National Construction Safety Team

Advisory Committee (NCST AC) Meeting Summary

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Gaithersburg, Maryland

February 20, 2018

Advisory Committee Members: 

James Harris, Acting Chair JR Harris and Company

Reginald DesRoches Rice University

William Holmes Rutherford & Chekene

Gary Klein WJE Associates, Inc. 

Jeannette Sutton University of Kentucky

Ross Corotis University of Colorado, Boulder 

NIST Representatives:

Designated Federal Officer:

Howard Harary Director, Engineering Laboratory (EL)

Attendees (in alphabetical order):

Alexander Maranghides Fire Protection Engineer, Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Group, EL 

Benjamin Davis Management and Program Analyst, Community Resilience Group, EL 

Christopher Currens Senior Advisor, Materials and Structural Systems Division, EL

Dorianna Andrade General Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel 

Erica Kuligowski Group Leader, Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Group, EL 

Jason Averill Chief, Materials and Structural Systems Division, EL

Joseph Main Research Structural Engineer, Structures Group, EL

Judy Mitrani-Reiser Director, Disaster and Failure Studies (DFS) Program, EL

Long Phan Group Leader, Structures Group, EL

Marc Levitan Acting Director, National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, EL

Melissa Lieberman Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel

Nelson Bryner Chief, Fire Research Division, EL

Rajesh Nair General Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel

Stephen Potts Management and Program Analyst, Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, EL

Therese McCallister Group Leader, Community Resilience Group, EL
I. Opening Remarks

Dr. Howard Harary, the Designated Federal Officer, and Engineering Lab Director opened the meeting at 

1:00 p.m., welcoming new members and attendees. He thanked the Committee for their report and 

said NIST looks forward to presenting their progress over the last five months, and to receiving the 

Committee’s feedback. Harary emphasized that NIST values Federal Advisory Committees because their 

advice help NIST plan and conduct an effective program. The Committee’s feedback is taken with

significant consideration. He noted that NIST's report to Congress should be available next month and 

that NIST continues to work on implementing the Committee’s recommendations.

Harary reiterated that since the last Committee meeting, the Disaster and Failure Studies (DFS) program 

completed two preliminary deployments: one to California and one to Puerto Rico, using information 

gathered and applied against NCST criteria to determine next steps. DFS’s statutory responsibilities 

include advising the NIST Director on implementing and carrying out the Act. Harary then turned the 

meeting over to Dr. James Harris, Acting Chair of the Committee. 

Harris welcomed the new members. He noted there is a remarkable change in the Committee because 

three previous NCSTAC members term limits expired. He stated that he looks forward to the upcoming 

face-to-face meeting with everyone. Harris said that this meeting will be an opportunity to get some 

idea of the ongoing work being done by NIST and will help the Committee understand what kind of 

advice can be provided. Harris emphasized that there will not be an emphasis on recommendations 

from the previous investigations and that the Committee will hold that discussion at the next face-toface meeting. Harris asked Dr. Judith Mitrani-Reiser, the Director of the Disasters and Failure Studies 

Program to introduce Alexander Maranghides, a Fire Protection Engineer, who led a team to northern 

California in response to the Tubbs wildland-urban fires.

II. Update on Preliminary Reconnaissance of Northern California Wildfires (Tubbs Fire) -

Alexander Maranghides

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018/02/26/01_maranghides_tubbs_fire_wui_ncst

_final.pdf

Presentation Highlights:

Factors contributing to the team’s success included: 

• Prior planning before departure

• Check-in protocols and daily safety briefings

• Multi-agency coordination across local, state and federal agencies 

Factors contributing to the fire’s behavior included: 

• 50-year fuel buildup

• 5-year drought 

• Strong winds carried large embers, 8-9 inches in diameter, that probably resulted from 

structures coming apart and oriented strand board (OSB) pieces being carried by the wind 
Key observations: 

• There were a large number of ignitions but the specifics about the ignitions are unkown.

• The fire spread rapidly from structure-to-structure through continuous horizontal flames.

• Very high local winds in Coffey Park community contributed to the rapid spread of the fire.

• There were large embers bouncing on pavement.

• There were a large number of fatalities (22).

• Loss of water pressure from leaking sprinklers in destroyed residences resulted in difficulty 

extinguishing the fire. Residential sprinklers are designed to protect the structure from internal 

fires, a sprinkler system is not designed to protect the home from the outside. This WUI fire 

burned homes with sprinklers down to the foundation. The water from the sprinkler system 

continued to flow into the foundation reducing the water pressure available to the fire fighters, 

and reducing their ability to extinguish fires.

• Night-time evacuations presented unique challenges due to low visibility. An evening WUI event

obscures visibility due to the night-time darkness and the heavy smoke. The fire ignitions 

occurred close to some residents, creating low visibility in the evacuation areas that were also 

without power.

Q&A

Dr. Jeannette Sutton asked, “Is anyone looking at communications and warnings in terms of the 

evacuations?” Maranghides replied that the deployment was limited to three days, so they prioritized 

physical data over interviews, but discussed the evacuation notification before leaving when the NIST 

team met first responders and others in the field.

Mitrani-Reiser added that NIST has institutionalized a virtual team as part of the DFS team. The virtual 

team, modeled after those implemented by Earthquake Engineering Research Institute’s (EERI)

“Learning From Earthquakes” program, supports and augments the work being done in the field to 

answer legal, technical and other questions. That allows DFS to have a more significant presence even 

though there is a limited number of individuals in the field.

Gary Klein asked, “What significance does NIST attach to the 1964 Hanley fire?” Maranghides replied 

that the information on the Hanley fire is incomplete. It is not possible to say with confidence how 

perimeter information or metadata on that fire was collected. Both fires may have behaved similarly. 

Looking at historical information on other fires, and across other states, there is a hypothesis that 

topographical characteristics create a fire-shed, similar to a watershed. In this scenario, the fire makes 

certain runs tied to the topography, and the topography is tied to the weather. The Diablo winds in that 

part of the country have very well-defined directions in the valleys, so it is likely not a coincidence. 

Harris asked, “Were problems resulting from loss of water pressure from sprinkler systems, and whether 

they were fire suppression or irrigation systems?” Maranghides replied that there were fire suppression 

systems. Harris asked, “Were the neighborhoods new enough to have this equipment?” Maranghides 

could not say that was true across all areas. 

William Holmes said that requirements to put sprinklers in all new houses are controversial, especially 

for those who live far from urban areas, and are without a water supply. He stated that sprinklers are

intended to suppress interior fires, although they are sold to Californians as though they are for forest 
fires. He asked if NIST had an opinion. Maranghides could not speak to that. One of the structures the 

team saw was developed in 2007, and it was saved by the sprinkler system; he said there’s a range of 

issues that have to be examined. 

II. Update on Preliminary Reconnaissance of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma – Dr. Judith MitraniReiser

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018/02/20/02_update_on_preliminary_reconnais

sance_of_hurricane_harvey_and_irma_presentation.pdf

Overview of the Disaster and Failure Studies Program’s Activities

Mitrani-Reiser described the NCST deployment scoring criteria and associated decision flow. She 

indicated that the information available to NIST to score events evolves. Therefore, as NIST receives new 

information on the event (e.g., intensity updates or number of deaths), the evaluation sheets are 

updated and are time stamped. 

Dr. Reginald DesRoches asked if NIST has always used the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale for 

the deployment scoring criteria. Mitrani-Reiser responded that NIST would like to update scoring 

methodology (including consideration of other hazard intensity measures), but for consistency, NIST has 

used the same methodology since the scoring criteria were developed. She suggested the Committee 

could help NIST with those updates, and continued with the following points: 

• The criteria use a weighted average of scores to help NIST prioritize field deployments. Many 

engineers and scientists at NIST have used the scoring criteria for different hazard types, and 

NIST has been documenting their experiences to inform potential future changes to the criteria. 

• Four of the five events that NIST deployed to last year met the quantitative threshold for 

deploying, except the Fuse-47 fire. 

• The fire that took place in the Fuse-47 apartment complex occurred in an unoccupied building 

that was under construction (one month away from opening to occupants). The fire did not kill 

anyone but did cause evacuations of nearby buildings. There may be a recurring event pattern

associated with sizeable wood-frame apartment buildings catching fire. Although this event did 

not have deaths associated with it, a trend of unfinished apartment buildings catching fire over 

the past year convinced NIST to investigate further. After a preliminary reconnaissance, NIST 

decided to do a research project under its Organic Act to better understand fire protection 

systems during the construction phase of buildings. 

• NIST did not send teams for preliminary reconnaissance for the Puebla earthquake in Mexico or 

the Gatlinburg, Tennessee WUI fire, but are exploring research areas in both events. 

• NIST is developing a survey instrument for use in Gatlinburg and focused on communication and 

evacuation decision making. The results of the survey will help NIST understand the 

communication and evacuation challenges that may have led to fatalities in the Gatlinburg, TN 

WUI fire. The survey instruments developed for this event can be used as tools in future 

investigations.

• NIST funded 12 awards under the Disaster Resilience Federal Funding Opportunity. One of those 

grants was awarded to the University of California, San Diego, which is focused on testing new 

technologies and algorithms to do damage assessments in the field after events. NIST talked to 
awardees under this grant, and one did go to Mexico to study the impacts of using drones. NIST 

will be evaluating these new tools for use in future NCST investigations. 

• The U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) Hurricane Irma and Maria events scored high on the NIST 

deployment criteria, but NIST did not deploy due to issues with safety in traveling to areas still 

heavily impacted by the storm. Instead, NIST invited a delegation from the USVI to discuss 

potential projects for collaboration. 

• NIST deployed two teams to Texas after Hurricane Harvey. The teams were exchanging as much 

information in the field as possible to maximize time in the field. The Engineering Laboratory has 

not recommended that NIST invoke the NCST Act for an investigation in Texas, but did embed

one team member in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) full Mitigation 

Assessment Team (MAT) deployment and study. 

• NIST deployed two teams to Florida after Hurricane Irma. All field teams were supported by a 

team back at NIST by the virtual team. The Engineering Laboratory has not recommended that 

the NIST Director invoke the NCST Act for an investigation in Florida.

III. Update on Preliminary Reconnaissance of Hurricane Maria (Puerto Rico) - Dr. Erica 

Kuligowski

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018/02/20/03_update_on_preliminary_reconnais

sance_of_hurricane_maria_puerto_rico.pdf

Presentation Highlights 

• Wood structures, unpermitted construction, and rooftop equipment were most vulnerable to 

wind; rainwater also caused extensive damage. 

• Utility system damage included complete electrical outage and almost total loss of 

communications, especially digital communications.

• While the emergency information was provided via multiple channels and multiple sources 

(NWS, local governments, media), the perceived credibility of the source is key to response. 

• Lack of communications during and after the hurricane hampered response.

Q&A

• Dr. DesRoches asked if either Hurricanes Harvey or Maria’s reconnaissance efforts looked at 

water contamination. Kuligowski responded that none of our team members collected any data 

on water contamination. DesRoches said he had many people looking at that, but not sure if it 

is beyond the scope of what NIST is doing, but he has a lot of data available. Averill stated that 

NIST was aware of superfund sites that involve water contamination and avoided their location 

during deployment.

• Klein was interested in the damage to rooftop equipment and asked if the responsibility for 

resistance to wind is an area for follow-up. Levitan responded that the American Society for Civil 

Engineers (ASCE) 7 Standard has little information on how to determine loads on rooftop 

equipment and there is room for additional research in this area. 

• Harris asked which issue was bigger - damage to power distribution lines or damage to power 

facilities. Kuligowski responded that during the field reconnaissance, the teams did not get to 
see any traditional power generation sites. They saw significant damage to power network

systems of all types, utility lines, and transformer equipment, all the way across traditional 

power systems. FEMA reported that some solar panels were providing power, but had no 

battery storage. A hospital had panels still in place, but the cable array was lost so that they 

could not use them. 

• Levitan stated that Tesla did come to provide a solar array and PowerWall batteries for a 

hospital in Puerto Rico, but there were few systems where a solar energy system was connected 

and ready to be used.

• Mitrani-Reiser added that NIST teams had several meetings with people with firsthand 

knowledge of the issues. About eighty percent of power generation is concentrated in the 

southernmost part of the island (which was severely damaged) and then traverses through a 

mountainous region to reach customers in more densely populated areas of the north. Both 

power generation and transmission were severely damaged in Puerto Rico. 

• Sutton referenced an earlier statement about source and channel credibility and asked if NIST 

found evidence that people felt the sources or channels were not credible. Kuligowski 

responded that the general understanding was that the media is considered credible. Further 

examination is needed to determine if the National Weather Service or different news outlets 

have different levels of perceived credibility. 

IV. Update on Implementation of Recommendations from the Joplin Tornado Investigation -

Dr. Long Phan, Dr. Marc Levitan, Dr. Erica Kuligowski

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018/02/20/04_update_on_implementation_of_re

commendations_from_the_joplin_investigation.pdf

Levitan presented updates on five of the recommendations from the Joplin Report: 

• NIST is developing methods to estimate tornado occurrence more accurately for the tornado 

hazard maps.

• NIST is working with ASCE to develop criteria for wind performance-based design (PBD), and

chairing the ASCE 7-22 Wind Load Subcommittee's new Tornado Task Committee, charged with 

the development of tornado load provisions for the standard. 

• NIST is working on improving tornado shelter standards. The International Code Council (ICC) 

has agreed to expand the scope of the existing ICC 500, Standard for the Design and 

Construction of Storm Shelters, to incorporate retrofits of tornado shelters in existing buildings. 

NIST and FEMA collaborated on the submission of 10 proposals in December 2017 for ICC 500-

2020. 

• NIST developed all of the building safety-related content in the new National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) 1616 Standard on Mass Evacuation, Sheltering, and Re-entry Programs, 

providing guidance on selection of buildings for use as shelters for different hazards, including 

tornadoes. 

Kuligowski discussed progress in emergency communications, noting that one of the recommendations 

from the Joplin report is to develop national codes, standards, and guidance for emergency 
communications. NIST held a workshop with super-users (emergency managers, weather service, etc.). 

The outcomes of the workshop included the following: 

• Obtained insights on NIST’s interim guidance on short message alerts

• Received feedback on how to create and disseminate short message alerts

Additionally, NIST developed a technical note on short message alerting and will present study findings 

at the March 2018 NFPA committee meeting. 

V. Overview of the Joplin Tornado Repository - Dr. Marc Levitan

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018/02/20/05_overview_of_the_joplin_tornado_

repository_presentation.pdf

Levitan described the repository, and emphasized the following points: 

• The repository contains a compilation of images, videos, and documents collected during and 

after disaster and failure events studied by NIST, as well as data generated from research on 

those events. The materials in the repository will serve as a historical archive.

• A repository is also a tool for research, and analysis of disaster data and information related to 

the performance of the built environment, emergency response procedure, and other technical, 

social, and economic factors.

• Next steps: completing updates, as well as legal and IT reviews for Joplin and Newcastle-Moore 

Repositories. Also, NIST will make the data publicly available once the reviews are complete.

VI. Discussion

Mitrani-Reiser suggested that NIST could collaborate with academics involved with the National Hazards 

Engineering Research Infrastructure (NHERI) Centers. This could be helpful to the Centers 

headquartered at UT Austin (DesignSafe) and University of Washington (Rapid Center), which are 

developing a national repository for disasters and creating tools for disaster reconnaissance, 

respectively. 

Harris asked if NIST has an estimate for the amount of time it takes to organize information after a 

reconnaissance effort. Levitan responded that the NIST HUB platform was not in place when previous 

NCST events occurred. Right now, if a tornado occurred and NIST decided to use the HUB platform, data 

could potentially be available in a few months. The initial focus would be on getting data processed for 

internal NIST work. Whether it is made available to the public, would be dictated by permissions granted 

to NIST to share the data publicly. Mitrani-Reiser added that all team members are trained before going 

into the field about what kind of data can be shared widely. 

Holmes asked about permissions. Lieberman responded that NIST needs permission for anything that 

anyone else owns the copyright. For example, during the World Trade Center investigations, NIST had 

to determine who owned the building drawings. Additionally, NIST received documents or photos under 

non-disclosure agreements. If a picture is taken that has children in it, parent/guardian permission is 

needed to make those images widely available. Inside homes, NIST needs to get permission from the 

homeowner. For any investigation where there are volumes of information, it takes a long time to go 
back to owners and get that permission. On the street, if a NIST employee takes a photo, NIST owns the 

right to the image and can share it publicly. DFS is working with the NIST legal team to develop tools to 

streamline the process.

Harris asked what NIST's expectations for the Puerto Rico study are. Mitrani-Reiser responded that 

there is a big difference between preliminary reconnaissance (deployments) and a full study of any type. 

Preliminary reconnaissance is quick and meant to collect data about what the team saw firsthand. After 

analysis, the Engineering Lab can recommend a full investigation to the NIST Director if the data suggest 

it is warranted. After the investigations are complete, NIST issues recommendations to influence codes

and standards. The recommendations result from thorough data gathering, assessment, and analysis

and never come out of a preliminary reconnaissance. The recommendations have incredible strength 

and power because of the participation of Committees like this one. 

Corotis commented that it would be useful to know how NIST has relationships with the different 

regulatory bodies. Averill responded that for the World Trade Center (WTC) NIST had 30 

recommendations that led to 40 code changes. The ICC stood up the Terrorism Resistant Buildings 

Committee for post-9/11 code change proposals. NIST also worked with the National Institute of 

Building Sciences (NIBS) to bring together a large group of stakeholders to get perspectives on 

operationalizing recommendations into code change proposals before they went through the formal 

process; this helped improve proposals before they went to the full ICC committees. Dr. Long Phan 

added that regarding Joplin, NIST identified the lead agencies and organizations responsible for 

implementing each recommendation before publishing the report. After the draft report was released 

for public comment, NIST met with the ICC and NFPA to discuss the proposed changes to be 

implemented. NIST is working with ASCE now on Joplin’s recommendation #5. Harary commented that 

NIST keeps a scorecard on the progress of implementation of each of the recommendations and would 

be happy to share it with the Committee, but cautioned that it is important to approach the scorecard 

with an open mind. The Committee suggested NIST be mindful of implementation considerations, such 

as economic feasibility, of specific recommendations moving forward; the Committee recalled that some 

WTC recommendations were challenging to implement as originally defined in the report.

Harris commented that using the DFS website provides an excellent source of reference. It includes

meeting presentations and summaries from more than ten years ago. He agreed that keeping a

scorecard of recommendations is great. Harris also agreed that there were recommendations that came 

as a result of the WTC investigation that he felt had a minimal chance of being fully implemented.

Sutton asked if NIST is working to develop some survey items for field communication, which will be 

available to people outside of NIST. Mitrani-Reiser responded that we do not, yet, have a good system 

for collecting data on communication, across disasters. NIST is developing survey instruments and is 

working to make them public, to be used by others in their studies. When NIST co-deployed with its 

Center of Excellence on Risk-Based Community Resilience Planning, it helped develop structured and 

unstructured surveys on housing dislocation, business recovery, and school closures. The ultimate goal is

to create a library of DFS tools and publish them in peer-reviewed journals or other mechanisms (e.g., 

DFS website, DesignSafe, etc.) and make them publicly available.

Kuligowski referred to protocols related to the Gatlinburg event. She stated it is a more structured 

survey for the public, but NIST is working on a less-structured protocol for decision makers on when 

messages should go out. NIST is reaching out to see what surveys have been developed for different 
disasters, and what messages went out, to create more flexible tools that can be used for multiple 

events and multiple hazards. 

The group discussed meeting preferences, and Mitrani-Reiser agreed to send out a poll to identify future 

meeting dates/times. Harary noted that NIST will not wait until a Committee meeting to provide an 

update to the Committee regarding an NCST investigation. As developments occur, NIST will inform the 

Committee.

VII. Adjournment.

Harary adjourned the meeting at 4:00 pm.