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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

63–864 PDF 2011

S. Hrg. 111–1009 

EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS: 

WHAT THE UNITED STATES CAN LEARN FROM 

THE 2010 CHILEAN AND HAITIAN EARTHQUAKES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, LOCAL, 

AND PRIVATE SECTOR PREPAREDNESS 

AND INTEGRATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 

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

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

JOYCE WARD, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, LOCAL, AND PRIVATE SECTOR 

PREPAREDNESS AND INTEGRATION 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JON TESTER, Montana 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

DONNY WILLIAM, Staff Director 

RYAN TULLY, Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Pryor .................................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 

William L. Carwile, III, Associate Administrator for Response and Recovery, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security ......................................................................................................................... 3

Dirk W. Dijkerman, Acting Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Democracy, 

Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, U.S. Agency for International Development .............................................................................................................. 5 

Cristobal Lira, Director, Committee for Earthquake and Tsunami Emergency 

(March-August, 2010), Reconstruction Committee (Since August, 2010), 

Chilean Ministry of Interior ................................................................................ 7 

James M. Wilkinson, Executive Director, Central United States Earthquake 

Consortium ........................................................................................................... 16 

Ellis M. Stanley, Sr., Vice President, Dewberry, and Director of Western 

Emergency Management and Homeland Security Services ............................. 17 

Reginald DesRoches, Ph.D., Professor and Associate Chair, Georgia Institute 

of Technology, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering ...................... 19 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Carwile, William L. III: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

DesRoches, Reginald Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 87 

Dijkerman, Dirk W.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Lira, Cristobal: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 45 

Stanley, Ellis M. Sr.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 81 

Wilkinson James M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

APPENDIX 

Questions and responses for the Record from: 

Mr. Carwile ....................................................................................................... 93 

Mr. Wilkinson ................................................................................................... 97 

Maps submitted by Senator Pryor from U.S. Geological Survey and FEMA ..... 99 

Earthquake Comparison submitted by Mr. Wilkinson ......................................... 104 

Map submitted by Mr. Stanley ............................................................................... 105 

Additional document submitted for the record by Mr. Lira ................................. 106 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(1) 

EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS: WHAT 

THE UNITED STATES CAN LEARN FROM THE 

2010 CHILEAN AND HAITIAN EARTHQUAKES 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 

U.S. SENATE,

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, LOCAL, AND

PRIVATE SECTOR PREPAREDNESS AND INTEGRATION,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark L. Pryor, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. I want to go ahead and call our hearing to order. 

I want to thank everyone for being here. I am sorry I was a few 

minutes late. I got caught out in the hallway, but want to welcome 

everyone to the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private 

Sector Preparedness and Integration. We are part of the Senate 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 

We have a very distinguished set of panelists and witnesses 

today, to speak on an issue that is very important for our nation’s 

earthquake preparedness. 

I want to start the hearing with a quote, and it says, ‘‘The earthquakes cause the ground to rise and fall, bending the trees until 

their branches intertwined and open deep cracks in the ground. 

Deep seated landslides occurred along the steeper bluffs and hillsides; large areas of land were uplifted permanently; and still larger areas sank and were covered with water that erupted through 

fissures or craterlets. Huge waves on the Mississippi River overwhelmed many boats and washed others high onto the shore. High 

banks caved and collapsed into the river; sand bars and points of 

islands gave way; whole islands disappeared.’’ 

This sounds like something that might be out of the Book of Revelation, but it is not. It is something that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has on their website, and it is a quote from the two 

series of New Madrid earthquake back in 1811 and 1812. 

I think a lot of times people in my part of the country feel like 

earthquakes are something you see on the west coast or in other 

countries. But we have more fault zones than just the ones in California and the other States in the west. Earthquake preparedness 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

2 

is something that is very important and we should make sure that 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and others 

are on top of. We want to have this hearing today to get a sense 

of how prepared the United States is to handle an earthquake. 

The witnesses here today have traveled from all around the 

country, and in Mr. Lira’s case, as far away as Chile, to address 

the ability of the United States to respond to and recover from a 

major earthquake. I appreciate all of you for being here, especially 

you, Mr. Lira, for coming such a great distance to help us. 

I would like to also recognize the Chilean Ambassador who is 

here, Ambassador Arturo—is it Fermandois? 

Ambassador FERMANDOIS. Fermandois. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Welcome to the Subcommittee. It is 

great to have you here. 

We have called this diverse group of witnesses because they have 

taken part in the response to some of the more powerful and catastrophic earthquakes in recent history, the January 12th earthquake in Haiti and the February 27th earthquake in Chile. Both 

of these were similarly powerful earthquakes. However, the outcomes of the two countries’ response efforts could not have been 

more disparate. 

In Haiti, we saw the worst case scenario: A very poor country 

with very primitive building codes and minimal response capacity. 

Some 230,000 people died during this event, and another 300,000 

were injured. Over a million people remain homeless. I want to 

note that we extended an invitation to the Haitian government to 

send a representative here to testify today, but they still have an 

all-hands-on-deck response going on after January’s catastrophe. 

A month later an 8.8 magnitude earthquake struck off the coast 

of Chile. Seismologists estimate that the earthquake was so powerful that it moved the earth’s figure axis by 2.7 milliarcseconds. 

Tsunami warnings were issued in 53 countries causing minor 

damage in San Diego, California, and in Japan. Despite the magnitude of this disaster, the death toll was only 521, most killed by 

the tsunami. These events hold extremely valuable lessons for U.S. 

Government officials working to develop plans for responding to a 

severe earthquake on American soil. Our goal is to make an American response look more like the results of Chile, rather than the 

results in Haiti. 

As we near the 100th anniversary of the 1811 and 1812 New Madrid earthquakes, we are reminded how critical planning and preparation are to mitigating against loss of life and property. The effects of the New Madrid earthquakes were spread over a vast area. 

Physical damage was reported as far away as Charleston, South 

Carolina, and Washington, D.C. In Boston, Massachusetts, which is 

about 1,000 miles from the epicenter, church bells rang due to the 

seismic vibration. 

Consider this: A modern major earthquake along the New Madrid fault, which covers seven States, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois, and Indiana, could impact up 

to 44 million Americans who live in that region, including some 12 

million Americans who live in the highest impact zones. FEMA estimates over $70 billion in infrastructure damage, while others predict a $500 billion response and recovery effort. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

3 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Carwile appears in the appendix on page 25. 

The potential of loss of life, damage to public and private structures, and disruption of interstate commerce is staggering. With 

the recent international earthquakes, we can learn valuable lessons. Our witnesses who are here today will help this Subcommittee learn some of those lessons and document those for the 

Committee’s work and the Senate. I hope the outcome of this hearing is that it will lead to a more effective response and more effective preparation to these tragic events when they do occur. 

I will introduce each one of the four witnesses on this panel. We 

will give everyone 5 minutes for their opening statement and we 

will submit your written testimony for the record. Do not feel obligated to read every single word of your written testimony. You may 

paraphrase or skip sections, that is up to you. But try to speak 

under 5 minutes and then we will open the panel up for discussion 

and for questions. 

Our first witness is Bill Carwile, Associate Administrator, at the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Our second witness is 

Dirk Dijkerman, Acting Assistant Administrator of the Bureau of 

Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance at the U.S. 

Agency for International Development. And our next witness is 

Carol Chan, who is the Director for the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance at USAID. And then our last witness will be Mr. 

Lira. 

So, Mr. Carwile, would you like to lead us off? 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM L. CARWILE III,1 ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESPONSE AND RECOVERY, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. CARWILE. Good morning, Chairman Pryor. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today on behalf of the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It is my privilege to discuss preparation for a whole 

community response to and recovery from a catastrophic earthquake. I am also prepared to discuss some of the lessons we 

learned from our support to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) during the Haitian earthquake response, as well as 

our reconnaissance work during the earthquake in Chile. 

I am Bill Carwile, FEMA’s Associate Administrator for Response 

and Recovery. I am a retired U.S. Army Colonel and former Defense Coordinating Officer (DCO) who also served as Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO), other senior emergency management positions, and I am well-aware of the immense response and recovery 

challenges that face survivors of a major incident like an earthquake. 

Such an event will require an immediate, massive, and sustained 

support from the whole community. The whole community, that is 

the Federal, State, local governments, and our many private sector 

and volunteer agency partners, as well as the survivors themselves. 

The enormous destruction in a catastrophic disaster environment 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

4 

requires us to focus on our number one priority: Saving and sustaining lives within the first 72 hours. 

The whole community must be prepared to respond in ways beyond our normal paradigms. We must seek atypical solutions and 

adopt a planning process that incorporates such approaches. 

Our planning assumptions for a catastrophic disaster are based 

on worst case scenarios derived from modeling and historical analysis. These are designed to challenge preparedness at all levels and 

enforce innovative, non-traditional solutions as part of the response 

strategy to such events. 

National earthquake planning currently includes developing a 

Federal Interagency Operations Plan for earthquakes. This plan is 

a response and short-term recovery-oriented document. It ties national, regional, and state efforts together in a capstone document 

that addresses how the Federal interagency will prepare for and respond to a catastrophic earthquake anywhere. 

This plan is closely linked to the development of the National 

Level Exercise (NLE) 2011, which has, as its scenario, an earthquake along the New Madrid fault seismic zone. The four FEMA 

regions and eight States that are in that zone are working in partnership with Federal, State, and local agencies to develop a coherent plan using our recently published Regional Planning Guide 

(RPG). 

Scenario and damage information to inform planning efforts are 

provided by the U.S. Geological Survey and the academic community. Regional planning and the development of operational plans 

are completed or underway for several other geographic areas that 

have high earthquake hazards, including the San Francisco Bay 

area and Southern California. 

Our Region VIII and the State of Utah are working together to 

develop a joint region/state catastrophic earthquake plan for the 

impact of an earthquake along the Wasatch fault. Region II will 

lead an 18-month planning effort to develop joint regional plans 

with Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to address a catastrophic earthquake and tsunami in the Caribbean. 

FEMA Regions IX and X in the States of Washington, Oregon, 

California, Alaska, Idaho, and British Columbia, Canada, will work 

together to develop joint plans for an earthquake and tsunami addressing the earthquake and resulting tsunami occurring in the 

Cascadia Subduction Zone in the Pacific Northwest of the United 

States and Canada. 

All of our future planning efforts will incorporate the lessons we 

learned from our deployment of the National Urban Search and 

Rescue (US&R) teams to Haiti. These lessons include being able to 

achieve flexibility in deploying these large teams, how to effectively 

employ the dogs to find survivors, and the need to use our teams 

as force multipliers by organizing like teams made up of survivors 

or others. 

Our 28 Urban Search and Rescue task forces will need to be augmented in a major earthquake who are working with the Department of Defense (DOD) to train and use the National Guard as an 

organized force to serve as light urban search and rescue teams. 

Effectively and rapidly responding to and recovering from the impact of a catastrophic earthquake is one of the greatest challenges 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Dijkerman appears in the appendix on page 39. 

faced by the whole community. At FEMA we recognize success depends on collective and collaborative efforts of all dimensions of our 

society. 

I look forward to working with the Members of this Subcommittee and Members of Congress to address the requirements 

of a catastrophic earthquake or other large disaster. Sir, subject to 

your questions later, that concludes my briefing. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Mr. Dijkerman. 

TESTIMONY OF DIRK W. DIJKERMAN,1 ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR DEMOCRACY, CONFLICT, AND 

HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. DIJKERMAN. Can you hear me? Oh, great. Thank you, Chairman Pryor. We really appreciate the invitation to come to testify 

about earthquake preparedness and what the United States can 

potentially learn from some of our experiences. I appreciate that 

you will be putting the written testimony into the record. 

As you commented, the earthquake in January in Haiti killed 

230,000 people and displaced and disrupted the lives of another 

three million. Right after that, one of the good steps was that 

President Obama designated USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah as 

the United States Disaster Coordinator, and he committed the 

United States would provide a swift, aggressive, whole of U.S. Government response. 

And in that effort, USAID coordinated the efforts of a number of 

U.S. Government agencies, including the Department of State, 

Health and Human Services (HHS); Homeland Security; and, of 

course, our colleagues here from FEMA. 

I think you are probably aware that FEMA and USAID, particularly the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, have had a long relationship sharing lessons back and forth, and we can give you 

some of the historical lessons as well. But I will focus more on 

some of the more recent findings that we have had. 

But anyway, back to Haiti, to date we have delivered over $1.14 

billion. In the first 2 months of the Haiti earthquake, we sent and 

delivered about $250 million quite quickly, and I am going to come 

back to how we did that and why. But what is also significant here 

is in Haiti, we had our colleagues from Chile sending a search and 

rescue team, helping us out and coordinating with other search and 

rescue teams from around the world. 

But about 2 months after the Haiti earthquake, as you mentioned, the earthquake in Chile struck. I think it ranks up there 

as one in a century-type earthquake, but there, as you noted, the 

impact was very much different. USAID has had a long relationship with the national office in Chile responsible for preparedness, 

and because of that, we were able to take our directions from the 

Chileans on what to do and they were able to guide us and the 

international community. 

I think it is a very strong lesson on the impact of preparedness, 

not only in terms of the disaster response, but also working it 

through the system where they came up with more rigorous buildH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

6 

ing codes, but then they also implemented it, which is, perhaps, 

even more important than just defining the improved codes. I will 

let my fellow panelists go into it in much more detail. 

So, first, what are some of the lessons that we talk about? One, 

we have learned over and over again, and even in Haiti and in 

Pakistan, is that we can have a very small footprint, but still have 

a very huge and rapid impact by utilizing existing in-country relationships as force multipliers. As I said earlier, we delivered about $254 million within 2 weeks 

and we did that by sending out what we call our Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) that had about 34 members. But we 

had tapped into our existing relationships with many non-governmental organizations and United Nations agencies on the ground, 

who in turn had reached back to the rest of their organizations 

throughout the world to bring in what we needed. 

This obviously, our number of 34 people for USAID, did not include the 500-plus members that were brought in from search and 

rescue and the 20,000 military folks that were also brought in. But 

focusing on the resources we delivered and focusing on the fact that 

we used these non-governmental organizations, it gives us a couple 

of advantages. 

One, as I said, force multiplier, but two, because they are there, 

they immediately start helping us try to maximize the extent to 

which we can make sure the assistance is locally attuned to the 

cultural challenges and circumstances there. I know the United 

States is not as diverse a difference between, let us say, Haiti and 

the United States, but being culturally attuned is always a challenge. 

Now, the other point is that we, as USAID, again different from 

FEMA, do not implement. We implement through people. But we 

do keep ourselves on the ground right next to everybody else, closely monitoring, making adjustments, and issuing new grants as we 

go. And that is part of how we stay on top of it, and, if you will, 

move a fair amount of resources. 

This model that we use is very flexible. In Haiti, we had 34 people addressing, if you will, a caseload of up to three million people 

affected. Right now in Pakistan, which is being affected by a flood 

we have about 17 people on our DART addressing and trying to address the caseload of between 16 and 20 million people. Again, we 

are using the same structure and I think it has been fairly effective 

there to move almost $300 million in a fairly short period of time. 

The second lesson I would want to mention is that we are learning that the single chain of command, which we normally use, is 

not good enough and we have to scale it up, and here, we are actually learning from some of what FEMA has done and we are trying 

to make the whole of U.S. Government response a bit more comprehensive and work more on where the resources are going to 

come from and how we can do this. 

The last thing that I would point out is that we are focusing on 

a lesson about the technical teams that we send out. They have to 

be small, nimble, mobile. We need to get them up to and familiar 

with international standards, and a benefit like this will also help 

if they come in to help us in the United States. 

So let me stop there and thank you very much for inviting us. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

7 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Lira appears in the appendix on page 45. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Ms. Chan, you are not going to testify, as I understand it, but will be available for questions and we 

appreciate that. 

Mr. Lira, we again thank you for being here. I do not want you 

to feel constrained by the 5-minute rule since you have a presentation and since you have traveled such a great distance to be here. 

Go ahead and give us your presentation. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOBAL LIRA,1 DIRECTOR, COMMITTEE 

FOR EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI EMERGENCY (MARCH–AUGUST, 2010), RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE (SINCE AUGUST, 2010), CHILEAN MINISTRY OF INTERIOR 

Mr. LIRA. Good morning Mr. Chairman. It is an honor and a 

privilege for me as the Director of the Reconstruction Committee 

of Chile, to be here at the U.S. Senate for sharing with you the 

Chilean experience on how we faced the devastating February 

earthquake. Thank you for calling me to this hearing. 

Committee of Chile, to be here at the U.S. Senate for sharing 

with you the Chilean experience on how we faced the devastating 

February earthquake. Thank you for calling me to this hearing. 

In this opportunity I would also like to thank the U.S. Government, the U.S. Senate, and all the people in this country that 

helped Chile during those difficult times. 

In my presentation, I would like to talk about three main topics, 

earthquake and tsunami impact, government reaction and organization, initiatives in place and learning captured. First of all, I will 

try to show you how big this emergency was and the consequence 

it had for our people and our economy. 

As you can see, this was the fifth strongest earthquake registered until now. The total loss was 14.9 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP), a huge loss for our economy. Image can say 

a lot about what happened in our country. This image shows the 

island of Juan Fernandez before and after the tsunami. This image 

shows Talcahuano port in the south, one of the most important 

ports in the country. Here you can see our main highway in the 

city of Santiago and all the damage caused by the earthquake. 

A bridge, 200 kilometers south of Santiago, before and after the 

earthquake. This is the town of Dichato before and after the tsunami. The picture shows the Alto Rio building in Concepcion after 

the earthquake. Here we can see the enormous impact of the earthquake and tsunami, in all, 521 fatal losses, 56 disappeared, 370,000 

destroyed houses, 73 destroyed hospitals, 3,049 destroyed and damaged schools, 1,250,000 children out of school, 221 destroyed and 

damaged bridges, 900 towns. Here you have an open view of the 

damages by sector in the economy. As I say before, it was 14.9 percent of the country’s GDP. 

Now I am going to talk about the government reaction to this 

emergency and how it organized to respond and deliver the necessary solutions. The most important thing is that we started simultaneously to attend the emergency and also starting the reconstruction efforts. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

8 

As you can see here, two committees were created, the first one 

to respond to the emergency and the second to start working in the 

reconstruction. The emergency committee recruited around 10 people from the private sector to work temporarily in this committee. 

These people continued to receive their wages from the companies 

where they used to work. This help from the private sector and an 

emergency law that made it easier to buy and deliver help was fundamental for the success of the emergency committee in a very 

short period. 

We worked in coordination with the armed forces and the Office 

of Emergency of the Interior Ministry (ONEMI). Also, very coordinated with a new authority, especially the regional governments. 

The armed forces were very important in two stages of the emergency, first, working to restore the public order that was missing 

after the earthquake, and second, changing their guns for tools to 

help to build emergency houses and remove debris from the street. 

That is the first stage and then they changed their guns to tools. 

A fundamental aspect to have permanent knowledge of the situation and deliver fast and adequate solutions was that the government worked permanently in the field, distinguishing their people 

with colorful red jackets so the people recognized us and talked to 

us and cried with us. 

Since the beginning of the government, we have worked together 

with McKinsey Company trying to have a good diagnosis of what 

worked well and what did not work during this emergency. I would 

like to share with you these learnings and how we are working to 

be better prepared when the next emergency comes. 

We have the seismological and telecommunication infrastructure. 

Communications were down for more than 12 hours. Sensors took 

more than two hours to provide the information. So we are working 

on investments in real time monitoring process and robust telecommunication systems with multiple backups. 

Issuing alarms process. Process to issue an alarm involved unclear communication protocols, multiple unnecessary decision 

points, and no use of mass communication channels. We are working on clear communication protocols, single responsibility for decision, and use of mass communication channels. 

Emergency task force. We do not have a force dedicated to help 

in initial evaluation of damage, nor specialized in emergency procedures. So we are developing an army emergency task force specialized in emergency procedures. 

Chain of command. No clear chain of command in place, too 

many direct reports organized by institution instead of functions, 

and leadership duplicity. We are working on no more than eight direct reports organized by function and single leadership. 

The war room dynamics. Unrestricted access, everybody sitting 

around the same table randomly, and press with direct access to 

everything. We are working on restricted area access, decision 

makers in one table separated from support staff in separate tables 

grouped by functions. 

Looting. Heavy looting began 18 hours after the earthquake. Procedures to deploy armed forces to ensure safety in the first hours 

of the emergency. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

9 

But we also learned from the good things we had in place. You 

hear about the 600 people that died in Chile compared with Haiti. 

The first thing was the population knowledge. Chile’s coastal population have a very good understanding of the need to evacuate in 

the event of any big earthquake. The second thing was the lack of 

fires. Chile’s energy network shuts down automatically in the event 

of any major earthquake. It is difficult to be without light, but also 

without fire. 

And the robust civil infrastructure. Chile construction norm and 

developers being responsible for more than 10 years provided a 

civil infrastructure that was able to protect Chilean citizens overall. 

So also, I would like to give you some materials. You will have 

more information on the topics I have talked about before, a copy 

of the Sustainable Reconstruction Plan of Constitucion City, an example that we have there, so you can see how we have been developing a reconstruction plan since the beginning of the government. 

That plan takes about 1 year to develop and we do it in 4 months. 

Information about the Onemi, the Chilean Emergency Office, and 

how they are working in the prevention, response, and recovery for 

future emergencies. I will also give you a presentation from the 

Minister of Finance where you can find more information about the 

costs that this emergency implied for our economy, and how the 

government is preparing to finance these costs. And the final daily 

report from the Emergency Committee where you can find details 

about the aid delivered in the area affected by the earthquake and 

tsunami. 

I am pleased. Feel free to ask anything, other information. I 

would like to invite the Senators to visit us. It will be an honor to 

show you personally all the details in the field. Thank you very 

much, Senator Pryor. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you for your statement and your presentation. 

Mr. Carwile, let me start with you, if I may. Just in general 

terms, if you were going to grade the Federal Government right 

now on our preparedness for a big earthquake, wherever it may 

occur in our country—how would you grade us on our preparedness? 

Mr. CARWILE. Mr. Chairman, I would probably give us a B. I 

think we have made great progress in the last year and a half or 

so with regard to building on regional and state plans. Sir, we are 

kind of a bottoms-up constitutionally, so through Congress’s grant 

programs that we administered on our preparedness side of the 

house, we have seen some significant increases in state and local 

capacities for a major event. 

I think on my side of the house, on response recovery, we have 

done a lot more coherent planning with our regions and States. It 

occurred to me when I came back to government about 18 months 

ago that there has been sort of a centralization here in Washington 

of planning efforts, which was OK at the Federal level, but when 

you really have to implement them, it is down to a state and a regional level. So I think we are moving along very well. 

I do believe that the National Level Exercise 2011, which will be 

on the year anniversary of the terrible New Madrid earthquake you 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

10 

described, sir, will give us an opportunity to grade that preparedness a lot better than we can right now. 

Senator PRYOR. Good. And let me ask the follow-up. You mentioned State, local, and I will throw in private sector. How would 

you grade the State, local, and private sector on their preparedness? 

Mr. CARWILE. Let me start with the private sector. We have been 

reaching out to the private sector, actually to some folks in your 

home State, Bentonville, and some other folks around the country. 

In many ways the private sector is ahead of the government. I 

know that some of the large corporations have incredibly robust 

continuity of operations plans for their business model. But we 

have entered into partnerships with them to a much greater degree 

than we ever. 

Last Monday, for example, we had 60 members of both associations and corporations at FEMA headquarters to discuss not only 

what can the private sector do for us, where can we buy from them 

for survivors, but what can we, as a government, do to help them 

get back up and operational. So I think the private sector pieces 

are working well. 

We had included them, as well as our volunteer agency partners, 

into several thunderbolt exercises. Those are exercises that Administrator Fugate started when he came to office. There is no notice. 

We brought in the private sector and the volunteer agencies to a 

much greater degree. 

We have also established a seat, and we went through some 

issues with our legal folks, but we have a seat now at the National 

Response Coordination Center (NRCC) for a member of the private 

sector and is going to rotate. Right now Target has that seat, but 

they will represent folks in Bentonville and all the other private 

sector folks. So we have partnered with them much better. 

On the volunteer agency side, we have a tremendous relationship 

with the National Volunteer Organization’s Active in Disasters 

(VOAD). They cover not only the big—the American Red Cross, 

Salvation Army—but a lot of the smaller volunteer agencies that 

are so critical to helping our survivors during the time of disasters. 

So that partnership between government and state and local 

level, as well as here at the Federal level is extremely strong. Some 

States have entered into relationships. Louisiana has. Texas has. 

I know Dave Maxwell in Arkansas has entered into—he has a very 

strong relationship with the private sector there. They were part 

of a rehearsal of a drill they had yesterday in North Little Rock. 

The private sector participated. It has to do with New Madrid planning. The feedback from that yesterday was great. 

So I think we are in much better shape. That is why Administrator Fugate has been pushing the idea of whole community, not 

just the Federal Government or state and local governments, but 

also our partners in the private and the volunteer agency sectors, 

sir. 

Senator PRYOR. Good. And you witnessed the terrible earthquake 

down in Chile and it seems to me that they did a lot of things right 

before the earthquake happened that paid huge dividends when it 

actually occurred. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

11 

Mr. CARWILE. Yes. In looking at Senor Lira’s slides, a lot of the 

things they were doing well are things that we are trying to do as 

far as a knowledge of the people, working with our private sector 

partners in the energy field. 

But also on the right side of the slide, some of the things that 

we are trying to do, one of my colleagues in the rear said, some of 

the organizational construct, which we have adopted are the National Management System and the Command System, to alleviate 

some of the duplication of efforts. I think we do that pretty well 

now. 

I happened to have been the Federal Coordinating Officer in 

Hurricane Katrina in Mississippi with Governor Barber, and there, 

with his team, the state team, we formed a unified coordination 

group and worked with the state and local partners down at about 

the county level to create division supervisors under geographic 

branches. So we were able to set the priorities based on Governor 

Barber’s direction, of course, and have some unity of effort. 

So I saw a lot of things that we have been working on in Senor 

Lira’s slides. 

Senator PRYOR. One of the things in Mr. Lira’s statement that 

struck me is that the general population has a knowledge level, 

about what to do and what not to do in the event of an earthquake. 

How are we doing in that area? 

Mr. CARWILE. I think we have some work to do, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. My sense is, if you are living in California, it is 

more something you live with every day. 

Mr. CARWILE. That is right. I was able to speak in Kobe, Japan 

a couple of years ago on the anniversary of the Kobe earthquake, 

and in Japan, they teach children in school—we used to do it in 

the Cold War—a duck and cover and all that. Children know, if 

they feel a shake, they go to high ground. 

I think in California, where I have lived in the past, there is a 

lot more cognizance of that. I do not think we do as well in other 

parts of the country, and I know that Jim Wilkinson from Central 

United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC) is going to speak 

on the next panel, and Jim is doing a great job through the Earthquake Consortium of the Central United States to try to do that 

outreach work. I think he can probably answer that question, how 

we are addressing the central part of the country, a little bit better. 

But I think California is probably leading the way, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Lira, how does Chile let the general public 

know what to do in the event of an earthquake, how to prepare beforehand and how to handle things when the earthquake actually 

happens? How has your country done that? 

Mr. LIRA. Well, we have some simulations that we do in the cities. I gave you some examples of that in the information that I sent 

you before. So there we work—the last one I remember in Iquique, 

the city, it was about 100,000 people moving in a simulation for an 

earthquake and tsunami. 

So in that, you can see it in the news, in the television, so all 

the people know so that after an earthquake, it is very probable 

that you will have a tsunami. So at 3 a.m., the people run away 

to the mountains, to the hills behind the cities. That is why we 

have only about 600 people died. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

12 

Senator PRYOR. Wow. Well, that education certainly has paid off. 

Mr. Carwile, I know that we have a large scale earthquake exercise planned for 2011. What dates will that run in 2011? 

Mr. CARWILE. That is in May, sir. I will get back on the exact 

dates. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. And I think a lot of times we make sure that 

our first responders are involved and our hospitals know what to 

do. We plan scenarios such as what if this bridge goes out and all 

of that is good for local law enforcement. But will part of the large 

scale exercise include educating the public on what to do and will 

the public have more awareness about the exercise? 

Mr. CARWILE. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, and we are providing, 

through our Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), some resources to the States to do that outreach, as well as working with 

those four consortium that are doing outreach all the time. But 

part of the exercise will be the education of folks through a strategic communications part of the exercise. 

Senator PRYOR. Great. Mr. Lira, let me ask you follow-up question on that. It sounds like your preparation went well, but if you 

could go back and change one thing before the earthquake, and do 

one thing differently, what would that one thing be? 

Mr. LIRA. Probably the war room. We have to—we are working 

on that war room again. We need less people working there because if you have 40 people inside a war room, of course, it is very 

difficult to make decisions. 

Senator PRYOR. Right. 

Mr. LIRA. That is why one of the things that I would like to define very clear for a future earthquake is how has to be this war 

room, what people must be there, how you organize the other people, the function people in a separate room. That is something that 

we have to work and pay strong—and also, the first impression. 

We need a team, a task force that goes with a helicopter and immediately goes through all the affected area and so we can know 

what is happening, real, because at 5 a.m., the television was saying, ‘‘No, we do not have any risk of tsunami,’’ when the tsunami 

was there. That is why nobody knows in that night. So we need 

that task force that works only looking, what is happening. That 

is both things that I think we have to work on for the future. 

Senator PRYOR. Great. Well, that is helpful. Did you jot that 

down, Mr. Carwile? I saw you writing notes. That is good. I am 

glad. 

Mr. Dijkerman, Ms. Chan, I have not forgotten about you all, so 

let me ask a couple of questions. I know that, Mr. Dijkerman, you 

work around the world and try to be there for other countries when 

we provide assistance abroad. I know that you work in a lot of poor 

areas around the globe. We have some poor areas in this country 

as well. 

What is your impression about areas in our country, whether 

they be inner cities or rural areas or just places like Indian reservations, etc? Do you think that they will be hit disproportionately 

hard because of the poverty or do you think that is much of an 

issue in this country? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

13 

Mr. DIJKERMAN. Well, one of the advantages of having spent a 

lot of time overseas is, I think, I almost know that better sometimes than the United States. 

Senator PRYOR. Right. 

Mr. DIJKERMAN. So please recognize that limitation. But one of 

the differences that we find, if people have lower incomes, is that 

they have lower other resources and opportunities to cushion themselves for unforeseen circumstances, whether it be floods or earthquakes or droughts or you name it. And so, because their cushion 

is much smaller, the impact is much more devastating. So that is 

a reality that we look at. 

And one of the things from that we focus on, not only in focusing 

on saving lives, but we focus, first and foremost, on the very elemental aspects of saving lives: Getting water, getting essential 

medicine there, particularly for women and children, because some 

of those groups are the first to start suffering. 

And then when we talk about shelter, our immediate response efforts are very, very basic. Tents, things like that, or for water, 

water bladders. So we try to accommodate the fact that we have 

to respond all over the world with very basic commodities that can 

immediately start saving lives. As Bill mentioned, it is very important to start saving lives in the first 72 hours. 

Senator PRYOR. As you work with other countries, do you try to 

go in before disasters happen and help them prepare? Is that part 

of your mission? 

Mr. DIJKERMAN. Absolutely. That is an investment that we have 

tried to carve out from our first responsibility of being 9–1–1. But 

we have, at times, been able to spend up to 20 percent of our budget, when we have been fortunate enough to not have too many disasters, to try to divert towards what we call conflict prevention and 

mitigation. 

So, for example, in Latin America, we have trained over 30,000 

first responders and government officials with us, not only that we 

are training them, but that we work together so that when something happens, there is already an established familiarity between 

the groups. So in the case of Chile, the people we sent down there 

already knew some of the officers in the operation and we knew 

what they were capable of and we could just stand on the sideline 

and wait for directions. 

In other places, we do not have that depth of capacity and we 

have to make some investments in potentially shoring that up. But 

the investments that we have made just makes it simply a lot easier for when something happens. 

I recall, about a year ago, when we had the earthquake in Guatemala, it hit, the Guatemalans activated their service, we went 

there. They say, ‘‘Hey, come on in.’’ We were inside the hard wall 

in the war room and they were just working away and we said, 

‘‘Are you ready, do you need something?’’ They said, ‘‘No, I think 

we have it.’’ We said, ‘‘Great.’’ 

But that familiarity in processes and procedures just makes the 

response time less. So had there been a need for us, I think we 

could have responded much more quickly. 

Senator PRYOR. That is great. And you or your team spent a lot 

of time in Haiti as well? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

14 

Mr. DIJKERMAN. Yes. 

Senator PRYOR. I guess that would be an example of where you 

see how poverty works as a big disadvantage to an area and you 

get into things like building codes, etc, that they just did not have; 

whereas, in Chile, they have had a long history of enforcing seismic 

building codes. 

One thing that I am a little bit concerned about and you may not 

be able to comment on this is that building codes differ so much 

from area to area in the United States. 

My experience is that if you have an economically depressed 

area, they may not pay as much attention to something like a 

building code in order to try to get a business to locate there, as 

compared to some places doing better economically and that have 

the luxury of thinking about things like seismic building codes. Do 

you have any impressions on the disparities within the United 

States or is that just not your area? 

Mr. DIJKERMAN. That is beyond my area of expertise, but I will 

say the point I emphasized earlier, which is the one that really 

matters, is what Chile demonstrated is not only putting the building codes in place, but for me what is much more important is implementing them. 

What we often find in the first instances in working with other 

countries is it is easy to put the plan together or it is easy to identify what needs to be done. But the much more difficult task is to 

do the education of the population, the enforcement of the building 

codes. And even with doing that, there are still going to be gaps 

and limitations. But the key focus that we try to get at is execution 

of what you have decided to try to do. That is almost more important and maybe that is some of the issues that might be present 

here. I will let my colleague from FEMA talk. 

Senator PRYOR. Did you have something to say about that? 

Mr. CARWILE. I would say that the mitigation efforts in building 

codes and standards of both adopting and implementing, as Dirk 

talked about, Mr. Chairman, are critical. We work very closely 

through the National—we are part of the National Earthquake Reduction Program (NERP) as well as the international body that establishes codes, but it is a State by State, in some States it is by 

county, and you are right. 

In the poorer counties—I happened to be working in a southern 

State in a large disaster and we started talking about codes and 

standards and there were not any. But if you look at the difference 

between—we just had a major earthquake in Christchurch, New 

Zealand, in which no lives were lost, but they adopted very stringent building codes and standards. I think that probably contributed to saving a whole lot of lives. But it is a very important issue 

in terms of earthquakes. I cannot think of anything more in preparing for the population is incredibly important, our ability to respond with the government and private sectors as far as these 

building codes are what really are going to save lives on the front 

end. 

Senator PRYOR. Right. And, Ms. Chan, I am not going to let you 

off the hook here. I do want to ask you one question to see if you 

can enlighten us on this. My understanding is, at last count, there 

were nearly a million people displaced in Haiti. My understanding 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

15 

is a lot of them are living in tent cities or some sort of makeshift 

housing. Does USAID continue to have a presence in Haiti? And 

at this point, given the scale of the disaster, what is our mission 

there right now? 

Ms. CHAN. Yes. USAID has a very strong presence there, not 

only with our team on the ground, our Disaster Assistance Response Team, but working very closely with the USAID mission 

and with the State Department. It is a whole government effort 

working towards trying to build back livelihoods. There is a focus 

on, again, trying to do reconstruction and getting people out of the 

displacement camps. 

The Department of State is working very closely also with President Preval. So, I think, in essence, the overall vision is to help 

people build back their lives at this point. 

Senator PRYOR. Good. I want to thank all of our witnesses on the 

first panel. You all have been great. What we will do is leave the 

record open for a couple of weeks. There are some Senators who 

are not here today that have expressed an interest in various aspects of earthquake preparedness. You may want to expect to get 

a few questions from the Subcommittee over the next few days, and 

we would love to get responses back. We will also put your presentations in the record. Your comments have been very helpful. I will 

go ahead and introduce our second panel. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CARWILE. Thank you very much. 

Ms. CHAN. Thank you. 

Mr. LIRA. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator PRYOR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LIRA. Only to say, again, thank you very much for calling me 

to this hearing, and also, thank you again for all the Americans 

that help us, especially some institutions like the Army, the Air 

Force, FEMA that is here, and USAID, the American Red Cross 

that was there, and all the Americans that helped us—— 

Mr. LIRA [continuing]. Like the government designator. Thank 

you very much. 

Senator PRYOR. Well, thank you. You guys have always been a 

good neighbor as well and we appreciate you being here because 

you are helping us now by letting us see the results of your planning and your operations in Chile and learn lessons from you. So 

thank you very much for being here. 

Mr. LIRA. Thank you. 

Senator PRYOR. All right. I will go ahead and bring the second 

panel up and our staff will swap out the name tags and set up the 

microphones. 

I will go ahead and introduce our second panel. 

Our first witness will be Jim Wilkerson. He is the Executive Director of the Central United States Earthquake Consortium. 

Our next witness is Ellis Stanley, Vice President and Director of 

Western Emergency Management Services at Dewberry and Dewberry brings a lot to the table. We look forward to hearing from 

you, Mr. Stanley. 

And then our last witness today will be Dr. Reginald DesRoches, 

Professor and Associate Chair of the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Thank 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

16 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Wilkinson appears in the appendix on page 73. 

you all for being here. I appreciate your time, preparation, and effort to get here today. 

Mr. Wilkinson, we will lead off with you. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES M. WILKINSON,1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL UNITED STATES EARTHQUAKE CONSORTIUM 

Mr. WILKINSON. Thank you, sir. First let me express my sincere 

thanks for the invitation to come and join you today and share my 

thoughts on the earthquake hazard and the risk in central United 

States 

Earthquake hazard in the central United States has a couple 

unique issues that elevate this hazard to a point that is considered 

to be catastrophic if the right variables were to align themselves. 

First, that the geology allows for a very large area of influence. The 

seismic waves from earthquakes carry for great distances before 

they dissipate. This is well-documented, both historically and for 

current seismicity. 

Rather than being constrained by one felt area, the effects are 

commonly reported over a 10-, 15-, even 20-State area. Damage 

from an April 18th 4.8 event of 2008 was recorded in three States, 

thankfully not at a level to be significant. Had this been a magnitude 5 or greater, the outcome would have been most likely very 

different. 

The other unique issues with earthquakes in the central United 

States is the sequencing of large events like those of 1811 and 

1812, meaning that rather than a single main shock followed by 

some number of aftershocks, we experience several main shocks 

spread over a period of time, each with their own series of aftershocks. This has been documented to have occurred in 1811, 1450, 

900 A.D., as well as 2350 B.C., also supporting the fact that the 

events of 1811 and 1812 were not a one-time event. 

These unique aspects, coupled with the fact that the United 

States has not built with earthquakes in mind until most recently, 

and the fact that we have a large percentage of old and aging infrastructure has created a situation that would be truly catastrophic. 

But it does not stop there. 

There are cascading effects with the impact either from the shaking or liquefaction or both that would also have additional secondary losses to oil and gas pipelines that run through the central 

United States; electrical grid, which also happens to service a large 

portion of the north and eastern United States, including the District of Columbia; as well as impact to commerce, loss of highways, 

bridges, river systems, agricultural farming, and ports. 

I have described but a small sampling of the issues that make 

the seismic hazard associated in central United States a significant 

issue. With a hazard that presents such a daunting picture, it is 

easy to see how addressing it would present significant challenges. 

This is not your garden variety hazard. The complexity for dealing 

with a hazard affecting multiple States, Federal regions, make this 

an area that requires a strong collaborative approach from all levels of government as well as the private sector and citizens alike. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

17 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Stanley appears in the appendix on page 81. 

While there is nothing we can do about the hazard, there is good 

news. The risk can be addressed, the steps can be taken to reduce 

that level of exposure, but there has to be a willingness to work 

towards that goal. A strong public awareness and educational effort 

is key, in combination with an aggressive mitigation program. 

This does not mean we have to turn away from the development 

of strong response and recovery plans. On the contrary, we need to 

be working towards a balanced approach that supports all program 

areas working together to make our communities safer and more 

responsive to future seismic events. 

In addition to day to day program efforts of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP), CUSEC has been 

working in partnership with FEMA and a host of others for the 

past 4 years on a focused effort to revise and, in many cases, develop new earthquake response plans at the local, State, regional, 

and national levels. We will test these plans in April of next year 

in a multi-state, multi-regional national level exercise in order to 

identify any gaps which have been identified and improve on those. 

The exercise is one of many planned bicentennial events in observance of the 1811/1812 earthquakes. Other significant events 

will include the Great U.S. Shakeout, which is an earthquake drill, 

and various planned earthquake program training and other outreach activities. 

In closing, addressing earthquake risk in the central United 

States is not a function of one organization or governmental agency. The issue requires a comprehensive approach involving citizens, 

community leaders, Non-govermental organization (NGOs), as well 

as the private sector and many others working with state and national levels of government. Unless we improve on our abilities to 

work together, putting aside our programmatic and organizational 

differences, we will be faced with sporadic and marginal improvements and ultimately, communities less prepared to address a 

major earthquake. 

As Executive Director of the Central United States Earthquake 

Consortium, it has been my special honor for me to have the opportunity to share with you my thoughts concerning the earthquake 

threat in central United States 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Mr. Stanley. 

TESTIMONY OF ELLIS M. STANLEY, SR.,1 VICE PRESIDENT, 

DEWBERRY; DIRECTOR OF WESTERN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND HOMELAND SECURITY SERVICES 

Mr. STANLEY. Chairman Pryor, thank you so much for having us 

here to speak to you before this Subcommittee on Earthquake Preparedness-What the United States Can Learn from the Chilean 

and Haitian Earthquakes. 

How a government responds after a disaster usually captures the 

headlines. But most often it is the role that government plays in 

preparing for these types of events that can be the single biggest 

factor in minimizing not only the event’s initial toll, but also the 

recovery time necessary to bring a community back to a healthy 

functional State. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

18 

In this regard, an examination of how the government of Chile 

responded during the immediate aftermath of the earthquake and 

related tsunamis is appropriate. I will also address how Southern 

California differs from a lot of these incidents in their preparedness. 

Our findings reinforced the importance of our pre-disaster relationships with all of our governmental, non-governmental, and 

community partners, including the private sector. Properly done, 

these relationships require an organizational commitment as well 

as a significant investment of time and personnel. The number and 

complexity of these relationships will vary based on local nuances. 

But as a general rule, it is vital to ensure active participation in 

disaster policy and planning and response and recovery activities 

at all levels. 

It was no surprise to learn that the areas of Chile that made the 

most effective use of resources were the very areas where some 

level of interaction had been ongoing before the earthquake. In the 

interest of time, I will just give some of the overall findings and 

ask that the rest be submitted for the record. 

The previous panel talked about the people’s knowledge. We dub 

that culture of resilience. What we saw in Chile was people had resilience that they did not even know they had. For example, there 

were fewer lives lost in the tsunami area simply because they had 

been taught that if the earthquake shakes enough to knock you off 

your feet, move to higher ground. They did not have to wait for the 

government or anyone to give them signals. 

We also learned that they have a compulsory military, and even 

though they do not see that as emergency planning, it was planning that helped them to be resilient. Volunteers in Chile tend to 

be very resilient. They are able to work effectively with little or no 

direction from the national headquarters. This has been part of the 

reason that they were able to do so well. 

Some of the recommendations for improvement that we took 

away is that emergency plans need to be flexible and include alternative options in case primary plans are unable to be executed. 

That sounds simple, but so often we do not do the backup to the 

backup to the backup. All volunteer leadership at all levels need 

to know the emergency plan. Exercises need to be done on a regular basis with everybody participating. 

Involve local officials in regional planning as well. Perform a realistic assessment of life-essential systems such as water or emergency medicine and supplies. Personnel should be trained in the 

probability of core services not being available and exercise that. 

Personnel conducting comprehensive exercises including joint 

government, private sector, NGO, emergency responder, and community exercises before an incident is paramount to surviving and 

thriving. Individual resilience and effective networking with local 

partners are vital to the continued success of the community after 

a disaster. Education, education, education about what happens 

during the event is important. 

Emergency and earthquake professionals should work with representatives of print and broadcast media before a disaster to determine how best to serve. We are doing this in Southern California with the Great ShakeOut in which 6.8-plus million people 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

19 

1The prepared statement of Mr. DesRoches appears in the appendix on page 87. 

are involved. Emergency plans need to be redundant. I have said 

that twice because it needs to be redundant. We need to keep doing 

that. 

Recognize that competing personal and professional demands will 

be made on an organization. And organizations need to plan for 

non-structural damage and potential evacuation. We need to recognize vulnerabilities in our communication systems and we have 

been talking about that since September 11, 2001. We need to explore mechanisms to encourage building owners to adhere to rigorous building codes. 

We need to collect all possible data for each disaster when it happens. It took the 33 Long Beach earthquake to design schools to a 

higher standard. It took the 71 San Fernando earthquake to design 

hospitals to a higher standard. What will it take to design tall, 

high occupancy buildings to a higher standard? Those are some of 

the things that we need to look at. 

We need to look at what are acceptable collapse rates for new 

buildings and who determines what that will be. And we also need 

to get the public involved in helping to make these decisions. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Dr. DesRoches. 

TESTIMONY OF REGINALD DESROCHES, PH.D,1 PROFESSOR 

AND ASSOCIATE CHAIR, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 

Mr. DESROCHES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the opportunity to come here today to testify about earthquake preparedness in the United States My testimony will highlight the risks associated with a potential catastrophic earthquake event in the 

United States and address the opportunities to improve infrastructure resilience. 

My perspective is that of one who has studied earthquakes, first 

as a student in California during both the 89 and 94 earthquakes, 

and subsequently as a professor at Georgia Tech where I focus on 

the earthquakes in the central and southeastern United States 

More recently, I have worked extensively in Haiti since the January 12, 2010 earthquake, having led a team of 28 engineers, scientists, and planners to study the effects and survey building damage in Port-au-Prince. I might add that I was born in Haiti and lost 

family during the earthquake event and I am committed to seeing 

Haiti be more resilient and moving forward. 

The Haiti earthquake is likely the most catastrophic natural disaster in modern times, particularly when viewed on a per capita 

basis. The magnitude 7 earthquake resulted in over 250,000 

deaths, 300,000 injured, over a million displaced, 250,000 homes 

destroyed, and critical infrastructure particularly damaged. In contrast, the much larger 8.8 Chile earthquake resulted in less than 

600 deaths and much fewer injured. 

There are numerous reasons for the differences in the outcomes. 

However, there is no doubt the advanced level of seismic design 

and preparedness in Chile compared to Haiti is a primary contribH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

20 

uting factor to the significant differences observed between the two 

earthquakes. 

Chile has a long history of large and frequent earthquakes. Because of this history of large and frequent earthquakes, Chile has 

been diligent in ensuring its buildings and other infrastructure are 

designed according to updated seismic design codes. On the contrary, Haiti had not experienced a major earthquake in over 200 

years, and therefore, was not prepared for the earthquake that 

struck on January 12. 

There are several regions in the United States that have a history of large, but infrequent earthquakes, and therefore are not 

prepared in terms of appropriate building designs and earthquake 

details. We have heard many people today talk about the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ). In addition to that, the Charleston region, Charleston, South Carolina, is also a region of large, but infrequent earthquakes. On August 31st, 1886, a large earthquake 

hit the Charleston region with an estimated magnitude of 7.0 that 

was felt along the entire East Coast. 

The primary risk of catastrophic earthquakes in the United 

States is likely failure and damage of the built infrastructure. 

Today the New Madrid Seismic Zone region is highly populated 

and densely covered with homes, commercial buildings, critical infrastructure such as bridges, pipelines, power, telecommunication 

systems, dams, and levees. 

Damage to these critical infrastructure systems would have a 

disastrous consequence on the regional, national, and global economies. It is expected that many of the bridges in the region, including some crossing the Mississippi, would collapse and be unuseable 

for weeks or longer. In addition, there would be severe interruptions to oil and gas services due to severely damaged pipelines. 

Such a strong earthquake would rock the entire eastern half of 

the country and prove devastating to a broad section of the country. A recent study by the Mid-America Earthquake Center last 

year estimates that nearly three-quarters of a million buildings 

would be damaged, 3,000 bridges would potentially collapse, 

400,000 breaks and leaks to local pipelines, and $300 billion in 

damage, direct damage, and $600 billion in indirect losses would 

occur. Similar numbers came out of a study on the Charleston 

earthquake. 

The recent studies on the possibilities of catastrophic failures in 

the case of a large earthquake in the central and southeastern 

United States demonstrates the scope of the problem and reinforces 

the need to implement measures to reduce seismic risk. We know 

that there are hundreds of thousands of buildings and key critical 

infrastructure systems that remain at risk of a large earthquake. 

We cannot prevent the build-up of tectonic stress along fault lines, 

nor can we pinpoint the exact moment when a disastrous earthquake will strike. 

With the leadership of the NEHRP agencies, significant progress 

has been made in our understanding of the earthquake hazards in 

the various parts of the United States as well as the vulnerabilities 

associated with different types of structural systems. New design 

codes and guidelines have incorporated lessons learned from recent 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

21 

earthquakes, as well as new knowledge developed from researchers 

and practicing engineers in cooperation with NEHRP agencies. 

The transfer of scientific research successes from the NEHRP efforts in building and design codes is one important step towards 

preparedness in the United States. Still more needs to be done. 

Small investments now can yield significant savings later. The 

California Department of Transportation is a good example of the 

return on investments from retrofitted bridges. Following the 1971 

San Fernando earthquake, California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) initiated a retrofit program for bridges that 

was deemed vulnerable from earthquakes. These same bridges, 

when subjected to the 1994 and 89 earthquakes, performed extremely well with little to no damage. 

My main message to this panel is that it is critical that we continue to apply science and engineering knowledge to develop innovative technologies and designs to increase our earthquake preparedness. We also need to continue to enhance building codes and 

establish priorities for mitigation strategies that limit damage to 

buildings and critical infrastructure. Prioritized mitigation strategies can assist in identifying infrastructure systems that are most 

at risk of damage and/or failure so that we can begin developing 

ways to fortify them against future earthquakes. Thank you. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. By the way, my understanding is 

they have been trying to earthquake-proof one of the bridges over 

the Mississippi River at Memphis. Is it the I–40 bridge? I cannot 

remember which one. 

Mr. DESROCHES. Yes, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. That is great. I am glad that they are doing that. 

Mr. Wilkinson, let me start with you. I am guessing that your 

primary focus for your group is the New Madrid fault area. Is that 

fair to say? 

Mr. WILKINSON. Primarily. It is earthquakes anywhere in the 

central United States, the Wabash, the East Tennessee, but New 

Madrid is the primary focus. 

Senator PRYOR. And in your testimony, you gave some dates in 

which New Madrid quakes have been documented. What are those 

dates again? 

Mr. WILKINSON. The dates are 1450, 900 A.D., and 2350 B.C. 

Those were based off paleoseismic investigations of these large 

sand blow, sand areas you see throughout the Boot Hill in northern 

Arkansas. 

Senator PRYOR. Does that mean that is the only time that they 

have happened? 

Mr. WILKINSON. That scale. There are many other earthquakes 

of smaller magnitude, but equivalent to the 1811 and 1812, that is 

the documented ones. 

Senator PRYOR. Is there a projection or a general scientific consensus on when to expect the next one? 

Mr. WILKINSON. I am going out on a bit of a limb because I am 

not a geologist, but about every 500 years they seem to be having 

these larger seismic events, like 1811 and 1812. We are at the 

200th period from New Madrid, 1811, so we are getting within the 

window that the numbers are going up. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

22 

Senator PRYOR. I think we have something that the other witnesses talked about as well. It is a magnitude versus frequency 

concern, and that is, if you are in a area where there are a lot of 

earthquakes, you are more sensitized to it. The building codes are 

probably better and there are better systems in place to handle an 

earthquake. But if you are in another area that may not have nearly as many earthquakes but has more severe quakes, you really 

may be asking for trouble. 

Mr. Wilkinson, you mentioned the National Level Exercise in 

your opening statement. I assume that you are participating in 

that already since there has been a lot of prep work happening. 

How is that going and do you think that will help our preparedness? 

Mr. WILKINSON. Absolutely. Ironically, we were here last week, 

the eight States that make up CUSEC. Our Federal partners were 

here working on what they call a mid-planning conference for that 

exercise. So we are well underway in reaching an agreement on the 

objectives we are going to test. 

One of the unique things that we have coupled with that exercise 

is a lead-up activity. It was referenced both in Ellis’ and mine presentation about the Great ShakeOut. We have been working very 

closely with California to develop a ShakeOut for the central 

United States That is an earthquake drill that will take place on 

April 28 among our eight States. 

Not to put any competition in it, but Missouri and your folks to 

your north are a little ahead of us in registering for that. But our 

goal is a million participants. We really want to get people to understand that there are steps they can take to protect themselves. 

So we have added that as part of the exercise to bring greater 

awareness. 

Senator PRYOR. Good. And you heard Dr. DesRoches’ statement 

about the scenario of a New Madrid quake in terms of the number 

of bridges that might collapse and damage the oil and gas lines, 

etc. Did you want to add anything to the scenario that he painted? 

Mr. WILKINSON. Well, we worked very closely with the MidAmerica Earthquake Center (MAEC) in development of that scenario, with our state geologists and U.S. Geological Survey, to develop what we consider to be a credible scenario. Our plans are actually built around that scenario so that again we have justification 

to fall back on why we did this and the expenditures we made. 

But he is right. We have a very old infrastructure. The modeling 

shows that. It shows the vulnerabilities of that. Retrofitting or fixing existing infrastructure is very costly, but building it right on 

the front-end, having proper building codes in place, significantly 

reduces that cost, and that is really what we push, to increase the 

building codes themselves. 

Senator PRYOR. This is really for any of you. If, say, New Madrid 

has a major quake, what is the estimated loss of life? Is there an 

estimate on what you can expect? Anybody want to take a stab at 

that? 

Mr. WILKINSON. Well, let me pull out my cheat sheet here. Based 

on the estimations from the Mid-America Earthquake Center, we 

are looking at about, for the eight-State area, of 82,000 injuries 

with about 3,500 to 4,000 fatalities. That is from a magnitude 7.7 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

23 

event. Now, the more probable event-we talk a lot about 1811, 

1812, but the more probable event is a magnitude 6, 6.5, which is 

very likely in our lifetime, and it would have a multi-state impact 

as well. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. But I assume that would be quite a bit 

smaller impact. 

Mr. WILKINSON. Smaller in intensity, but not as far as damage. 

Again, looking at the age in infrastructure and the geology of the 

area. 

Senator PRYOR. And there is something about the soil there that 

liquefies and makes damages more likely? Do I understand that 

right? 

Mr. WILKINSON. Yes, sir. It increases the potential for amplification of the seismic waves, so infrastructure, bridges, pipelines, 

towers, whatever is on there, has the greater capacity to lose the 

ability to stand. So that is the greatest concern we have which is 

pretty much the entire Delta region. 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Stanley, do you have a sense of how our Federal Government is doing in terms of working with state and local 

and private sector folks about earthquake preparedness nationwide? 

Mr. STANLEY. Yes. I think the Federal Government is working 

quite well. As I indicated, it is a partnership. It is a partnership 

on the vertical axis with the local, State, and Federal partners. It 

is a partnership on the horizontal axis with the private sector, the 

NGOs, and the community individuals themselves. So we are able 

to do some things relative to strong mitigation plans, looking at 

what the potential might be. 

A noted seismologist and friend indicates that it is not the earthquakes that kill people, it is the buildings and stuff in your house 

that fall on you that injure you. So you have the opportunity to 

harden your space. And when you are looking at designing exercises, when you are looking at doing non-structural education, nonstructural retrofits to get people to tie down things like water heaters, you are enhancing your level of preparedness in your community. 

We have long had a strong relationship with government, postSeptember 11, 2001 especially, when we look at Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) funds. Earthquakes and hurricanes, for example, is one of the things that communities can use those funds 

to make sure that we keep those natural hazards in front of the 

community. 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. DesRoches, do you want to comment on 

that? 

Mr. DESROCHES. Yes, I can. 

Senator PRYOR. How is the Federal Government doing and State, 

local, and private sectors? 

Mr. DESROCHES. I can particularly comment on some of the Federal work in terms of some of the efforts NEHRP has made in 

terms of understanding what is the vulnerability of the earthquakes and the systems that work. I think the challenge we have 

is getting some of the States and some of the infrastructure owners 

to make decisions on something that probably will not happen in 

their lifetime, and that is something I have struggled with as an 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

24 

educator, is trying to get them to understand that it likely will not 

happen in their lifetime, but if it does, it is quite catastrophic. 

Senator PRYOR. I have a question for you, Dr. DesRoches, about 

using new technology, even things like Google Earth, to help you 

identify vulnerabilities and potential problems. Do you want to 

comment on that? 

Mr. DESROCHES. Sure. We have come a long way as far as understanding the vulnerability, both on the hazard side as well as the 

infrastructure stock that we have. I think Jim mentioned a little 

bit about the aging infrastructure in the central United States 

We can catalog. We have tools now where we can actually do 

very sophisticated risk assessment where we can look on a regional 

level, whether it is a city level or state level, even multi-state level, 

and propagate an earthquake and really get a sense of where the 

collapses will be, which roads are most critical in terms of the ones 

that would be damaged, and which ones we need to really 

prioritize. 

And so, one of the messages I have today is we cannot go about 

retrofitting all structures that are vulnerable in the eastern United 

States. It would be too expensive. It would take too long. But we 

do have the tools available that will tell us which ones are the most 

priority, which ones will actually save the most lives, which ones 

will result in the least disruption following an earthquake. And I 

think those are the tools that need to be put in the hands of those 

that can use them and that is what we need for moving forward. 

Senator PRYOR. Good. I just want to say again, thank all of you 

all for being here. I have some more questions, I am sure my colleagues will have questions, so we are going to leave the record 

open for a few days. 

I really hope that this 2011 exercise really does bring more public awareness and education about what the public should do in the 

event of an earthquake and make sure that we are connecting all 

the dots at all the various governmental levels as well. 

Like I said, we will leave the record open for 2 weeks and you 

may get some questions from the Subcommittee. We would appreciate quick responses on those. With that, I will adjourn the hearing. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(25) 

A P P E N D I X 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.001
26 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.002
27 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.003
28 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.004
29 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.005
30 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.006
31 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.007
32 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.008
33 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.009
34 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.010
35 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.011
36 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.012
37 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.013
38 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.014
39 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.015
40 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.016
41 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.017
42 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.018
43 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.019
44 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.020
45 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.021
46 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.022
47 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.023
48 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.024
49 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.025
50 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.026
51 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.027
52 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.028
53 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.029
54 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.030
55 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.031
56 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.032
57 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.033
58 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.034
59 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.035
60 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.036
61 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.037
62 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.038
63 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.039
64 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.040
65 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.041
66 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.042
67 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.043
68 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.044
69 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.045
70 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.046
71 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.047
72 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.048
73 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.049
74 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.050
75 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.051
76 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.052
77 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.053
78 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.054
79 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.055
80 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.056
81 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.057
82 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.058
83 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.059
84 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.060
85 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.061
86 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.062
87 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.063
88 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.064
89 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.065
90 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.066
91 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.067
92 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.068
93 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.069
94 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.070
95 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.071
96 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.072
97 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.073
98 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.074
99 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.075
100 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.076
101 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.077
102 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.078
103 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.079
104 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.080
105 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.081
106 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.082
107 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.083
108 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.084
109 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.085
110 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.086
111 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.087
112 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.088
113 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.089
114 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.090
115 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.091
116 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.092
117 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.093
118 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.094
119 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.095
120 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.096
121 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.097
122 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.098
123 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.099
124 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.100
125 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.101
126 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.102
127 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.103
128 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.104
129 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.105
130 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.106
131 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.107
132 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.108
133 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.109
134 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.110
135 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.111
136 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.112
137 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.113
138 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.114
139 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.115
140 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.116
141 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.117
142 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.118
143 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.119
144 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.120
145 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.121
146 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.122
147 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.123
148 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.124
149 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.125
150 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.126
151 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.127
152 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.128
153 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.129
154 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.130
155 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.131
156 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.132
157 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.133
158 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.134
159 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.135
160 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.136
161 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.137
162 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.138
163 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.139
164 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.140
165 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.141
166 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.142
167 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.143
168 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.144
169 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.145
170 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.146
171 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.147
172 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.148
173 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.149
174 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.150
175 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.151
176 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.152
177 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.153
178 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.154
179 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.155
180 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.156
181 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.157
182 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.158
183 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.159
184 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.160
185 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.161
186 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.162
187 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.163
188 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.164
189 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.165
190 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.166
191 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.167
192 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.168
193 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.169
194 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.170
195 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.171
196 

Æ 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63864.172