2/3/12 | 1

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/index.cfm 

National Construction Safety Team (NCST)

Advisory Committee Report to Congress

Advisory Committee Members

Jeremy Isenberg, Chair AECOM 

Ronny J. Coleman Fireforceone

Paul A. Croce FM Global (retired)

Susan L. Cutter University of South Carolina, Columbia

Carlos Fernandez-Pello University of California, Berkeley 

Jeffrey L. Garrett CTLGroup

Anne S. Kiremidjian Stanford University

R. Shankar Nair Teng and Associates, Inc. 

James R. Quiter Arup

Sarah A. Rice The Preview Group, Inc.

Biographical information is available at 

www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/ncstac_members.cfm

Introduction

The first meeting of this Advisory Committee in several years was held in Gaithersburg, MD on 

November 7, 2011. All members are new to the Committee, and much of the one-day meeting 

was devoted to informing the members of the organization and current activities of the NCST 

program.

Eric Letvin, Director of the Disaster and Failure Studies Program at the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST), welcomed the members to the NCST Advisory Committee 

meeting. Jeffrey Harrington, Senior Counsel in the Ethics Law and Programs Division of the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, briefed members on ethics rules for Special Government 

Employees. After introductions, the Chair reviewed the charge to the Committee, as set forth in 

the Committee charter (www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/ncst_charter.cfm). Shyam Sunder, 

Director, NIST Engineering Laboratory, discussed the work of the previous Committee, which 

was convened in 2002 to advise NIST and the NCST on the development of the World Trade 

Center (WTC) report. Another NCST was convened to investigate the Station Night Club fire in 

Rhode Island. Since the completion of these two reports in 2008, the Committee has been 

dormant. 

In response to a request from the Chair, Sunder provided his thoughts on the most important 

questions to be answered by the Committee: 

1. Does NIST have the correct go, no-go decision criteria in place for launching NCST 

studies? 

2. Is the study of the Joplin, Missouri tornado proceeding as it should?
 2/3/12 | 2

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/index.cfm 

3. Is the NIST approach for implementing and executing NCST studies appropriate? 

4. How can NIST improve its processes for the archiving and dissemination of data?

Patrick Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director of 

NIST, also welcomed the members. He discussed the decision to reinstate the Advisory 

Committee and reviewed the Committee’s charge. Dr. Gallagher noted the charge to the present 

Committee is to assist NIST in determining how to design and run the Program. Committee 

members were urged to bear in mind that NIST is fundamentally a science-based organization 

whose investigations should provide the scientific information required to improve codes and 

standards.

The major topics of discussion were:

Procedures for determining when to initiate a NIST investigation

Procedures for deploying a NIST investigation team

The initiation of a project to create a data repository 

The investigation of the Joplin, MO tornado

Background

In October 2002, the President signed into law the National Construction Safety Team Act (P.L. 

107-231) which authorized the Director of NIST to establish National Construction Safety 

Teams for deployment after natural and man-made events that cause the failure of a building or 

building systems and result in substantial loss of life or that pose significant potential for 

substantial loss of life.

The purpose of these investigations is to improve the safety and structural integrity of buildings 

in the United States. Infrastructure is included in the pending NCST Act reauthorization S.646, 

which is interpreted as authorizing the NCST to investigate the performance of lifelines in the 

context of structural integrity and community resilience following a disaster. An investigation

team shall:

Establish the likely technical cause or causes of the building failure;

Evaluate the technical aspects of evacuation and emergency response procedures;

Recommend, as necessary, specific improvements to building standards, codes and 

practices based on the findings; and,

Recommend any research and other appropriate actions needed to improve the structural 

safety of buildings and improve the evacuation and emergency response procedures, 

based on the findings and recommendations of the investigation.

This report summarizes NIST activities under the NCST Act for FY 2011 and the Committee’s 

evaluation and recommendations regarding those activities.
 2/3/12 | 3

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/index.cfm 

NIST Activities in 2011 under the NCST Act

1. Investigation Conducted in 2011

An EF-5 (enhanced Fujita scale) tornado touched down in Joplin, MO at 5:34 p.m. 

Central Daylight Time on May 22, 2011. Approximately 8000 structures (30% of the 

city) were damaged or destroyed. There were 162 fatalities and more than 1000 injuries. 

A four-person preliminary NIST reconnaissance team was deployed on the afternoon of 

May 24, returning May 28. Information and data were collected on the tornado hazard; 

the patterns, locations and causes of fatalities and injuries; the warning system, 

evacuation, emergency response and occupant behavior; responses of buildings, shelters 

and safe areas; and damage to lifelines. Based on results of the preliminary 

reconnaissance, a Team was established under the NCST Act on June 29, 2011 and the 

Team was augmented to include a representative from the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration.

NIST staff members who participated in the ongoing investigation briefed the NCST 

Advisory Committee (“Panel”) on the study plan, including objectives, approach, and

implementation. They also made technical presentations on the Tornado Hazard 

Characteristics; Emergency Communications and Public Response; and Performance of 

Buildings, Designated Safe Areas, and Lifelines.

2. Other Actions Taken to Improve Building Safety

None

NIST Activities in 2011 under Other Authorities

1. Sofa Super Store Fire, Charleston, SC—A fire started near a loading dock and then 

spread into the drop ceiling area of a large showroom. A fast fire trapped and killed nine

Charleston firefighters. A report, NIST SP-1118, Vol. 1 “Technical Study of the Sofa 

Super Store Fire-South Carolina, June 18, 2007” was published. NIST briefed the 

Charleston community and other organizations such as the International Code Council 

(ICC) Code Technology Committee, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), US 

Fire Administration, Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), International 

Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), and Door and Access Systems Manufacturers 

Association (DASMA) on the findings and recommendations of the study. The 

International Fire Code Committee (IFCC) is considering a proposal to change the 

furniture store Use and Occupancy Classification to High Hazard.

2. Collapse of Dallas Cowboys Indoor Practice Facility, May 2, 2009—A fabric-covered 

steel-framed building of common design collapsed under conditions of below-design 
 2/3/12 | 4

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/index.cfm 

wind speeds. NIST briefed the ICC Code Technology Committee on the findings and 

recommendation of the study. NIST has prepared a draft code change proposal for 

consideration and implementation in the International Building Code (IBC), which will 

be submitted in the upcoming code cycle.

3. Amarillo Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fires, March, 2011—Communities were 

impacted by wildland fires. NIST briefed Texas Forest Service, US Forest Service and 

American Society for Testing and Materials on the findings and recommendations of the 

preliminary reconnaissance report. The NIST WUI data collection methodology was 

adopted by the US Forest Service Region 8 (Southern US), by the National State 

Foresters Association and Texas Forest Service. A draft exposure scale for WUI fires was 

completed.

4. Mineral, Virginia Earthquake, August 2011—NIST/National Earthquake Hazards 

Reduction Program (NEHRP) staff traveled to Mineral, VA to investigate damage at the 

Louisa County High School and at one elementary school. Significant nonstructural 

damage was found as well as damage to unreinforced masonry (URM) construction in 

both schools. URM construction, which is widespread in the eastern two-thirds of the US 

and is the subject and is of concern. NIST/NEHRP is developing research options for 

providing mitigation guidance to practitioners and policy makers for this kind of 

construction. 

5. International Earthquake Reconnaissance and Damage Assessments—NIST/NEHRP staff 

members investigated earthquake damage as review team members in Chile (Earthquake 

Engineering Research Institute (EERI) team and American Society of Civil Engineers

(ASCE) team); New Zealand (ASCE team); and Japan (United States-Japan Cooperative 

Program in Natural Resources (UJNR) team).

Development of NCST Infrastructure

1. Data Repository

The Committee received a briefing on the Disaster and Failure Events Data Repository, a 

crosscutting program, which will serve as a national archival database where NIST and 

other organizations can store data collected from disaster and failure event investigations, 

studies, and analyses. The collected data will greatly assist with improvements to codes, 

standards, practices and new knowledge and will be made widely available. The data 

base will include data on significant hazard events including wind events, earthquakes, 

fires, collapses and explosions among others; how buildings, other structures, and 

lifelines performed; emergency response and evacuation procedures; and technical,

societal, economic, and human factors affecting pre-disaster mitigation and post-disaster 

response.
 2/3/12 | 5

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/index.cfm 

The repository is being developed in phases, beginning with a World Trade Center 

investigation database. Phase 2 will be a pilot project initiated through NIST/NEHRP to 

capture and curate data from the 2010 Chile earthquake. Data gathered by other 

organizations and assembled by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) as consultant to 

NIST will be incorporated in the database using state-of-the-art hub technology, which 

will also support the NEHRP program. System design, development and assessment is 

underway and will be finalized by August 2012. Phase 3 will be full-scale

implementation. When implemented, the data repository will reside on a NIST server and 

will be managed by NIST. This repository will include data from NCST investigations 

and other disaster and failure studies.

2. Decision Criteria and Guidelines

NIST has developed decision criteria and guidelines that provide a rational basis for 

establishing the value of implementing and conducting a NIST study. Factors considered 

include staff and resource availability, staff safety, and the quality and adequacy of 

information and artifacts that may be obtained by the study. Factors are weighted based 

on NIST experience and objectives and an algorithm has been developed to objectify 

decision making. Directives by the Congress or Administration will also be considered.

Categories of decision criteria include: actual or potential substantial loss of life or 

disabling injury; level of hazard; extent of damage and loss of functionality; need for 

NIST involvement; stakeholder concern; evacuation/emergency response challenges; and 

for international events, similarity of practices or code enforcement.

Panel Evaluation and Recommendations

1. The decision criteria are generally supported by the Panel, and the process appears to lead 

to pertinent investigations and proper resource allocation. However,

a. The Panel recognizes that investigations must, as a primary goal, serve code 

improvement efforts, the fundamental responsibility of the Teams. In addition, the 

criteria should also recognize that the investigations are scientific in nature and may 

increase the body of scientific knowledge

b. An additional criterion should be considered to account for events with non-apparent 

or unfamiliar hazards, perhaps stressing the absence of a prior similar event or the 

novelty of a particular event, which could both cover unusual events and be applied 

objectively to terrorist events.

c. Investigations should be launched immediately; a 72-hour delay was deemed too long 

for some incidents. It was recommended to remove bureaucratic obstacles to rapid 

response, and to have two or three current staff trained in accident investigation and 

able to depart within the 48-hour window, with others joining later if appropriate. 
 2/3/12 | 6

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/index.cfm 

2. The Act should be broadened to include lifeline incidents. Lifeline incidents should be 

afforded proper consideration on par with building incidents; hence, a balance between 

investigation of buildings and infrastructure should be addressed and achieved.

3. The approach to investigations, as represented by the Joplin, MO tornado investigation, is 

generally supported. Conduct of investigations is holistic, considering both tangible 

failures and human factors. The panel encourages the following:

a. Data gathering should identify information that can ultimately be integrated into code 

provisions based on risk and formal treatment of uncertainty.

b. Data gathering should support understanding of both building and regional impacts of 

incidents; codes and recovery are increasingly focused on the resilience of 

communities. 

c. Data collection should be performed with the understanding that data will be archived 

in the data repository; specific attention should be given in the field to filling gaps in 

the database.

4. The data repository is unanimously encouraged and supported. It is considered an 

excellent reporting platform and adds scientific credibility to investigations by including 

georeferenced data, and in electronic form data such as accelerograms and wind 

velocities. The panel recommends that:

a. NIST should ensure that the database software be continually supported and updated

to the latest standards.

b. NIST develops criteria to decide which data will be accessible to all and which will

be restricted.

c. NIST develops safeguards to verify and maintain the validity of the data in the 

repository.

d. Criteria for including data from non-NIST sources in the database should be clearly 

defined. NIST/D&FS should not be the vetting body for the quality or 

appropriateness of data from non-NIST sources. Professional societies having 

acknowledged stature and expertise (such as ASCE, SFPE, American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME), American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 

or EERI) may help develop a workable scheme to review and vet outside candidate 

studies for inclusion. 

5. The process for influencing code modifications, enhancements, and improvements based 

on data collection should be the subject for future discussion between NIST and the 

Panel. 

a. The Panel encourages the efforts to establish and maintain personal connections 

between NIST staff and ICC and NFPA committees. Transmission of findings 

through verbal and written reports is, of course, also supported. The Panel looks 
 2/3/12 | 7

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/index.cfm 

forward to more dialogue with NIST to determine if there are other ways to interface 

with the code process; an example is to initiate dialogue with the users of code 

provisions who have historically resisted changes.

b. Research staff often lack the interest and necessary skills to implement code changes.

NIST/EL/D&FS should consider retaining additional staff, or training existing staff, 

to act as liaison between NIST and the codes and standards bodies.