1

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

National Construction Safety Team (NCST) 

Advisory Committee (Committee) Meeting 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Gaithersburg, Maryland 

November 7, 2011

Meeting Summary 

Committee Member Attendees:

Jeremy Isenberg, Chair AECOM 

Ronny Coleman Fireforceone

Paul Croce FM Global (retired)

Susan Cutter* University of South Carolina

Carlos Fernandez-Pello University of California, Berkeley 

Jeffrey Garrett CTL Group

Anne S. Kiremidjian Stanford University

R. Shankar Nair Teng and Associates, Inc. 

James Quiter Arup

Sarah Rice The Preview Group, Inc.

*not in attendance

NIST Speakers and Presenters:

Patrick Gallagher Director, NIST

Shyam Sunder Director, Engineering Laboratory (EL) and

Designated Federal Official

Eric Letvin Director, Disaster and Failure Studies Program

Marc Levitan Lead, National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program 

(NWIRP) R&D

Erica Kuligowski EL

Frank Lombardo EL

Long Phan EL

DoC, NIST, and Contractor Support:

Damien Bertot NIST

Stephen Cauffman NIST

Sherri Diaz NIST

Tina Faecke NIST

Simon Frechette NIST

Frank Gayle NIST

William Grosshandler NIST

Anthony Hamins NIST
2

Michelle Harman NIST

Jack Hayes NIST

Melissa Lieberman DoC

Nancy McCabe NIST

Steve McCabe NIST

Michael Newman NIST

Fahim Sadek NIST

Rose Van Camp NIST

Nathan Walker NIST

Francoise Arsenault BRI Consulting 

Summary of Discussions 

I. Welcome and Opening Remarks 

Eric Letvin, Director of the Disaster and Failure Studies Program, welcomed everyone. He then 

introduced Jeremy Isenberg, Chair of the Committee, who welcomed the members. After

introductions (bios are available at www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/ncstac_members.cfm), 

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 of the Engineering Laboratory at NIST, thanked the members for their 

service. He 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. Since 

the completion of the WTC reports, the Committee has been dormant. This Committee has a new 

charge, and its members represent a cross-section of the disciplines that are the subject of NIST 

reports.

Sunder drew attention to the National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act (Public Law 107-

231) (Act), specifically Section 2(b), which describes the purpose of the investigations and the 

duties of the teams. 

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 decision criteria in place for launching NCST studies?

2. Is the study of the Joplin, Missouri tornado proceeding as it should?

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, Director of NIST, also welcomed the members and discussed the decision to 

reconvene the Committee and the best approach to implementing the Act. Once NIST decides to 

launch a study based upon the established criteria, the next phase is carrying out the study. NIST 

seeks to obtain information utilizing a minimally disruptive process. The input of the Committee 

will be sought for this phase of the process, in developing recommendations, and in producing 

final reports. Acting on lessons learned from the study is a critical part of NIST’s 
3

responsibilities, and study recommendations are frequently put into practice via codes and 

standards. 

Gallagher remarked that federal advisory committees serve as a powerful and unique mechanism 

for obtaining non-federal input into federal programs. The focus of this Committee is very 

different from the previous Committee. The new charge to this Committee is helping NIST to 

determine how to design and run the program with respect to NCST studies. He emphasized the 

importance of the Committee’s recommendations, all of which he will take very seriously. 

II. Disaster and Failure Studies Program Overview

Sunder provided an overview of the Disaster and Failure Studies Program (Program) 

(www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/upload/SunderD-FSNCSTAC110711.pdf). He discussed 

the core mission and functions of the Program, the statutory authority for the Program, five 

typical study objectives, the types of disaster and failure studies, and the role of NIST in the 

studies. The budget for the Program in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 was $650,000. For FY 2012, a

NIST budget initiative of $1.8 million was requested, including funds for expanding the disaster 

and failure data repository.

Sunder discussed the NIST role in studies led by other agencies, such as the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA)-funded Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) studies,

and studies of the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile led by the American Society of Civil Engineers 

(ASCE) and the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI). Under the legislation for the 

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), post-earthquake investigations fall 

under the purview of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The pending NEHRP reauthorization 

would transfer the lead role in post-earthquake investigations to NIST. Sunder clarified that the 

safety of occupants in buildings is a focus of NCST studies. Gallagher added that the NCST 

legislation is very specific on the building focus. The Program, however, must be viewed in 

context. It is fair for the Committee to articulate touch points that impact the NCST. It also is 

within the charge of the Committee to advise NIST to focus on buildings and infrastructure. 

A member asked how the process distinguishes between fire codes and building codes. Sunder 

explained that NIST considers where changes are to be implemented. If changes are required in 

the fire code area, that is the direction NIST pursues. All codes relevant to building and fire 

safety can be the focus of recommendations. Sunder elaborated on the NIST role in codes and 

standards. In the WTC Investigation, a decision was made early on to focus on model code 

changes. Building code experts were convened through a NIST contract to the National Institute 

of Building Sciences (NIBS) to determine how to accomplish this. Through collaboration, NIST 

was able to participate in the International Code Council (ICC) code change process in 2007, 

2009, and 2012. The entire NIST team was thrilled at the end of the process. The model code 

changes that were finally adopted were significant. In the standards area, the results have been 

more mixed. Changes also have been incorporated by the National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA). In other areas, standards changes have been less significant. These will take longer. 

Sunder also discussed how NIST determines whether an event warrants NIST study. These 

decisions are made at NIST, which monitors events 24/7. For example, NIST staff monitored the 
4

Oklahoma earthquake this past weekend via the USGS Prompt Assessment of Global 

Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) notifications and other tools. Another example is the recent 

earthquake in Turkey. Letvin was able to provide Sunder a preliminary evaluation using 

established criteria on whether or not to deploy for those events within about two hours after they 

occurred.

III. Disaster and Failure Events Data Repository

Letvin presented on the data repository for disaster and failure events 

(http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/upload/NCSTAVmtgDataRepositoryLETVIN11041

1.pdf). He discussed the three phases of the NIST repository development. Phase 1 (the WTC) 

was released this August (www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/repository_home.cfm). The 

repository, which was developed in less than one year, contains more than 94,000 videos and 

photos and is user friendly. Since its release in August, there have been more than 300,000 page 

views. The platform for the repository is Gallery, an open source application. 

The Phase 2 repository (Chile earthquake pilot) will offer new features from the Phase 1

repository and may employ a different platform. The Chile earthquake was selected for Phase 2

because it served a dual purpose as a repository and as support to NEHRP work with the George 

E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES). Milestones for the Phase 

2 repository include a draft by March 2012; the final repository by June 2012; and a system 

assessment in August 2012. Work on Phase 3 has not yet begun. Letvin also described the new 

NIST Disaster Failure Studies website (www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/index.cfm), which 

includes reports and Committee information. 

A member remarked on the many existing databases, including those maintained by the 

insurance industry. An important feature of the NIST repository is access by the public. Letvin 

stated that the goal is to keep as much data as possible in the public domain. In terms of 

promoting the repository, Letvin presents at conferences and workshops, writes papers and 

articles, and networks with stakeholders. NIST also has many media contacts for outreach. Links 

to other relevant databases, such as the Consortium of Organizations for Strong Motion 

Observation Systems (COSMOS) database, will be included in the repository. 

The Committee discussed the process for admitting information to the repository. Sunder stated 

that NIST will determine minimum criteria for inclusion into the repository. A member 

commented that it may be advisable to establish firm and discrete criteria or standards for 

accepting and rejecting data to the repository. Letvin stated that this is being considered; it is a 

separate issue, however, from quality. Sunder added that any standards established must be very 

even-handed. It was noted that when another group’s report on an event is posted to the 

repository, there will be disclaimers included stating that the report is not endorsed by NIST.

The Committee members, to a person, remarked that the repository is a tremendous effort on the 

part of NIST, and is meeting a need discussed for years in the earthquake community. Sunder 

stated that the input of the Committee will be very valuable in determining if and how to scale up 

the repository. 
5

IV. NCST Study on the Joplin Tornado

A. Presentation by Marc Levitan 

Levitan provided an overview of the NCST study of the May 22, 2011 Joplin tornado 

(www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/upload/NCSTACJoplin110411.pdf). The NCST 

reconnaissance team was composed of himself, three other members from NIST, and one 

member from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The team 

members are authoring the reconnaissance report.

A member asked about the anticipated impact of the study related to “producing the technical 

basis for cost-effective changes in national codes, standards, and practices.” Levitan stated that 

the study team will consider this impact in a broad and historical context. Sunder added that 

based on R&D, NIST pursues the most effective ways of improving safety and, ultimately, costeffectiveness decisions are made by building and fire code officials and others who vote to adopt 

any changes. The Committee also inquired if the Joplin investigation will be sufficiently detailed 

to generate information on what works and what does not work and trends for the future. Levitan 

stated that NIST will look at different building technologies. However, the investigation is 

somewhat limited in scope. In terms of quantifying resilience, tools should be developed down 

the road to accomplish this.

B. Presentation by Frank Lombardo 

Lombardo presented on tornado hazard characteristics associated with the Joplin event (see link 

for IV. A. above). A preliminary finding is that the tornado rating procedure (Enhanced Fujita 

(EF) intensity scale) lacks adequate indicators for distinguishing intense tornadoes.

The Committee asked about the size of the discrepancy between the actual event and the forecast 

from NOAA (at 3:00 p.m., NOAA gave a 10 percent probability of a strong tornado (EF2 or 

greater) within 25 miles of Joplin). Lombardo stressed that the environmental conditions fit the 

climatology for strong tornadoes, however the formation of tornadoes and specifically strong 

tornadoes from those environments is relatively poorly understood. The Committee also 

discussed the disparity between the numbers provided by Jasper County and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers on damaged and destroyed structures. Lombardo stated that the use of the 

same vocabulary is important to reconciling disparities and achieving consensus. This could be 

part of the study’s recommendations. 

C. Presentation by Erica Kuligowski 

Kuligowski briefed the Committee on emergency communications and public response 

associated with the tornado (see link for IV. A. above). A NIST survey of communities shows a 

significant disparity in how warnings are disseminated in different communities. In addition, 

many communities do not have sirens. Studies also show that a warning lead time of more than 

15 minutes is not necessarily more effective in terms of saving lives.

Kuligowski stated that an important part of the Joplin study is determining what factors 

influenced the behavior and fate of individuals, and what they did in response. The plan is to 

expand study results to other disasters. A member mentioned that the NFPA is addressing mass 

notification and may benefit from this study. 
6

D. Presentation by Long Phan 

Phan presented on the performance of buildings, designated safe areas, and lifelines (see link for 

IV. A. above).

A member asked about power lines in Joplin (many were overhead) and if the study will consider

telephone/wireless communications. Sunder stated that the team will focus on performance of 

lifelines as related to functionality of buildings and facilities.

The Committee discussed reasons for the very high number of casualties caused by the Joplin 

tornado. Levitan stated that this information is still being gathered. He noted that one of the 

primary reasons NIST chose to deploy to Joplin is the high number of casualties. NIST will 

attempt to correlate the fatalities with where people were located and their actions when the 

tornado struck. This also will be tied back to performance of residential, commercial, and critical

buildings and viewed holistically. 

Phan commented that the effects of the Joplin tornado on robust, engineered structures made this 

tornado somewhat unique. NIST plans to carry out comparative studies with other tornado 

effects on similar structures. In the Joplin study, data is also being collected on buildings that 

were not damaged.

V. Recent Non-NCST Studies

Sunder presented on recent non-NCST studies, including the Sofa Super Store fire in Charleston, 

South Carolina; the Amarillo, Texas Wildland-Urban Interface Fires; the collapse of the Dallas 

Cowboys Indoor Practice Facility; earthquake damage assessments in Chile, New Zealand, and 

Japan; and the study of the Mineral, Virginia earthquake 

(www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/upload/SunderNonNCSTStudies110711.pdf). 

The Committee discussed the criteria used to launch NCST studies. Sunder clarified that the 

criteria apply to all NIST studies. The question of which statute to use is study-specific. The 

Committee also asked about the tie-in with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) in terms of investigating “line of duty” deaths. Sunder stated that NIST 

considers structural fires to be within its jurisdiction and the primary basis for its studies. The 

expertise that NIST brought to the Charleston fire was focused on the dynamics of the behavior 

of the fire, not the deaths of the firefighters. In the Amarillo fire, the purpose was to collect field

data and refine fire spread models. This was more of a science-driven R&D study.

The Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility study was considered an extended preliminary 

reconnaissance. NIST spent about 6 months on this study, with the majority of work completed 

in 3 months. This was not a major study; rudimentary modeling was done. A member asked 

about the stage collapse at the Indiana State Fair this summer. Letvin reported that he completed 

the decision criteria for this event and it did not meet the score for a study.

In terms of funding, all studies, with the exception of the WTC Investigation, are supported with 

federal (NIST) R&D funds. In the case of the WTC Investigation, there was a special 

appropriation from Congress to NIST via FEMA. NIST also works on a reimbursable basis at 
7

times for other agencies. 

VI. Committee Discussion

Isenberg opened the discussion by expressing his appreciation for all of the effort that went into 

the very comprehensive and well done Committee briefings. He thanked everyone at NIST for 

providing the Committee with such an informative first session. He asked the members to briefly 

discuss what they have learned with respect to the Committee charge. 

Ronny Coleman: The briefings were very informative. Understanding the limits of the studies 

and the criteria used for decision-making are important outreach issues.

Paul Croce: It is impressive that this work is being done at the national level. Too much time, 

however, may be spent on determining if the study is a NIST-based study, a NEHRP-funded 

study, or a study funded by other agencies. Time is of the essence. Trained staff should arrive 

quickly at events. NIST also should consider adding criteria for unusual events, such as the stage 

collapse at the Indiana State Fair, and should clearly define what will be included in the data 

repository.

Carlos Fernando-Pello: The briefings were informative and interesting. The information in 

the fire reports is of great value. There are questions about separating the interior of buildings 

from the infrastructure. 

Jeffrey Garrett: The purpose of the studies is to produce code changes. The NIST team is to be 

complimented on the scope of the work and their accomplishments. 

Anne Kiremidjian: The work to date is impressive, particularly the repository project. It is 

noteworthy that the studies are undertaken to support the development of codes. This includes a 

tremendous amount of science in support of technical credibility.

R. Shankar Nair: The numerical approach of the decision criteria appears sound. With regard 

to the criterion for NIST involvement, this should be considered at the outset. If there is no 

requirement for NIST involvement, there should be no need to proceed further.

James R. Quiter: Meeting only once a year will be a challenge if we are to provide meaningful 

input, particularly as the committee gets started. A cohesive program of all NIST investigations 

and advisory committees is needed. To facilitate this, the Chairs of the NIST Advisory 

Committees should speak to each other. With regard to building codes, there is almost no 

discussion of risk at code hearings. A role for NIST may be greater involvement in risk 

discussions. In addition, the NFPA is cutting back on investigations, which will leave a large 

void. The human factors element is very important. In terms of funding, sufficient staff is needed

to send out on investigations.

Sarah Rice: The NIST study teams appear to be very qualified. From the engineering 

perspective, it is encouraging that we are moving into a world where code changes are based on 

science, data, and statistics.
8

The Chair opened the Committee discussion of the NCST program. A summary of the discussion 

by topic area follows. 

Decision Criteria: The Chair stated that the decision-making algorithm adopted by NIST for 

launching studies appears sound. His hope is that NIST will provide the latitude for the criteria to 

mature. Refinements, if appropriate, should be based on a backward look as NIST moves 

forward. 

Kiremidjian asked about the current decision-making approach in terms of bias built into the 

scoring system. For example, is there a bias toward natural hazards? The Committee discussed 

the E2 nightclub disaster in Chicago; the source of the disaster was a fight between patrons. This 

type of cause is not found in the criteria. Sunder pointed out that if there are only four out of 

eight possible factors, the factors are divided by four. Nonetheless, the cause could affect the 

decision to investigate. He added that NIST has been satisfied with its decision making. 

Externally, there have been some issues. This is the first time the decision-making criteria are

being reviewed and discussed in a public forum. He revisited the comment that NIST 

involvement should pre-empt all of the criteria. NIST should determine if it is the appropriate 

agency. However, he does not believe that this is a pre-emptive factor in terms of the decision to 

launch a study.

Data Collection and Codes and Standards: The Chair asked the members about the 

interface between data collection and codes and standards processes. NIST has staff involved in 

this process, which is to be commended, assuming adequate and proper human resources are 

assigned to the task. In large part, the successful interface depends on the interpersonal dynamics 

between staff and the code writing bodies. The Committee may want to consider if NIST has the 

necessary influence it deserves in this area.

The Committee discussed National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) data. A member 

stated that NFIRS is not designed to capture data on an incident. NFIRS allows for the study of 

structures across the United States but not one structure in particular. Coleman remarked that 

very few fire departments voluntarily participate in NFIRS. Most in the community do not 

believe it is a reliable source for developing policy. He also remarked on the effects of codes in 

saving lives. In the 1970s, there were about 10,000 deaths a year from fires. Today, there are 

about 3,500 a year.

Data Repository: The Chair stated that funds must be committed at the outset so that the 

repository is supported 3 years from now. The technologies of the future also must be given great 

weight. Kiremidjian agreed that funding must be in place to guarantee the long-term viability of 

the repository. Sunder noted previous estimates of $2 million to operate and maintain the 

repository. Rice asked about NIST plans to include past studies in the repository. This will be 

done on a selective basis in Phase 3.

Coordination and Interaction with other Programs: Kiremidjian asked about 

coordination with other programs, such as study teams funded under the National Science 

Foundation (NSF) RAPIDS grants. Sunder stated that NIST makes every effort to coordinate 
9

with NSF and other agencies, although this is not always an easy task. In response to a question 

on turf battles on disaster investigations, he stated that in the world of disaster investigations, 

people know each other and there are good relationships. There have not been any difficulties in 

NIST studies. There was excellent cooperation on the WTC Investigation. NIST also tries to 

build relationships with local authorities, when possible. This was done very well with New 

York City during the WTC Investigation. 

Risk: Coleman stated that risk should be included as part of the equation. The need is to 

consider low probability but high consequence events. Nair commented that tornadoes, which are 

very high probability when considered cumulatively, would be an appropriate topic for future 

studies, with a focus on better communication and warning systems and evacuation procedures. 

Garrett remarked that the question goes back to the discussion of high risk versus the low 

probability of killing 162 people again. Croce stated that he would rather have NIST 

acknowledge that tornadoes are low probability events, and he does not see the need to focus on 

risk in NCST investigations. Kiremidjian commented that risk comes into play because the event 

will occur in a given area and will cause probable losses. She mentioned Performance-Based 

Engineering, which the Committee may want to consider

Topics for Future Studies: The Chair asked the members for their thoughts on tornado 

hazard preparedness and response as a priority topic given the 500 people who have died from 

tornadoes in the United States this year. Nair agreed that tornadoes are a logical outcome of the 

Joplin study, with a focus on warning systems and interior safety and creating shelters that could 

save lives. Quiter also agreed that it is logical to pursue recommendations from the Joplin study, 

but advised that the Committee not be restricted by what is currently being studied. Kiremidjian 

agreed.

Committee Reports and Recommendations: The Chair asked about the annual report 

from the Committee. Sunder stated that the statute requires the Committee to prepare an annual

report. The Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction alternates detailed annual 

reports with shorter, summary annual reports. Garrett recommended that the first Committee 

report be brief, essentially a summary of today’s discussion.

After further discussion, the Committee agreed to the following responses to the charges posed at 

the start of the meeting (the responses may be incorporated in the first annual report of the

Committee):

1. Does NIST have the correct decision criteria in place for launching NCST studies? 

The decision criteria and the subjects of the NCST studies appear to be appropriate. The 

Committee will further consider risk as an element of the decision criteria. 

2. Is the study of the Joplin, Missouri tornado proceeding as it should? The study to date 

is thoughtful and well done. The subject of NCST studies should not be restricted to 

tornadoes. Lessons learned from the Joplin tragedy can be applied across the spectrum of 

hazards.
10

3. Is the NIST approach for carrying out NCST studies appropriate? The NIST approach 

to carrying out the NCST studies seems appropriate. Consideration of the human factor is 

critical.

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

the Committee members are very impressed with the data repository project. The 

Committee endorses the expansion of the repository to a national database that would 

support a top tier level of knowledge of the built environment.

VII. Public Comments

There were no public comments. 

VIII. Adjournment

The Chair thanked the members and adjourned the meeting.