Structures Division and renamed the Materials and Construction Research Division. From June

1996 to December 1997, Dr. Sunder was on assignment to the Program Office, the

principal staff office of the NIST Director, first as Program Analyst and later as

Senior Program Analyst for NIST. In 1994, Dr. Sunder joined NIST’s Building Materials Division as Manager of BFRL’s newly created High-Performance Construction

Materials and Systems Program and served in that position until June 1996. This

program was in support of CONMAT, a public-private R&D program created by the

Civil Engineering Research Foundation in partnership with 11 key sectors of the

construction materials industry. Dr. Sunder worked with the $100 B/year concrete

construction industry to plan an advanced research program and document its economic and commercial benefits. This led to the creation of the Strategic Development Council, bringing together industry executives for the first: time ever to conduct leveraged R&D. He also studied key factors affecting quality, productivity, and

innovation among the small firms that make up 85 percent of the more than one

million firms in construction.

Dr. Sunder’s awards include the Gilbert W. Winslow Career Development Chair

(1985–87) and the Doherty Professorship in Ocean Utilization (1987–89) from MIT,

the Walter L. Huber Civil Engineering Research Prize (1991) from the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Award (1997) from

NIST.

146

STATEMENT OF THE NEHRP COALITION

1015 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005; Phone: 202–326–5140; Fax: 202–289–

6797

Chairman Smith and Members of the Subcommittee:

The below signed ten members of the NEHRP Coalition, representing the scientific, architecture, design and engineering communities responsible for earthquake

hazard mitigation are pleased to offer this testimony on the reauthorization of the

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP).

The earthquake risk to the Nation is unacceptably high and growing daily. We are facing inevitable earthquakes, any one of which alone can cost the Nation $100

to $200 billion. The reauthorization of NEHRP can address this, but it will require

additional continuous research, expanded seismic monitoring, and nationwide mitigation. Earthquake occurrence in the United States is not restricted to any single

geographical area. All or parts of 39 states are vulnerable to earthquakes.

NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM

The NEHRP Coalition believes that Congress, in reauthorizing NEHRP, should

take the necessary steps to strengthen this critical program. Earthquakes are

among the most devastating of all natural hazards. To find ways to reduce the devastation, NEHRP, enacted in 1977, funds earthquake related activities of the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS), National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institute

of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA). Despite continuing need, appropriations for NEHRP have decreased significantly in real dollars since the late 1970’s.

Earthquake occurrence in the United States is not restricted to any single geographical area. All or parts of 39 states are within zones where the probability of

an earthquake occurring exists. Recent research indicates that areas in the eastern

and central United States are at greater risk of earthquake occurrence than earlier

evidence indicated.

Recent events substantiate that many public buildings cannot survive a major

earthquake. In many cases, federal buildings are less earthquake-resistant than

nearby privately-owned buildings.

Because of funding cuts, programs to develop safer buildings and other structures,

including lifelines, have been reduced and existing research facilities have been underutilized. In addition, some excellent earthquake researchers have left the field.

There is also evidence that much of the engineering research that has been accomplished under NEHRP has not been applied effectively. NEHRP has produced numerous recommendations for standards for new and existing buildings, lifelines and

other structures. These provisions have yet to be fully implemented by local governments. As such, there is inadequate transfer of findings to those who help communities prepare for earthquakes. Funds have not been available to help localities improve building codes and zoning provisions in order to improve building safety.

SUCCESSES OF THE NEHRP PROGRAM

Over the past 25 years, NEHRP has provided a wealth of information useful to

both the scientific and engineering practice resulting in a significant benefit to the

public. The USGS has developed and published uniform earthquake hazard maps

that clearly identify the expected earthquake ground shaking at any location in the

Nation. NSF, through their grants to university researchers, has funded the development of new engineering analysis and design techniques that allow engineers to

make better and more cost effective decisions related to seismic design. FEMA has

been able to leverage a small amount of funding into an impressive series of design

guidelines, standards and codes that have spread the experience of a few to engineers nationwide. NIST has developed standards for federal buildings that have encouraged owners nationwide to recognize the earthquake vulnerabilities of their

communities. It has been a successful program with significant results.

Determining the proper seismic hazard level for a community is still the most consequential information needed for seismic resistant design. The new USGS hazard

maps, developed in conjunction with structural engineers, have significantly influenced the engineering community. Some areas in the Nation, such as the Central

Valley of California, have learned that the potential earthquake shaking is much

lower than traditionally thought. To reduce their vulnerability, some of California’s

essential business operational facilities have been relocated to these low seismic

areas and the need for and cost of seismic rehabilitation in these areas has been

significantly reduced. At the other extreme, areas of the Nation, such as the Portland Oregon area, have learned that their seismic exposure is much greater and

147

steps are being taken to increase their resilience to damage through new codes and

rehabilitation programs.

Because of the detailed, scientifically based maps, billions of dollars of construction is being spent more wisely, both in terms of reduced initial construction costs

and reductions in expected future damage. Similar examples could be cited across

the Nation.

Buildings today all over the world are being built on isolation systems or have

energy absorbing systems built within their structures. These advanced construction

techniques grew out of fundamental NSF research begun in the late 1970’s by Professor James Kelly and others at the University of California at Berkeley. Their

work was ‘‘curiosity based’’ and not held in high regard at the time. Over the past

30 years it has matured into a commonly used system that protects essential facilities and historic structures in a superior manner. Basic NSF funded research such

as this has yielded dozens of analysis and design techniques that are of significant

benefit to the public and the Nation.

The Nation’s ability to arrest the growth of its seismic vulnerability and reduce

it to acceptable levels depends on the efforts of all practicing engineers nationwide.

FEMA, recognizing the need for published guidelines and standards, has leveraged

the volunteer talents of an army of engineers by providing travel funds, meeting

spaces, and publication support. Over the past 20 years, dozens of FEMA ‘‘Yellow

Books’’ have been published on various aspects of seismic design and rehabilitation.

For example, the American Society of Civil Engineers, has been able to use this material in their standards process to produce state of the art design standards such

and as ASCE 7 and ASCE 31. These new standards are used to train engineers nationwide and guide their seismic design and rehabilitation efforts. These efforts, in

turn are providing the Nation with a much more reliable constructed environment.

COALITION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REAUTHORIZATION

The NEHRP Coalition asks that in reauthorizing NEHRP, Congress provide for

stronger leadership, increased authorization and improved interagency coordination.

In a broad sense, the Coalition supports ‘‘Securing Society Against Catastrophic

Earthquake Losses,’’ a study recently completed by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) with funding from NSF. The report lays out a vision for the

future of earthquake research and outreach focused on securing the Nation from the

catastrophic impacts of earthquakes. The report was prepared by a cross disciplinary panel of scientists, engineers and social scientists, and has been endorsed by

numerous professional organizations involved in earthquake research.

The report comprises the following five research and outreach programs:

• Understanding Seismic Hazards—developing new models of earthquakes

based on fundamental physics.

• Assessing Earthquake Impacts—evaluating the performance of the built environment by simulating performance of structures and entire urban systems.

• Reducing Earthquake Impacts—developing new materials, structural and

nonstructural systems, lifeline systems, tsunami protection, fire protection

systems and land use measures.

• Enhancing Community Resilience—exploring new ways to effectively reduce

risk and improve the decision-making capability of stakeholders.

• Expanding Education and Public Outreach—improving the education of engineers and scientists from elementary school to advanced graduate education,

and providing opportunities for the public to learn about earthquake risk reduction.

Success in research will only matter if that research finds its way into practical

use. The translation of research knowledge into practice is more than simply disseminating research findings. The report outlines programs to improve the exchange

of knowledge and acceptance of new technology and processes during design and

construction of new structures as well as in retrofitting older structures.

Technology—ANSS & NEES

Information technologies will play an increasing role in earthquake research in

the future. Two applications central to that vision are the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) and the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES).

ANSS, authorized by Congress in 2000, is intended to expand the current monitoring system and provide the needed information to maximize our understanding

of how specific buildings performed during earthquakes. Strong motion information

is critical to making the next quantum leap in understanding how to economically

148

arrest the growth of earthquake risk. ANSS is a critical new program needed by

NEHRP and must be funded at an adequate level.

NEES, established by the NSF, will expand knowledge through new methods for

experimental and computational simulation. Currently, many new experimental research sites are being put in place around the country, and a system to link into

a sophisticated testing and simulation program is being developed. Unfortunately,

funds to carry out the research that will make use of this new equipment and simulation technology have not been authorized. Knowledge developed through experiments and simulation methodologies provide the essential scientific knowledge base

for improving codes and guidelines. Social science and education research will complement this by helping to better understand and communicate the implications and

choices that must be made. An immediate investment in NEES is needed to reduce

the cost of seismic design and to strengthen and stimulate significant mitigation activities.

Funding Levels

In order to implement the plan envisioned by the NEHRP Strategic Plan and the

EERI report and to increase the effectiveness of NEHRP, it is essential that Congress raise funding levels for NEHRP. The undersigned organizations support increasing funding levels to $358 million a year for the first five years of a twentyyear program. Despite real needs, the funding level for NEHRP has remained flat

for many years, which translates into a significant decrease in real funding. This

trend must be reversed if we are to reduce our nation’s vulnerability to earthquakes

to acceptable levels.

Finally, it is important to recognize the immense leverage from NEHRP for improvements in the reliability and security of buildings, transportation systems,

water supplies, gas and liquid fuel networks, electric power, telecommunications,

and waste disposal facilities. NEHRP provides an enormous return on investment

that substantially reduces our nation’s vulnerability to earthquakes and, at the

same time, improves the performance of its civil infrastructure for both normal operation and extreme events.

CONCLUSION

The first 25 years of NEHRP have proven that limited federal funds, applied to

the Nation’s earthquake vulnerability, can be leveraged 100 times over in terms of

savings in construction and limiting the losses after an earthquake. We believe that

the program is just now hitting its stride and reaching full maturity, and is well

equipped to handle additional funds that will provide new levels of understanding

about the vulnerability and tools for the analysis and design. Significant progress

will then be made toward reducing the Nation’s vulnerability to an acceptable level.

Thank you for this opportunity to express our views. The NEHRP Coalition is

ready to assist in any way we can. If you have questions or need additional information, contact Martin Hight, Senior Manager, Government Relations, American Society of Civil Engineers at (202) 326–5125 or by e-mail at mhight@asce.org.

This statement is endorsed by the following members of the NEHRP Coalition:

American Geological Institute

American Institute of Architects

American Society of Civil Engineers

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

Mid-America Earthquake Center

National Fire Protection Association

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries

Portland Cement Association

Seismological Society of America

World Institute for Disaster Risk Management

149

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS (ASCE)

Washington Office: 1015 15th Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20005–2605;

(202) 789–2200; Fax: (202) 289–6797; Web: http://www.asce.org

Chairman Smith and Members of the Subcommittee:

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is pleased to offer this testimony

on the reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

(NEHRP).

ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country’s oldest national civil engineering

organization. It represents more than 125,000 civil engineers in private practice,

government, industry and academia who are dedicated to the advancement of the

science and profession of civil engineering. ASCE is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational and professional society.

NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM

ASCE believes that Congress, in reauthorizing NEHRP, should take the necessary

steps to strengthen this critical program. Earthquakes are among the most devastating of all natural hazards. To find ways to reduce the devastation NEHRP, enacted in 1977, funds earthquake related activities of the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS), National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Despite

continuing need, appropriations for NEHRP have decreased significantly in real dollars since the late 1970’s.

Earthquake occurrence in the United States is not restricted to any single geographical area. All or parts of 39 states are within zones where the probability of

an earthquake occurring is great. Recent research indicates that areas in the eastern and central United States are at greater risk of earthquake occurrence than earlier evidence indicated.

Recent events substantiate that many public buildings cannot survive a major

earthquake. In many cases, federal buildings are less earthquake-resistant than

nearby privately-owned buildings.

Because of funding cuts, programs to develop safer buildings and other structures,

including lifelines, have been reduced and existing research facilities have been underutilized. In addition, some excellent earthquake researchers have left the field.

There is also evidence that much of the engineering research that has been accomplished under NEHRP has not been applied effectively. NEHRP has produced numerous recommendations for standards for new and existing buildings, lifelines and

other structures. These provisions have yet to be fully implemented by local governments. As such, there is inadequate transfer of findings to those who help communities prepare for earthquakes. Funds have not been available to help localities improve building codes and zoning provisions in order to improve building safety.

SUCCESSES

Over the past 25 years, NEHRP has provided a wealth of information useful to

engineering practice and therefore of significant benefit to the public. The USGS has

developed and published uniform earthquake hazard maps that clearly identify the

expected seismicity of any location in the Nation. NSF, through their grants to university researcher, has funded the development of new engineering analysis and design techniques that allow engineers to make better and more cost effective decisions related to seismic design. FEMA has been able to leverage a small amount

of funding into an impressive series of design guidelines, standards and codes that

have spread the experience of a few to engineers nationwide. NIST has developed

standards for federal buildings that have encouraged owners nationwide to recognize the earthquake vulnerabilities of their communities. It has been a successful

program with significant results.

Determining the proper seismic hazard level for a community is still the most consequential information needed for seismic resistant design. The new USGS hazard

maps, develop in conjunction with Structural Engineers, have significantly influenced engineering community. Some areas in the Nation, such as the Central Valley

of California, have learned that their seismicity is much lower than traditionally

held. Some of California’s essential business operational facilities have been relocated to these low seismic areas to reduce their vulnerability and the need for and

cost of seismic rehabilitation in these areas has been significantly reduced. At the

other extreme, areas of the Nation, such as in the Portland Oregon area, have

learned that their seismic exposure is much greater and steps are being taken to

increase their resilience to damage through new codes and rehabilitation programs.

Because of the detailed, scientifically based maps, billions of dollars of construction

150

is being spent more wisely, both in terms of reduced construction costs and reductions in expected damage. Similar example could be cited across the Nation.

Buildings today all over the world are being built on isolation systems or have

energy absorbing systems built within their structures. These advanced construction

techniques grew out of fundamental NSF research begun by Dr. Jim Kelly at the

University of California at Berkeley and others in the late 1970’s. Their work was

‘‘curiosity based’’ and not held in high regard at the time. Over the past 30 years

it has matured into a commonly used system that protects essential facility and historic structures in a superior manner. Basic NSF funded research, such as this, has

yield dozens of analysis and design techniques that are of significant benefit to the

public and the Nation.

The Nation’s ability to arrest the growth of its seismic vulnerability and reduce

it to acceptable levels depends on the efforts of all practicing engineers, nationwide.

FEMA, recognizing the need for published guidelines and standards, has leveraged

the volunteer talents of an army of engineers by providing travel funds, meeting

spaces, and publication support. Over the past 20 years, dozens of FEMA ‘‘Yellow

Books’’ have been published on various aspects of seismic design and rehabilitation.

ASCE has been able to use this material in their standards process to produce state

of the art design standards such and ASCE 7 and ASCE 31. These new standards

are used to train engineers nationwide and guide their seismic design and rehabilitation efforts. These efforts, in turn are providing the Nation with a much more reliable constructed environment.

The first 25 years of NEHRP has proven that limited federal funds, applied to

the Nation’s earthquake vulnerability, can be leveraged 100 times over in terms of

savings in construction and limiting the loss after an earthquake. We believe that

the program is just now developing its stride and maturity and is ready for additional funds that will provide new levels of understanding about the vulnerability

and tools for the analysis and design. Significant progress will then be made toward

reducing the Nation’s vulnerability to an acceptable level.

ASCE RECOMMENDATIONS

Specifically, ASCE asks that in reauthorizing NEHRP, Congress provides for

stronger leadership, increased authorization and improved interagency coordination.

Further, ASCE supports changes to NEHRP which:

• Increase applied research, testing, and accelerated technology transfer of research results.

• Adopt and enforce standards for seismic design and construction of new and

existing public buildings.

• Adopt and enforce building codes and zoning provisions to incorporate improved seismic design and construction standards of new and existing buildings and lifelines by State and local governments and by industry.

• Improve earthquake preparedness, particularly for building safety, lifeline

systems and emergency response.

• Increase public education about earthquakes and engineering concepts for

hazard reduction.

Additionally, ASCE supports practices and policies to assist local communities in

the use of state-of-the-art performance standards for existing critical, essential, educational and disaster-recovery facilities, such as hospitals, schools and emergency

shelters. There needs to be improvements in community preparedness and related

civil infrastructure to make them economically resilient to earthquake hazards.

Work must continue on development and adoption of nationally accepted, consensusbased standards for evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. Finally, ASCE supports the development of national seismic standards for new and existing lifelines.

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT

The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), with financial support

from the National Science Foundation, recently published a report, ‘‘Securing Society Against Catastrophic Earthquake Losses.’’ This report highlights the accomplishments of NEHRP along with the challenges that still must be met. We have

an opportunity to build on the existing knowledge gained from past research and

to create new knowledge. The report contains a detailed plan, including cost estimates, to meet those remaining challenges.

The report summary concludes that:

‘‘The earthquake engineering community is poised for a fundamental shift in the

mitigation of earthquake risks by developing new ways of thinking about the performance of structures and new societal choices about seismic safety. The time

151

is now to launch a new, bold initiative to provide security for the United States

from the effects of catastrophic earthquakes.’’

ASCE encourages Congress to incorporate the recommendation of the EERI report

into the legislation to reauthorize NEHRP. It is time to make a good program a

great one.

Thank you for this opportunity to express our views. ASCE is ready to assist in

any way we can. If you have questions or need additional information, contact Martin Hight, Senior Manager, Government Relations at (202) 326–5125 or by e-mail

at mhight@asce.org.

152

(153)

Appendix 2:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

154

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Anthony S. Lowe, Administrator, Federal Insurance Mitigation Administration; Director, Mitigation Division, Emergency Preparedness and Response

Directorate (Federal Emergency Management Agency), Department of Homeland

Security

Questions submitted by Chairman Nick Smith

Q1. Mr. Lowe noted during the hearing that the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) has not submitted the coordinated budget request report to the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by Section 206 of Public

Law 106–503. The Committee views these reporting requirements essential to ensuring that each agency’s National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

(NEHRP) expenditures are coordinated to create synergy and adequately reflect

the Program’s objectives. Please explain why this report has not been submitted.

A1. Since the language for Section 206 was included in the authorization of the

NEHRP program, FEMA, now part of the Emergency Preparedness and Response

Directorate (EP&R), has taken the requirements very seriously. As the NEHRP

agencies moved toward completing the NEHRP Strategic Plan, EP&R considered

the Plan a surrogate format that would satisfy the requirements of Section 206. Despite the fact that the issuance of the Plan was delayed, EP&R and the other

NEHRP agencies were initiating and continuing work pursuant to the Plan within

their respective existing resources. The Strategic Plan has served as the platform

for compliance with Section 206 and has been a critical linkage in the coordination

among the NEHRP agencies. The Strategic Plan created the synergy necessary to

adequately reflect the Program’s objectives.

EP&R has put into place changes that will allow explicit compliance with Section

206 for the future. Those changes include:

• The other NEHRP agencies have agreed with EP&R’s proposal for an overall

Management Plan. This Management Plan will articulate NEHRP priorities

in the context of the policies of the Administration and will be used to guide

the efforts of the senior career levels of the NEHRP, the Interagency Coordinating Committee, or ICC.

• In conjunction with the Management Plan, we will collaborate in the development of an annual Plan of Work, which will lay out each of the proposed activities from the Strategic Plan that we intend to accomplish during the year.

This coordinated effort will ensure that activities are complementary. Each of

these proposed activities will be justified, using the Strategic Plan, to demonstrate its importance in advancing the stated NEHRP objectives and goals.

For each planned activity, we will explicitly identify associated funding requirements that are also represented in each agency’s overall request for appropriations.

• The guidance from EP&R to each agency for the preparation of requests for

appropriations, as required by Section 206, will occur in the form of our coordination of the development of the annual Plan of Work in concert with the

Strategic Plan.

• EP&R will submit the Plan of Work as the overall NEHRP annual budget request to OMB, and this will satisfy our agency requirements, as well as the

overall program requirement.

Q2. Section 406 (C) of Public Law 107–296 states that FEMA ‘‘shall have the primary responsibility within the executive branch to prepare for and mitigate the

effects of nonterrorist-related disasters in the United States.’’ However, the Committee learned on May 2nd that $4.4 million in FEMA Emergency Management

Performance (EMP) Grants would be administered from the Office for Domestic

Preparedness (ODP) within the Border and Transportation Security Directorate,

which is dedicated to protecting the country from acts of terrorism.

Q2a. Given that ODP is not one of the four NEHRP agencies, why are these funds

considered part of the NEHRP budget?

Q2b. Please explain how the purpose and structure of ODP grant program that will

distribute the $4.4 million is related to the FEMA EMP Grants program.

Q2c. How will FEMA ensure that an appropriate amount of ODP grants are directed

toward earthquake hazards mitigation?

155

A2a,b,c. In FY 2003, $4.4 million of NEHRP funds are provided to States as part

of the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPGs), along with funds

from other programs within EP&R. The EMPG program was created in 1999 to consolidate funding streams to the states and to allow state emergency management

directors to direct resources to the risk reduction priorities that they identify for

their population at risk from various hazards.

With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), EMPGs are

being consolidated with other grants, to be managed by the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP), beginning in FY 2004. Consolidating the management of grants

will provide efficiency and cost effectiveness in grants administration as it has

under the EMPG program.

As part of the Administration’s effort to increase states’ flexibility in FY 2004,

there is not explicit funding set aside for this purpose. Of course, states may use

the ODP funds for a similar purpose if they so choose.

Q3. How many full-time equivalents within the Department of Homeland Security

(DHS) are dedicated to NEHRP activities? How will DHS balance staff-time devoted to carrying out day-to-day NEHRP activities with other emergency needs

such as responding to tornadoes and floods?

A3. Within DHS, 46 full-time equivalents (FTEs) are funded with NEHRP funds,

30 FTEs at headquarters and 16 in the regional offices. The headquarters contingent consists of 7 FTEs that are specifically designated to work on NEHRP activities, 11 that are dedicated to multi-hazard initiatives, and 12 support staff and

management FTEs. EP&R’s staff resources are leveraged among the many programs, and the functional alignment of EP&R’s organization allows for the most effective use of resident expertise. There are a number of EP&R employees who work

primarily in the NEHRP area, but who are funded from other sources as well.

As with all EP&R programs, NEHRP employees are subject to deployment during

disaster situations.

Q4. Please provide written comments on:

Q4a. Witness testimony recommending the designation of a single OMB examiner to

review the NEHRP budget.

A4a. The Department of Homeland Security can not comment on the staffing plan

of the Office of Management and Budget. The Committee will have to direct those

questions directly to OMB.

Q4b. Witness testimony recommending the establishment of an external advisory

committee (much like the current USGS Scientific. Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee) to provide recommendations on NEHRP.

A4b. In recent months EP&R has re-energized the high-level Policy Coordinating

Committee (PCC) to provide increased direction to the Interagency Coordinating

Committee (ICC). This will be accomplished through a Management Plan, which

will guide the PCC’s oversight of the implementation of the NEHRP Strategic Plan.

This Management Plan will articulate NEHRP priorities in the context of the policies of the Administration. In addition, the ICC will develop, each year, a Plan of

Work that will contain specific metrics, which will evolve over time and will provide

a results-oriented approach. This will assist the PCC in gauging the success of

NEHRP initiatives against the metrics, so that the PCC can make decisions about

how to effectively allocate NEHRP resources. We believe that this system of oversight by the PCC, previously dormant, will provide excellent support and direction

for NEHRP, obviating the need for an advisory committee.

Based on these management initiatives, as well as the newly formed Research Coordination Subcommittee, we feel that an advisory committee is not needed to provide guidance for NEHRP.

Q4c. The five-fold R&D program, priorities, and funding levels detailed in the

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute’s (EERI) Research and Outreach

Plan.

A4c. In the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) written testimony, it

‘‘. . .supported the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) to develop a

long-term research and education plan to advance the state-of-the-art and the stateof-the-practice in earthquake engineering and earthquake loss reduction. The result

is a comprehensive, community-held vision that includes buy-in from all sectors and

disciplines including academics, practicing engineers and geoscientists, social scientists, and government employees and regulators. . .’’

156

EP&R supports the process through which this research and education plan was

developed because it represents a consensus of many of the experts in the stakeholder community. EP&R anticipates that the EERI plan will prove beneficial as we

implement the NEHRP Strategic Plan, particularly as we integrate components of

other research plans, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) research plan (ATC 57), the performance-based earthquake engineering design plan (ATC–58), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) research plan,

into our efforts, through the Research Coordination Subcommittee.

With respect to funding levels, the EERI plan calls for roughly a tripling of the

current NEHRP budget over the next 20 years. EP&R will consider EERI recommendations as it develops the FY 2005 budget request,

Q5. The National Science Foundation’s written testimony noted the need to develop

an ‘‘all-agency Internet portal for dissemination of information about research

opportunities and outcomes, news releases, plans and activities in a form that

can be easily accessed by the research community at large.’’ Is development of

such a one-stop shopping website for NEHRP planned for the near future?

A5. EP&R is in the process of developing a NEHRP website that will reside on the

EP&R server and will be the primary vehicle to disseminate general NEHRP and

EP&R programmatic information relevant to NEHRP. The NEHRP website will provide linkage to other NEHRP information including NEHRP agency websites, state

earthquake program websites, earthquake consortia websites, earthquake information research institutions with relevant information or programs, relevant associations and nonprofit organizations, and university programs.

EP&R has also set up a Research Coordination Subcommittee, under the ICC,

that is charged with identifying synergies among research programs. This subcommittee is also charged with making research findings more available to the

NEHRP stakeholders, as well as to other appropriate audiences. EP&R’s NEHRP

website will also encapsulate the work of the subcommittee.

Questions submitted by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson

Q1. Explain how the strategic plan influenced the FY 2004 budget request for the

earthquake program.

A1. The NEHRP Strategic Plan lays out the present and future activities of NEHRP

and its four agencies and is organized around the four goals of the program, which

are:

A. Develop effective practices and policies for earthquake loss-reduction and accelerate their implementation.

B. Improve techniques to reduce seismic vulnerability of facilities and systems.

C. Improve seismic hazard identification and risk assessment methods and

their use.

D. Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.

Although this Plan has only recently been approved by OMB and sent to Congress, the four agencies have been operating and reporting according to its draft

guidance for two years, while remaining within existing resource constraints. Therefore, each agency’s 2004 budget request for NEHRP activities was designed to fulfill

the goals of the Strategic Plan, while remaining within the Administration’s 2004

budget allowances.

Q2. What level of priority does NEHRP assign to completion of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), and what efforts have been made to get an adequate budget request for ANSS in the President’s budget submission?

A2. The NEHRP places the completion and implementation of ANSS among its

highest priorities. Specifically, its priority is described in the recently released

NEHRP Strategic Plan, Expanding and Using Knowledge to Reduce Earthquake

Losses. Page 12 of the Plan identifies the need for real-time seismic monitoring and

reporting of ground motion intensities that would be provided by ANSS as the first

of the program’s future challenges, opportunities, and priorities. Under that section,

the Plan states that:

‘‘Recent and unprecedented advances in information technology, telecommunications, and digital electronics now allow for real-time, high fidelity monitoring

of seismicity across the Nation. An upgraded seismic monitoring system in the

U.S. would enable rapid assessments of the distribution and intensity of earthquake shaking, thereby allowing emergency response officials to assess, within

157

minutes of an event, where the damage is likely to be concentrated and how

emergency resources should be allocated. Someday, the new technology may

even allow for a few seconds of warning of impending strong seismic shaking

from distant earthquakes already in progress. The USGS funds the Advanced

National Seismic System (ANSS), an effort to update current instrumentation

and provide this real-time monitoring capability.’’

Further, the NEHRP Strategic Plan also lists this objective under Goal C: ‘‘Provide rapid, reliable information about earthquakes and earthquake-induced damage.’’ Under this objective, NEHRP specifically calls for the implementation of

ANSS.

The responsibility for securing adequate funding for ANSS or any other program

has historically been with the individual agency—in this case the USGS. In the future, however, we will use the NEHRP Management Plan to submit a coordinated

and consolidated NEHRP budget request that fully complies with Section 206.

Q3. Dr. O’Rourke in his testimony indicated that there are insufficient research

funds in NEHRP to take full advantage of the new equipment and simulation

facilities being made available by the George Brown Network for Earthquake

Engineering Simulation. Is this a subject of discussion during the planning

process for NEHRP? Explain how program priorities being developed to balance

research and research infrastructure needs.

A3. The operation of the NEHRP over the last 25 years has worked within the research community to establish what is essentially a market-driven balance between

funded research work and available research infrastructure. With the advent of the

first phase of the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) program,

we are presently increasing the available research infrastructure. However, even

more important, with the remainder of the NEES program, we will be significantly

improving how this expanded research infrastructure can be used through the

NEES Co-Laboratory infrastructure. The NEES Co-Laboratory will ultimately allow

research to be done much more efficiently, as it will allow researchers to utilize research facilities via the Internet. So, while we are presently expanding the available

research infrastructure, we also in effect are lowering the cost of doing research by

making it easier for researchers to access that expanded infrastructure.

The expansion of the research infrastructure under the first phase of NEES was

called for and directed by the Assessment of Earthquake Engineering Research and

Testing Capabilities in the United States, a report prepared for NSF and NIST by

EERI that was called for under the NEHRP Reauthorization Act of October 1994.

That report was published by EERI in September 1995.

NSF has tasked the National Research Council to investigate research needs postNEES and to prepare a report documenting this issue. This report is due to NSF

later this year, and will be used as part of our NEHRP planning process for funding

future research. In particular, this report will be utilized by the new Research Coordination Subcommittee of the NEHRP ICC as it moves to improve the coordination of NEHRP-funded research activities.

(159)

Appendix 3:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239