[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PACIFIC NORTHWEST SEISMIC HAZARDS:
PLANNING AND PREPARING FOR THE
NEXT DISASTER
=======================================================================
(114-18)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 19, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-639 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFF DENHAM, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JANICE HAHN, California
TOM RICE, South Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania DINA TITUS, Nevada
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
ROB WOODALL, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
TODD ROKITA, Indiana CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
JOHN KATKO, New York JARED HUFFMAN, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
MIMI WALTERS, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
------
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania, Chairman
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina Columbia
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia DINA TITUS, Nevada
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina Officio)
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex VACANCY
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Robert J. Fenton, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of
Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency..... 4
Scott A. Ashford, Ph.D., Dean, College of Engineering, Oregon
State University............................................... 4
Richard M. Allen, Ph.D., Director, Berkeley Seismological
Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley................. 4
John D. Hooper, Senior Principal and Director of Earthquake
Engineering, Magnusson Klemencic Associates, on behalf of the
American Society of Civil Engineers............................ 4
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon.................................. 20
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Robert J. Fenton................................................. 27
Scott A. Ashford, Ph.D........................................... 41
Richard M. Allen, Ph.D........................................... 49
John D. Hooper................................................... 52
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Robert J. Fenton, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of
Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
responses to questions for the record.......................... 35
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PACIFIC NORTHWEST SEISMIC HAZARDS: PLANNING AND PREPARING FOR THE NEXT
DISASTER
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ryan A. Costello
presiding.
Mr. Costello. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
order. Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Pacific Northwest
Seismic Hazards: Planning and Preparing for the Next
Disaster.''
The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, FEMA's role in earthquake hazard
preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. We are also
going to speak with some of the world's leaders in seismology
and earthquakes.
I want to thank Ranking Member DeFazio for his leadership
on this critical national issue. He has been an advocate for
his State and the Pacific Northwest supporting preparedness and
mitigation efforts and the development of a public west coast
earthquake early warning system.
Just last week, we saw the second devastating earthquake
strike Nepal. Our thoughts and prayers go out to those impacted
and the thousands that are working to help.
We know earthquakes pose one of the greatest natural
hazards here in the United States. They strike without warning
and result in potentially catastrophic casualties and damage to
buildings and infrastructure.
Portions of all 50 States and the District of Columbia are
vulnerable to earthquake hazards. Earthquakes cannot be
prevented, but their impacts on life, property, and the economy
can be managed.
FEMA is responsible for coordinating the Federal response
to a catastrophic earthquake and has been diligently working to
help States plan and prepare for the inevitability of an
earthquake. FEMA has a robust National Exercise Program that in
recent years has tested State and regional earthquake response
plans in Alaska, in the South and Midwest, along the New Madrid
Seismic Zone, and just last week in California.
We know that FEMA's national urban search and rescue teams
are key assets in the wake of disasters like earthquakes. This
Congress, H.R. 1471, the FEMA Disaster Assistance Reform Act of
2015, which was voted out of committee in April, reauthorizes
the USAR program and provides key protections to the
individuals who serve on those teams.
We also will hear from Dr. Ashford about the earthquake
threat in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest and the efforts the
State has led to bring together all members of the community to
strengthen communities.
While we are not able to predict earthquakes, I was excited
to learn that Dr. Allen and his colleagues are working with the
Federal Government to develop an earthquake early warning
system.
Finally, Mr. Hooper has been leading efforts to update
model building codes to include the latest engineering and
building science to minimize earthquake impacts on buildings.
There are lessons to be learned from the efforts of leaders in
the Pacific Northwest that should drive the way we plan for and
mitigate against disasters.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and thank them
all for being here today.
I now call on the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
Carson, for a brief opening statement.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Costello. And we acknowledge the
ranking member, Mr. Peter DeFazio. My good friend Albio is here
as well.
Good morning. I join in welcoming today's witnesses for
this important hearing.
When someone hears ``earthquake,'' they immediately think
of the west coast, but there are actually 42 States at
significant risk for a quake. Indiana, the great Hoosier State,
is one of them. Two major fault zones run in or near
southwestern Indiana, the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone and the
New Madrid Zone as well.
In the past, the New Madrid Fault has produced magnitude 7
to 8 earthquakes. If a 7.7 quake from the New Madrid Fault was
to occur today, the Mid-America Earthquake Center estimates
that it would damage 14,000 buildings, resulting in 2,000
deaths, and cause $12 billion in direct economic loss in
Indiana alone.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, plays an
important role in helping the Nation address earthquake risks.
I appreciate that the 2011 National Level Exercise tested
earthquake plans in the New Madrid Zone. Indiana had many
participants and learned a great deal, including the need to
address urban search and rescue issues beforehand. As a result
of this exercise, communication has increased among the States
affected by the New Madrid Fault.
Last year, several public and private agencies in Indiana
participated in the Central United States Earthquake Consortium
multistate CAPSTONE-14 exercise. That exercise assessed
national and regional response and recovery capabilities after
a quake on the New Madrid Zone. Building on the 2011 exercise,
the Hoosier State focused on housing recovery support functions
to address post-disaster housing issues and to facilitate
delivery of resources to local governments for reconstruction.
This exercise provides valuable insight into what works and
what needs improvement.
FEMA has statutory duties under the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program, or NEHRP, and I would like to see
this subcommittee take a really more active role in the
reauthorization of this program. We need to ensure that FEMA is
fulfilling its mission and has adequate authority and funding
levels to perform its duties. The GAO has identified no-notice
catastrophic events such as earthquakes as one of the greatest
emergency management challenges that FEMA faces. We cannot
ignore this issue.
And finally, I would be remiss to not recognize and commend
the urban search and rescue teams that are assisting in the
aftermath of the two recent Nepal quakes. Their training and
skills are being put to effective use. Once again they are
putting their lives at risk to help others around the world.
This is a perfect example of why Congress needs to ensure the
teams have the protection and benefits they deserve. Congress
needs to move forward quickly on H.R. 1471, the FEMA Disaster
Assistance Reform Act of 2015, which was recently reported from
this committee.
Thank you. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Ranking Member Carson.
I now call on the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate your
bringing attention to this.
I would observe, unfortunately, here in Washington, DC, we
seem to have what I call a tombstone mentality, which if this
were the day after the Cascadia Subduction Fault or a big
earthquake on New Madrid the room would be packed, press would
be out in the hallways, and we would have lines waiting.
But the sad fact is that if we are better prepared, if we
invest in resilience, if we invest in the case of the west
coast and an early warning system, we can save potentially
thousands of lives and billions of dollars in infrastructure
and economic damages and losses.
The Cascadia earthquake, basically it is inevitable. The
question is when and what will we do to prepare for it before
then. I did get a minor provision in H.R. 1471 that would
encourage States to use hazard mitigation and support of
building capability for earthquake warning, except,
unfortunately, FEMA is underinvesting in that program.
For the Pacific Northwest, Oregon, Washington, at risk, and
northern California, for $38 million the Government of the
United States of America could fund a real-time, at-sea-based
early warning system which would give people halfway up the
coast a couple of minutes to get out of inundation zones. It
would give people in Portland maybe 7 minutes to shut down the
Metro, get people off the bridges, shut down manufacturing
processes, et cetera, over in the valley. We would have 5 to 7
minutes to evacuate schools made out of bricks that are going
to fall down and kill the kids.
But we don't have that because we are the United States of
America and we can't afford $38 million to save thousands of
lives. And then everybody would be pointing fingers the day
after the quake and say: Why didn't we do that, just like with
Amtrak, and we can and we should. And so I am really pleased
you are holding this hearing here today.
I want to particularly thank Dr. Scott Ashford, dean of
Oregon State University's College of Engineering. He has worked
very closely with the State of Oregon on an earthquake
resilience plan. We are really at the beginning stages. Our
legislature is deciding whether to commit more and how much
State money to that sort of predisaster investment, and he has
played a very key role in that.
With that, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Oh, I would like to put my entire statement, which is long
and very thoughtful and more detailed, in the record, without
objection.
Mr. Costello. Without objection. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio.
We will have a single panel of witnesses today. We have Mr.
Robert J. Fenton, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of
Response and Recovery at FEMA; Dr. Scott A. Ashford, dean of
the College of Engineering at Oregon State University; Dr.
Richard M. Allen, director of the Berkeley Seismological
Laboratory at UC Berkeley; and Mr. John Hooper, senior
principal and director of Earthquake Engineering at MKA
[Magnusson Klemencic Associates], representing the American
Society of Civil Engineers.
I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements
be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
Since your written testimony has been made a part of the
record, the subcommittee would request that you limit your oral
testimony to 5 minutes.
Mr. Fenton, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. FENTON, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF RESPONSE AND RECOVERY, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY; SCOTT A. ASHFORD, PH.D., DEAN, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY; RICHARD M. ALLEN, PH.D., DIRECTOR,
BERKELEY SEISMOLOGICAL LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
BERKELEY; AND JOHN D. HOOPER, SENIOR PRINCIPAL AND DIRECTOR OF
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, MAGNUSSON KLEMENCIC ASSOCIATES, ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Mr. Fenton. Vice Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Carson,
and members of the distinguished subcommittee, as a fifth-
generation San Franciscan who has served 13 years for FEMA
Region IX's Oakland office in California and will soon be
reporting as its Regional Administrator, I understand the
significant threats that catastrophic earthquakes pose to our
Nation. We have seen in recent weeks the devastating
consequences of both the 7.3 and 7.8 magnitude earthquakes that
struck Nepal, and our thoughts continue to be with the
survivors.
Catastrophic earthquakes of that magnitude in an urban area
in the United States would impact millions of people and cause
profound social and economic impacts. That is why it is vitally
important that the Federal Government maintain a forward-
leaning posture and be ready to act decisively at the direction
of the President to effectively support State, local, tribal,
and territorial governments in saving lives and protecting
property.
I appreciate the opportunity today to update you on FEMA
and our whole-community partner efforts to improve our Nation's
preparedness for earthquake threats and to maintain our
readiness to respond.
Over the past 4 years, and at the direction of the
President, FEMA and our partners have worked to develop and
implement the National Preparedness System, which includes a
national planning framework for each of the five mission areas:
prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery.
These frameworks identify how the whole community will build
and deliver the core capabilities required to address the
threats that pose the greatest risks to our Nation.
In support of the national response and recovery
frameworks, we recently developed Federal interagency
operational plans which are all-hazards plans based on a
maximum of maximums scenario that includes catastrophic
incidents and cascading impacts, including a major earthquake.
In addition to the Federal interagency operational plans,
FEMA has developed five national-level incident annexes, one of
which is focused on earthquakes.
In addition, we have recently facilitated the development
of all-hazards plans in each of our 10 regions and developed 31
regional incident annexes. The one I am holding today is for
the Cascadia Subduction Zone in the Pacific Northwest.
Recognizing this, FEMA, in coordination with our State,
local, tribal, and territorial partners, is constantly seeking
ways to improve our ability to address potential threats and
risks associated with catastrophic events such as earthquakes.
Through our National Exercise Program, the whole community
continues to test, improve, and assess national preparedness
across the whole homeland security enterprise.
This year FEMA participated in the southern California
earthquake exercise involving a magnitude 7.8 earthquake on the
San Andreas Fault. FEMA, in conjunction with our partners, is
analyzing the results of the exercise and will integrate
lessons learned into our plans, doctrine, and operations as
required.
In addition to the planning and exercising that FEMA
supports with our whole community partners, I also want to
highlight our efforts in improving individual preparedness for
earthquakes.
In 2013, FEMA and our partners unveiled the America's
PrepareAthon, a nationwide community-based campaign for action
to increase emergency preparedness and resilience. A major
activity of the America's PrepareAthon is the Great Shakeout,
an exercise whereby millions of people participate in
earthquake drills. We continue to see increasing levels of
participation in the Great Shakeout.
I would also like to highlight that FEMA has made
significant strides in alert and warning systems through our
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System for all hazards
called IPAWS. Early detection for earthquakes can be difficult.
However, I am encouraged by our State partners that are
actively installing sensors in the ground to warn of earthquake
activities as early as possible.
In conclusion, FEMA is one part of the whole community
effort that is required to effectively prepare for, respond to,
and recover from disasters. The response to a major earthquake
along one of our Nation's fault lines will require resources
from across all levels of Government, private sector, and
nongovernmental organizations and the public. These are the
scenarios that we are planning to exercise against, and we are
adapting the way we do business based on these lessons learned.
As outlined in our Administrator's and our agency's 2014
through 2018 strategic plan, we are focusing on strategic
priorities, including becoming an expeditionary organization
and posturing and building capability for catastrophic
disasters. That will help to institutionalize key improvements
while building capacity and strengthening national capabilities
for disaster preparedness.
I look forward to working with you, distinguished members
of this subcommittee, and other Members of Congress, to
continue these important efforts. I am prepared to answer any
questions the subcommittee has. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Fenton.
Dr. Ashford, you may proceed.
Mr. Ashford. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. My is Scott Ashford. I am dean of the College of
Engineering at Oregon State University. I am pleased to be
before you today testifying on my role as chair of our
Governor's Task Force on Resilience Plan Implementation. As
chair, I was responsible for advancing Oregon on a path towards
resilience in the face of the upcoming mega-quake along the
Cascadia Subduction Zone, perhaps the greatest impending
natural disaster to face the United States.
I have seen firsthand communities destroyed by earthquakes.
Most recently, in Japan I saw the devastation left by the 2011
9.0 subduction zone earthquake and tsunami that killed over
15,000 people and wiped entire communities off the map.
This is a mirror image of what we expect in the Pacific
Northwest. The Cascadia Subduction Zone extends from northern
California to British Columbia, where a 9.0 magnitude
earthquake felt from Salt Lake to San Francisco will shake 3 to
5 minutes and a tsunami will inundate much of the coastline,
killing thousands. The last major Cascadia event occurred in
the year 1700, and we are now due.
The biggest challenge for Oregon is our legacy
infrastructure, vulnerable buildings, bridges, and pipelines
that were built before anyone knew that the Cascadia was
active.
This problem is not unique. States in the New Madrid Fault
Zone, like Indiana, Arkansas, and Kentucky, are also
seismically vulnerable because of their legacy infrastructure.
Oregon leaders recognized the need to prepare for the
eventual likelihood of a Cascadia event and called for the
Oregon Resilience Plan. Our vision is that 50 years from now
our businesses and communities will have the resilience to
bounce back from this mega-quake. The 300-page report completed
in 2013 contains over 140 different recommendations, and,
frankly, it was difficult to figure out where to start.
To find a path forward, the legislature formed the
Governor's Task Force on Resilience Plan Implementation, which
I chaired. Our specific recommendations were submitted to the
legislature last September in a 2-page report, which I have
submitted as part of my testimony. Based on our report, four
bills now sit in our State's Senate Ways and Means Committee
waiting for action.
Today, I would like to focus on our recommendations in just
three areas where the Federal Government plays a key role in
working in partnership with States and private enterprise.
In transportation, mobility is critical to rescue, relief,
and recovery efforts following a natural disaster and for the
economy to start moving so that people can get back to work.
Our State knows what we need to do, but the price tag for the
seismic retrofit program in Oregon is over $5 billion. The
first phase alone, to strengthen our bridges and prevent
landslides in the Cascadia event only along key lifeline
routes, is $1 billion. This is definitely an area where
enhanced State-Federal partnership is needed, where the State
is stuck with a plan but really no money to act.
Around liquid fuels, 90 percent of all liquid fuel used in
Oregon comes into one single location extremely vulnerable to
damage in an earthquake. But due to the interstate nature of
liquid fuel transmission, Oregon has no regulatory authority to
act. This is another area where the Federal Government can work
with affected States to require seismic resilience of federally
regulated utilities.
And finally in research, with the unique combination of a
9.0 earthquake and the legacy infrastructure, applied research
is a way that we can assure that precious taxpayer dollars are
used in the most value- and cost-informed manner possible.
Businesses already understand this. Companies like Portland
General Electric and Northwest Natural Gas have joined the BPA
[Bonneville Power Administration], the Port of Portland, and
ODOT [Oregon Department of Transportation] to form the Cascadia
Lifelines Program at Oregon State University. These lifeline
providers pool and direct their research dollars in a
consortium aimed at finding solutions to the seismic challenges
that they jointly face.
Key legislature opportunities in the Congress that can
facilitate effective public-private partnerships for applied
research include the highway bill with university
transportation centers, the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program, and seismic research funded by FEMA, NIST
[National Institute of Standards and Technology], NSF [National
Science Foundation], the USGS [U.S. Geological Survey], and the
FHWA [Federal Highway Administration].
In closing, the Cascadia Subduction Zone is estimated to be
the single greatest natural threat facing the United States.
Oregon is taking steps on its own to mitigate this threat.
Other West Coast States and those in the New Madrid Fault Zone
can follow our example.
It will take decades and significant resources to improve
our resilience, but we need to start now, and we need to all
work together collaboratively across Governments, academia, and
the private sector. The Federal Government is a critical
partner in our ability as a State, a region, and a country to
effectively prepare for this impending natural disaster.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the subcommittee, for the
opportunity to appear before you today, and I stand ready to
answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Costello. Thank you for your testimony, Dr. Ashford.
Dr. Allen, you may proceed.
Mr. Allen. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
The Pacific Northwest must be ready for a magnitude 9
earthquake. Recent magnitude 9 events around the world include
the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake in Japan and the 2004 Sumatra
earthquake. These are responsible for tens and hundreds of
thousands of lives lost. The last magnitude 9 in the Pacific
Northwest was just over 300 years ago, and we are now in the
period when we should expect the next megathrust earthquake.
My name is Richard Allen. I am the director of the UC
Berkeley Seismological Laboratory and a professor of earth and
planetary science. I am also one of the architects of the
ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system, a new technology
that we hope to roll out along the U.S. west coast to reduce
the impacts of the next big earthquake. We would very much like
to build this warning system before the next earthquake occurs,
but to do that will require action from this legislature.
The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning project is a
collaboration between the University of Washington, the
University of Oregon, the University of California, Berkeley,
the California Institute of Technology, the U.S. Geological
Survey, and several State agencies. We are now operating a
demonstration earthquake early warning system that issues
alerts to a group of test users for events throughout
Washington, Oregon, and California.
So what is earthquake early warning? By using networks of
geophysical sensors distributed across the west coast, we can
rapidly detect the beginnings of an earthquake. ShakeAlert then
estimates the size of the event and predicts the shaking
intensity that will follow. The warning time depends on the
distance from the initiation point. In the case of the Pacific
Northwest, if a magnitude 9 starts at the southern end of the
Cascadia Subduction Zone, as research suggests, Portland could
receive 3 minutes of warning and Seattle as much as 5 minutes.
There are many things that can be done to reduce the
impacts of earthquakes with a few minutes of warning. One of my
colleagues, Professor Doug Toomey, at the University of Oregon,
asked one of his local elementary school principals how long it
would take to evacuate his 350-student school built in 1926.
His answer: 1\1/2\ minutes. This is just 1 of 1,000 schools
that a recent Oregon State survey concluded would collapse in a
magnitude 9 earthquake.
Studies of injuries caused by the 1994 Northridge
earthquake show that more than 50 percent were caused by
falling hazards, bookcases, ceiling tiles, lighting fixtures,
et cetera. If everyone gets a warning, and if everyone drops,
takes cover, and holds on, then we could reduce the number of
earthquake injuries by 50 percent.
Other applications of earthquake early warning include
automated response of transportation systems, isolation of
hazardous machinery and chemicals, opening elevator doors at
the nearest floors to stop people from being trapped, and
alerting surgeons to remove the scalpel from inside a patient.
The existing west coast ShakeAlert demonstration system has
proven the capabilities of this technology. In the recent
magnitude 6 earthquake in Napa, California, ShakeAlert issued a
warning across the San Francisco Bay area. Although this is
only a demonstration system, it is of such value to the BART
train system in the region that they have already implemented
an automated train-stopping system.
It takes BART just 24 seconds to bring a full-speed train
to a stop, thereby reducing the likelihood of derailment.
During peak hours at any point in time, there are between 40
and 45 trains running at full speed, each carrying 1,000
passengers.
Earthquake early warning is not a panacea for the
earthquake problem in the Pacific Northwest. It will not
prevent buildings from collapsing, and we must continue to make
progress improving our buildings so they will not collapse, as
Dr. Ashford was just discussing. At the same time, ShakeAlert
provides a new opportunity to reduce the impact of coming
quakes.
So what will it take to build an earthquake early warning
system for the U.S. west coast? The U.S. Geological Survey is
the Federal agency with the responsibility for issuing alerts,
but there is a critical role for the private sector. Their
expertise is needed to distribute the alerts broadly through
cell phones, Internet providers, TV, and radio. Building a
public warning system will also create new business
opportunities to provide specialized alerts to specific users
and the development of automated control systems.
Building the system is not expensive. The U.S. Geological
Survey has developed an implementation plan for the U.S. west
coast. This system could be operational in 2 years if the
necessary funding is made available. The cost of operating the
system would be $16.5 million per year above what is currently
spent.
Last year, Congress appropriated $5 million to begin the
process of transitioning from the current demonstration system
to a full-blown public system. Thank you for that. The U.S.
Geological Survey and west coast universities are now using
those resources to improve the geophysical network
infrastructure to make the current system faster and more
robust. This is a great first step, but the full implementation
plan needs to be funded.
In closing, the earthquake threat along the U.S. west coast
increases every day as the strain on the faults builds. It is
not if, but when will the next earthquake strike, and we are
due for an earthquake in multiple locations.
Earthquake early warning is a new and important tool to
have in our disaster preparedness kit. Japan has a warning
system, Mexico has a warning system, China, Taiwan, Turkey, and
Romania have systems.
If there was an earthquake today, I believe we would build
this warning system tomorrow. Let's not miss this opportunity
and let's get ShakeAlert funded today.
Thank you.
Mr. Costello. Dr. Allen, thank you.
Mr. Hooper, please proceed.
Mr. Hooper. Vice Chairman Costello and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, I am John Hooper, a senior
principal and director of earthquake engineering with MKA in
Seattle. On behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
it is my pleasure to provide this testimony.
In addition to designing building structures throughout the
country, I have also participated in building code development
and earthquake engineering research for over three decades. I
have served in various capacities for these efforts, and am
currently the chair of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Seismic Subcommittee.
This subcommittee is tasked with developing the seismic
requirements for the vast majority of jurisdictions throughout
the United States. Jurisdictions adopt these seismic
requirements by voluntarily adopting the International Building
Code, or IBC, a comprehensive code that provides requirements
for building design and performance.
The majority of State jurisdictions also adopt the IBC. The
IBC then references ``ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures'' for the design requirements for most
natural hazards, including seismic.
A major contribution to the evolution of seismic design,
however, was development of ``NEHRP Recommended Seismic
Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures,'' originally
published in 1985. These seismic design guidelines were
developed with the leadership and support from FEMA. These
NEHRP provisions have been continually updated since that first
version and with the next version due out at the end of this
year.
The provisions also serve as a resource document to the
seismic design requirements currently found in ASCE 7, a
collaboration that has been in existence for over 20 years.
The potential of a Cascadia Subduction Zone was not really
fully understood until USGS research occurred in the late 1980s
and was presented to the structural engineering community in
the Pacific Northwest. Based on this research, the seismic zone
maps in the 1994 UBC [Uniform Building Code] were modified to
include the effects of the Cascadia Subduction Zone for the
first time. So buildings up to that point did not include that
seismic hazard in the design of those structures.
Policymakers, emergency planners, and engineers in the
Northwest are very aware of the shaking that can result from
Cascadia. Due to continued publicity regarding new research
that is published in the newspapers throughout the Northwest,
the public is fairly clear about the shaking that could occur,
but not what the performance of buildings is really going to be
like. They are not really aware of what we design to.
So a quick summary of what performance goals we achieve or
try to achieve. Given a rare event, we are out there to protect
life, and doing so we may not necessarily achieve economically
feasible repairs to a building in that case. For critical
buildings like hospitals and fire stations, et cetera, we
achieve a higher performance with the intent that these
facilities will experience damage but will be functional
following rare earthquake ground shaking.
To provide more resilient designs, though, a change is
required in these seismic performance goals. This change will
come with increased construction costs, however. Some Federal,
State, and local jurisdictions have provided or are considering
providing enhanced performance for some of their projects. Some
large companies that would be financially affected by extended
shutdowns have already done so.
Typically, though, private owners and developers are
generally unaware of what the building code gives them. And the
few that do would use enhanced performance designs if they
could have a reasonable return on their investment.
Changing the design approach for an entire community to
increase resiliency will be a challenge. First, the turnover of
building stock in a typical community is low, so enhancing the
performance of existing buildings will require seismic
upgrading. However, it is not necessary that all buildings
achieve enhanced performance to achieve a resilient community.
Careful planning is needed to determine which buildings and
facilities should be subject to enhanced seismic design or
seismic upgrade.
Second, and equally important, for a community to be
resilient, the remainder of the community's lifelines must also
be seismically designed or upgraded to an enhanced level as
well.
Finally, to achieve a resilient community, the key element
is to fund these capital costs. Regardless of these challenges,
through policymaker leadership and careful community planning,
the beginnings of resilient communities can and increasingly
will be achieved.
As previously mentioned, NEHRP has made significant
contributions. NEHRP makes Americans safer and our Nation more
secure, resilient, and financially stronger through research in
the earth sciences, public policy, and engineering. ASCE and I
urge you to work with the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee to reauthorize this vital program.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my views. I am able
to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Hooper.
I will now begin the first round of questions limited to 5
minutes for each Member. If there are additional questions
following the first round, we will have additional rounds of
questions as needed.
Given Ranking Member DeFazio's strong interest and
leadership on this issue, I would like to yield my time for
questions to him.
Mr. DeFazio, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is very generous
of you.
First to FEMA, I note that the National Earthquake Hazard
Reduction Program gets $7.8 million of funding. Given what you
just heard today, don't you believe that we should perhaps be
investing more money in that program to deal with both early
warning and other things that have just been talked about in
terms of mitigation?
Mr. Fenton. Sir, the NEHRP program is one program among
many programs and resources we have to assist in this issue. I
went over a number of them in my opening. The planning that we
provide, we probably have millions of dollars in planning each
year. We have requested money for predisaster mitigation this
year. There is also post-disaster mitigation.
So all those together provide a significant number of
resources. I think we need to continue to look at the issue and
continue to work with them, our partners across this table,
to----
Mr. DeFazio. Right. Now, the early warning issue, I am
looking at giving you specific authorization since it hasn't
been given a priority. Why hasn't it been given a priority? I
mean, you just heard here we can save thousands of lives,
potentially mitigate billions of dollars--well, at least a lot
of damage in terms of shutting down systems, et cetera, with
warning.
Mr. Fenton. Sir, we are looking into early warning systems.
As you know, we have had early warning systems for years now.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. All right. Thanks. OK. That is good. We
want to do more than look into them.
I guess first I will go to Dr. Allen.
You talked about the system, $38 million land-based. Would
there be any advantage to having something that was based in
the ocean? The Japanese have put sensors in the ocean. Does
that give you more time?
Mr. Allen. Absolutely it gives you more time. The piece I
focused on is the onshore piece. So it is $16 million per year
to run, plus $38 million capital investment to have it running
in 2 years.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Mr. Allen. We have an implementation--we, the USGS, the
west coast universities--have an implementation plan for that.
It is a proven technology. So that is what we would like to do
first.
But in addition to that, as you say, if we were to put out
additional sensors on the end of a cable, particularly in the
Cascadia Subduction Zone, that would get us more sensors closer
to the fault, and that would simply give us more warning time.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thanks.
And then, Dr. Ashford, the work you have done, the $1
billion just for key lifeline routes in the little State of
Oregon, that is because of bridge collapse and other, maybe
landslides, I guess.
Mr. Ashford. Yeah. That was just the backbone route,
actually east of the Cascades and down through part of the
Willamette Valley, and that is for strengthening bridges and
trying to mitigate the landslides.
Mr. DeFazio. So what you are thinking is the east side of
the Cascades will be less impacted, and then you would run
lifeline routes down through the Cascades down to where all the
people live.
Mr. Ashford. That is right. But even with that, all of the
routes to the coast would be shut down from bridge failure and
landslides, and all of U.S. Highway 101 would also be shut
down.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. That is a bit sobering.
Give me that list again of countries that have early
warning systems. I think you said Japan, China, Taiwan,
Romania.
Mr. Allen. That is right. Mexico and Taiwan.
Mr. DeFazio. Mexico, yeah. I saw a very dramatic, actually,
illustration of Mexico, which gives you the idea--I mean, the
fault, I guess, is quite close to Mexico City, but it was in a
TV station. Guy is broadcasting the news. He suddenly starts
talking very quickly. My Spanish isn't that good, but I get the
idea something is going on, and he talks for a full minute
before things start falling down in the studio, and he is
basically telling people to run for shelter. That is 1 minute
with approximate, let alone what you could do with a longer----
Mr. Allen. That is right. And the analogy to the Cascadia
Subduction Zone is exactly the right one in that it is offshore
subduction zone earthquakes that Mexico City is worried about.
Mexico City is onshore, and they have a little bit over a
minute's worth of warning, as you say.
In the case of the Pacific Northwest, the warning time will
increase with distance up or down, but the people who are
closest to the event would have less warning time, that is
right.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you.
And if we had this offshore, I mean, do have an estimate on
what an offshore? The Japanese are deploying offshore, so we
must--I mean, there is a known technology. Is that correct?
Mr. Allen. That is correct, yes.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And, obviously, since you have to lay a
cable, it is more expensive.
Mr. Allen. That is right.
Mr. DeFazio. And you have to put things on the sea floor.
So----
Mr. Allen. Yeah. I do not have a cost estimate that I can
tell you.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Allen. It is significantly more expensive than onshore,
and it is primarily because of putting out the offshore cable.
But there is no question that what that would allow us to do in
terms of early warning would be significant.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, I note that a--I can't remember who it
is--but some major cable company is going to lay a new super
fiber optic cable from Bandon to Asia. Maybe we can just run a
little splice off that, and maybe we should look into that and
see if we can somehow get spliced into that.
So I guess that is it, Mr. Chairman. I would just observe
that this is very, very shortsighted that we won't partner. My
State is ponying up a little money. We were gong to lose the
little bit of land-based detection we had now. It was
temporary, and it was going to be moved to Alaska, and I got
the State to put up, I think, $440,000 to buy the sensor in
place.
So States will be willing to partner, but this should be a
shared responsibility to build out a robust early warning
system, save lives. And it will save manufacturing processes.
It will potentially save the Metro system in Portland if they
aren't running the light rail over the bridges when the bridges
go down.
There will be one bridge that survives in Portland, which
happens to be the brand new light rail pedestrian bridge. It is
the only one probably that will survive. And that was a
substantial Federal investment partnering with the State.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Carson.
Mr. Carson. Thank you.
I am curious. There was a recent article in Science
magazine talking about the usage of GPS smart phones, to add on
to Ranking Member DeFazio's question, assisting in detecting
earthquakes essentially. Is it feasible that this technology
could be incorporated into the existing warning system? And at
what point, if you could project, when will our early
earthquake detection systems be compatible with cell phones and
other personal devices?
Mr. Allen. So yes. The answer is yes. It is feasible that
we could use the sensors in smart phones. The article that you
are talking about was actually trying to use the GPS sensor in
a smart phone.
There are also projects, including one at Berkeley, to use
the accelerometer in the cell phone. So now we are talking
about using the seismometer component and the GPS positioning
component.
So there are multiple projects out there that are exploring
this use. I lead one of them. So clearly I think that there is
real value to these systems. But I think it is important to
separate clearly the smart phone-based kind of systems from the
ShakeAlert demonstration system that we are running today.
The ShakeAlert demonstration system is using what we now
call traditional geophysical networks, which are hardened. They
are more robust. We know that they will work. We know that they
deliver warnings. They delivered warnings in the Napa
earthquake.
Cell phones, I believe, will help us improve the system in
the future, but that is very much a research undertaking at
this stage. It is not ready to start delivering public safety
alerts.
Mr. Carson. OK. Next question. Have the lessons learned
from the last year's National Level Exercise on the Alaska
earthquake scenario been compiled and publicly released? And,
generally, in your mind, what is FEMA's timeframe for compiling
and even publicly issuing lessons learned from that exercise to
ensure that plans can be improved and even tested in the next
exercise?
Mr. Fenton. Yes, sir. My understanding is the lessons
learned from last year's earthquake exercise have not been
fully released yet. However, we have released some summaries of
some of those lessons learned.
Just from the recent exercise last week with southern
California, there are a number of things that we are looking at
with regard to prioritization and movement of assets,
operational coordination, working with the private sector more
closely, international support, especially when it comes to
USAR and some of the legal issues there, and then some of the
planning issues that we have already seen.
We haven't waited for the official after-action report to
start taking action to improve on those lessons learned, and we
continue to do that.
Mr. Carson. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Ashford and Dr. Allen, what potential is there for
public-private partnerships to improve earthquake preparedness
and response? And do you have any examples of successful
partnerships that have emerged surrounding your particular
work?
Mr. Ashford. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.
I think one example is this Cascadia Lifelines Program that
we have established at Oregon State University. This was where
we have private companies together with State and Federal
agencies pooling research funds to address joint challenges
that all these lifeline providers face in the face of this
Cascadia event. And it is funded and directed by these
partners, both in the private sector as well as the public
sector.
Mr. Allen. And in the case of the earthquake early warning
effort, very much to build the fully effective system is a
public-private partnership. And what I mean by that is that we
see the geophysical networks that are run by Federal agencies,
State agencies, and universities, academic institutions,
providing the kernel of the alert. But it is the private sector
that is going to get that alert out to everybody most
effectively.
And so already we have partnerships with groups. Although
this is a demonstration system and it is not public, there are
groups who want to be participating in issuing the alerts,
companies that have cell phone apps, companies that use
dedicated radios like the NOAA weather radios, for example,
things like that.
And so the private sector is ready. When we have a public
system, when we put out these sensors, when we issue these
alerts, they are ready to then take it and deliver it to
everybody in a multitude of ways. And so that is really the
kind of private-sector part of the project.
Mr. Perry. So in that vein, could there be a public-private
partnership in terms of post-earthquake damage assessment
regarding the use of unmanned aerial systems? Have you looked
into that at all?
Mr. Ashford. Yeah. That is something that we at Oregon
State University, we have several experts on unmanned aerial
systems, and one of the things that we are considering is doing
post-earthquake evaluation of infrastructure using those UAVs.
Mr. Perry. And they would be by private entities as opposed
to, say, FEMA, for instance?
Mr. Ashford. Yeah. They could be by private entities.
Really, people would buy the UAVs to inspect their own
infrastructure. So private companies like Portland General
Electric, Northwest Natural Gas. I know that ODOT is also
considering buying UAVs to do their own inspections. But it
could be a private-sector company owns the UAVs and that they
are subcontracted out to the agencies.
Mr. Perry. Dr. Allen, any input?
Mr. Allen. So not with UAVs, no. I focus on the early
warning piece before the shaking. So that is not really
something I have knowledge of.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing, and the ranking member.
I live on the east coast and I have a stepdaughter on the
west coast, and I wanted to be here to hear this. And I heard
that you had in your research 140 recommendations that you were
able to determine would help. I don't think you are going to be
able to implement a lot of those recommendations because I
don't think there is a lot of money here for that.
But I was wondering, of those 140 recommendations, which
are the ones that are more reasonable and, quite frankly, less
costly to implement? And the reason I say that is because,
although it is different, in New Jersey we got hit by Sandy,
one of the things that we found out was that gas stations had
gas but had no electricity to pump it.
So I was wondering, a reasonable recommendation would be to
require these gas stations to have a generator. Can you just
talk a little bit about that?
Mr. Ashford. Sure. In my task force we took those 140
recommendations and we narrowed it down to about 15 that we
thought were the most important. And I will just give you three
examples.
Our most important recommendation from our task force was
for the Governor to appoint a chief resilience officer or
policy adviser, someone that would really take the lead on
resilience efforts in the State of Oregon. That is currently in
our Ways and Means Committee in the State and pending funding.
I think another example is one of our recommendations is to
change hazard preparedness literature to extend the
recommendation on how long people should be prepared to be on
their own from 72 hours to 2 weeks. Because of the geographical
distribution of the damage in these subduction zone events,
people should really be prepared for a couple of weeks to be
ready.
And I think the last thing, while there is a big price tag
on the retrofit of the transportation system, we are taking a
50-year horizon. And I think by starting now and taking our
time, I think that is not something we are trying to do all at
once, but hoping that we can gain that resilience by the time
that next earthquake hits.
Mr. Sires. Anybody else went to join in on anything?
What can we do to ensure that States are properly
developing building codes and enforcing them? Because I see the
Tornado Alley. I mean, these homes are made out of wood. I was
just wondering, what can we do to force the States to do a
better job with the building code?
Mr. Hooper. The majority of States actually have a building
code that they adopt voluntarily and then local jurisdictions
do it. So the vast majority have it. The issue on tornadoes is
that is a hazard that we do not design for. It is not one of
those natural hazards that the ASCE 7 deals with because the
return interval on a tornado hitting that house is, like,
100,000 years. It is just literally that act of God.
Mr. Sires. Yeah. But I was thinking in terms of where you
have a school. I mean, we should really make those schools a
place where the community gather if there is a catastrophe.
Mr. Hooper. You can do that with schools. They have had
some success in the Midwest in hardening schools and putting
safe rooms, big safe rooms in schools. So that technology is
available. But just the typical home or mobile home and things
like that, that will never be able survive a tornado hit.
Mr. Sires. But what I am looking for is what can we do to,
let's say, tell the State: Look, you have to make these
schools, that place where a community meets when there is a
catastrophe or in anticipation of one, safer.
Mr. Hooper. Why don't you go ahead.
Mr. Allen. So I guess one comment that I would have to sort
of both of these questions is that I think one of the real
challenges we face when it comes to all natural hazards is that
they don't come around very frequently. I mean, that is good
news, right? But the bad news is that it is very difficult,
therefore, to get people's attention when it comes to these
houses. And that is why these things don't get enforced very
effectively sometimes.
And this is actually, I think, one of the areas where the
earthquake early warning effort has a potential for a
significant broader impact. I mean, we would build an early
warning system in order to provide warnings. But early warning
has a cache with people because they can envision: Now I am
going to get a warning on my cell phone. This is something very
real. And we can use that interest to then leverage broader
preparedness for, in that case, the earthquake problem.
So I think what we have to do is kind of look for ways to
link together these various technology opportunities to also
get people's interest and to encourage individuals to take
responsibility to have the 2 weeks' worth of supplies or to
have a tornado shelter.
Mr. Sires. And, Dr. Allen, you said that you could evacuate
a school in 1\1/2\ minutes? I was a teacher for 10 years. I
would like to see that.
Mr. Allen. That was what the principal of a certain
school----
Mr. Sires. Well, you tell that principal I would like to
see that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
I will now recognize each Member for an additional 5
minutes of questions.
I will direct my question to Mr. Hooper, but then ask each
of you to weigh in, and I think we are sort of scratching the
surface of this question already.
This subcommittee has held a hearing and hosted a
roundtable discussion on the dramatic increase in disaster
costs and losses. We are working to identify opportunities to
drive down the costs of disasters, and particularly the burden
on the American taxpayer.
Mr. Hooper, I will start with you, but then open it up to
everyone. How can some of the work you are doing potentially
reduce disaster costs and losses in the United States?
Mr. Hooper. Well, we are continually improving the
knowledge and the design of how we deal with earthquakes and
other natural hazards. The key thing there is to implement that
correctly. The designers have to design the infrastructure and
the buildings correctly. ASCE 7, the document that everyone
uses can do that.
Then we have to get it built correctly. And so there is
also this side of making sure it gets constructed the way it
needs to be done.
But the other challenge we face, though, is the building
turnover, guys, is really short. It takes a long time, meaning
every year only one-half of 1 percent of the building stock
turns over, so that it will take time to implement better
design.
As I mentioned in my testimony, Cascadia did not exist in
our design world until 1994. That is probably less than 2 or 3
percent of buildings in the Pacific Northwest that have been
designed using that approach and that shaking hazard in mind.
So over time we will get better designs as the 50-year window,
as mentioned earlier, we will get better improvement just
through that window of the length of time.
And so there are a lot of different things happening, but I
think time is on our side as long as we continue to implement
good design and, very importantly, construction practices.
Mr. Allen. So I think that in the case of earthquake early
warning, the sort of cost-benefit argument of implementing a
system is a very straightforward argument. Some of the examples
of what you would save, I mentioned the Northridge earthquake,
we know that 50 percent of the injuries were caused by falling
hazards. If everybody was under a sturdy table having received
a warning, then we would halve the number of injuries. It is
estimated that the cost of just those injuries was $2 billion
to $3 billion.
When we think about the BART train system, each of the BART
trains themselves is worth $30 million. So if you just save 1
train, you have saved $30 million, never mind about the 1,000
passengers that might be on the system.
If we talk about schools that evacuate or other buildings
that evacuate, we are talking about both reducing the number of
fatalities and the number of injuries.
The list goes on. So in terms of the cost-benefit for an
early warning system, I think it is a real slam dunk.
Mr. Hooper. I would like to add one more comment as well.
I mentioned our performance goal is life safety. That is
the major thing in event of an earthquake, protect the people
within the building from being killed or seriously injured.
To help improve what we do economically, we need to up the
game. We need to shoot for enhanced performance above that
level if we really want to try to reduce costs. But in doing
that, that requires the building costs to go up as well for
anything that gets built new, upwards to 5 or 10 percent more
of the construction costs in a school or a highrise or
something like that. It doesn't sound like much, but sometimes
that is the tipping point between the developer saying yes to a
project and no to a project.
But that is something we should dialogue on because to be
resilient, to be quite honest, we do need to have better
performance in just the life safety that we target today.
Mr. Costello. Anyone else?
Mr. Ashford. Yeah. I think that if you look at earthquake
research and you look at wise use of taxpayer dollars, I will
give you a couple of examples where research has saved millions
of dollars with a huge return on the investment.
An example in Oregon. Oregon Department of Transportation
invested in about a $2 million research program at Oregon State
University ultimately saving $500 million in a bridge retrofit
program carried out in the last decade.
Another example, for our Cascadia Lifelines Program, we are
looking at innovative ways to retrofit old buildings, old
masonry structures, that we, rather than having to tear down a
structure, we can retrofit it, leave it in place, and again
save millions of dollars.
Mr. Fenton. Sir, I would just add, codes and standards, I
agree with. Through our NEHRP program we do a lot to establish
standards to help improve the building codes across the
country. There is an enormous amount of literature we provide
that is used by the construction companies. This public
education is used to make them aware of the threats and to show
them what to do when these threats happen.
Mitigation, whether it is building back stronger or moving
individuals out of harm's ways, is critically important.
I think some of the new authorities we got after Sandy with
regard to 424 allow us to, when we build back, to go ahead and
build mitigation into those projects at a higher rate than
previously before to build more resiliency.
Mr. Costello. Thank you for your answers there.
Mr. Carson?
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman.
My final question, is there anything that Congress can do
specifically to encourage the private sector to incorporate
seismic measures and infrastructure repairs and replacement?
Mr. Ashford. I think that one of the things we are looking
at in Oregon, especially with our private utilities, is
allowing them to recover the cost in their rate base, allowing
them to recover the costs not only of the risk assessment, but
also their mitigation efforts. And that is some of our
recommendations from our task force report, and those are
things that are pending in front of the Oregon legislature.
I would say that you could do the same thing for federally
regulated utilities.
Mr. Carson. OK. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Costello. Thank you for your valuable testimony. Your
comments have been helpful to today's discussion. If there are
no further questions, I would ask unanimous consent that the
record of today's hearing remain open until such time as our
witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be
submitted to them in writing and unanimous consent that the
record remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and
information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in
the record of today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
I would like to once again thank our witnesses for their
testimony today.
If no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]