|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
THE NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE
HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM
AT TWENTY-FIVE YEARS:
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND
C HALLE N GE S
As ST RA CT
The purpose of the 7th Disasters Roundtable workshop, held on February 20, 2003, was to review
the accomplishments and challenges of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) on
its 25th anniversary. Many program accomplishments were noted, including advances in earthquake
monitoring and mapping, in research resulting in the design and construction of seismic-resistant buildings
and lifelines in risk-prone areas, and in research enabling the development of more effective emergency
response and recovery systems. These and other achievements were made possible in part because NEHRP
furthered the integration of earthquake science and earthquake engineering and worked with stakeholders
throughout the nation. Despite such accomplishments, it was also noted that many challenges still lie ahead.
Challenges discussed included the need to bridge the gap between research and applications, to overcome
decreased funding levels, and to continue to attract support in an era in which homeland security has become
a dominant concern for decision makers and others. Because of the time constraints imposed by a one-day
meeting, some accomplishments and challenges were considered at length, while others could only be briefly
mentioned in preparation for further discussion at other venues.
INT RO D UCTIO N
The Disasters Roundtable~ (DR) held its seventh public workshop on February 20, 2003 at the
National Academy of Sciences building in Washington, D.C. At this one-day workshop, accomplishments of
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) over the last 25 years were reviewed and the
present and future challenges of the program were discussed.
The 1977 Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act (Pub. L. 95-124) was created to reduce risks of life and
property from future earthquakes in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an
effective earthquake hazards reduction program. A series of devastating earthquakes, including the 1964
earthquake in lyric Willis Sum Algal and the 1971 Still l4ernantlr' C~lifx~ia earthauake resulted in
~ ~ 1 ~
~ 'l'hc National Research Council defines a "roundtable" as a type of convening activity of the National Academies that provides a means for
representatives of government, industry, and academia to gather periodically for the identification and discussion of issues of mutual concern. In
contrast to National Research Council study committees and other committees of the National Academies, roundtables are intended solely to enable
dialogue and discussion among leek leaders and representatives on a particular issue. They provide a valuable forum for exchanging information and for
the presentation of individual views. IIowever, because roundtablcs are not subject to institutional rcquireme~nts concerning conflicts of interest,
composition, and balance that apply to NRC committees, roundtables are prohibited by the National Academies from providing any advice or
recommendation. 'this paper presents the rapporteur's summary of the forum discussions and does not necessarily reflect the views of the roundtablc
members or other participants.
. . .
OCR for page 2
loss of life and cost millions in property damage. At this time there was also growing excitement and
optimism among scientists about the feasibility of short-term earthquake prediction (NRC, 1976~. In 1976
the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy AS lilts formed the Newmark-Stever2 Committee,
which was tasked to formulate a program to study and respond to seismic hazards in Southern California and
later expanded to include issues on the nationwide earthquake threat. Among the committee's
recommendations was the establishment of a national program that, underpinned by research, would lead to
the reduction of earthquake risks to life and property. Originally, the law authorized the U.S. Geological
Survey (l':i( ~~) and the National Science Foundation (ASIA) to participate in NEHRP. In the 1980
.1 · . - .1 ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ /~-t ~ .! ~ \ 1 · 1
reautnor~zanon, the recrera~ emergency management Agency <~ ., wn~cn was formed in 1979, was
designated as the lead agency (Public Law 96-472, October 19, 1980) to coordinate activities of the program.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NISI) was also designated as a participating agency. All
four agencies (USGS, FEMA, NIST, and NSF) currently make up NEHRP. The program is charged with
furthering research on earthquake science, earthquake engineering and social science research related to
earthquakes, and implementation efforts related to improving building and infrastructure performance during
earthquakes and more effective emergency response, recovery and reconstruction. NEHRP remains the
federal government's primary effort to reduce earthquake risks and has been reauthorized by Congress eight
times since 1977.4 NEHRP is up for reauthorization again in 2003.
The DR steering committee selected an interdisciplinary group of speakers and panelists (See
for flee a,~,e~cla ~ t~~-~r s~-~e.~e~s bios) for this one-day workshop to discuss the
accomplishments of the program in the past quarter of a century and address the issues and challenges
NEHRP faces in the light of reauthorization, budget constraints, changing priorities of government, advances
in science and technology, and the changing social landscape. Approximately 100 people participated in the
workshop (See .\t3~3er~clix 13 fair ~ list ot ~e~-,istra~rx>.
O., O c'
1 \ 1 1
PERSPECTIVES OF NEHRP AGENCIES
This sermon ureas a moderated doctor featuring high lerelpoligy makers in the NEHRP agencies focusing on both
issues as how the program fits into their agencies ' missions, program accomplishments in the past 25years, andf~t~re challenges.
Peter Freeman, Assistant Director of the Computer Information Sciences and Engineering
Directorate (CISE), National Science Foundation CASES, explained NSF's role in NEHRP as one of
investing in people, ideas, and technologies. As part of its contribution to NEHRP, NSF supports earthquake
research at the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research at the State University of New
York at Buffalo, the Mid-America Earthquake Center at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center at the University of California at Berkeley, and the Southern
California Earthquake Center at the University of Southern California. Other important earthquake related
investments by NSF include A, which is a network of geophysical instruments and observatories,
and the George E. Brown, in Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation ~) program, a
nationwide distributed system of laboratories for collaborative experimental earthquake engineering research
that is scheduled for full operation in 2004.
2 Nathan Newmarl<, a \vorld recognized leader in carthqual~e engineering research from the University of Illinois, and Guyford Stevcr, President
Gerald l~ord's science adviser (1974-1977), and head of the National Science l oundation oversaw the preparation of the resulting rapport (US(,S, 199G).
3 J'l~MA has been organized undoer the new Department of l-Ic~mcland Security. I l-,MA interacts with the new science and technology directorate
within the [Department of l-Ic~mcland Security.
~ Se`e Appendix; A off O'l'A, 1995 for discussion of change`s in the program. Also talc NS'I'C, 199G for a brief summary of principal accomplishments of
Nl 'HRP.
2
OCR for page 3
Freeman emphasized that the biggest challenge of earthquake science and engineering at NSF is the
effective integration of earthquake relevant research and tools across its directorates: engineering, natural and
physical sciences, social and behavioral science, and computer information science and engineering. Part of
the annual budget of CISE is dedicated to researching information technology models related to extreme
events. As part of its NEHRP activity, NSF funds post-earthquake investigations. This has provided needed
experience for responding to willful disasters the nation now faces. Immediately after the September 11
terrorist attacks, NSF directorates issued more than a dozen awards for projects to examine various aspects of
the disaster. Subsequently, additional awards were made and of the current total of 137 awards, 16 were for
studies on critical infrastructures funded by CISE. Freeman explained that there is a need for greater
integration of research on earthquakes and that improved data collection on the subject will not have
maximum impact unless advanced computing technology and computational software are applied to manage
and process these data. Further, there is a need for improved computing and communication capabilities to
prepare for extreme events and for crisis management.
Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
outlined ongoing NEHRP activities at NIST, such as that related to seismic design and construction
standards, earthquake resistant construction, interagency committee coordination, and code evaluation
activities. NIST is involved in both basic research and applied engineering. After a disaster, NIST's role is to
determine which construction designs were successful and which construction designs failed. NIST works
closely with its private sector industrial partners and stakeholders to help fill the technology transfer gap and
to develop new technologies such as hybrid pre-cast concrete structural designs, which is being done in
collaboration with both private industry and academia. Currently, there are about 120 projects at NIST that
involve wide-ranging issues, including homeland security. Much of NIST's research experience is being
directly applied to the investigation of the World Trade Center building performance following the
September 11, 2001 attack. For example, among other things, the agency is providing information about
bomb effects, which can shed light on the impacts of the loads on the building induced by the terrorist attack,
and helping to review designs to rebuild at the World Trade Center site. NIST not only carries out research to
improve and modernize building and fire codes but also dispatches held teams to disaster sites involving Ore,
earthquakes and other types of disaster agents.
Charles G. Groat, Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), reported that 5% (amount in
2002 dollars) of the USGS budget is dedicated to earthquake research. The mission of USGS is to advance
earth science and to help minimize the effects of disaster, thus this mission supports the goals of NEHRP.
Great leaps in technology have helped in the deployment of better seismographic detectors and in the
development of better "I" (maps of shaking intensity from earthquakes) each of which helps
improve disaster response. New scientific advances have greatly improved the ability of experts to measure
and map earthquakes, process digital data and provide almost real-time analysis. For example, the NSF-
funded l .~rt}~Scope program coupled with the USGS's Laced Nation Seismic S:~ste~n (ANSS) program
1 ~ 1 . ~ ~ 1 ~
is expected to make significant contributions to NEHRP. It is important to distinguish the two programs
from each other. While the USGS-funded ANSS is being built as a nationwide network of at least 7,000
shaking measurement systems that will make it possible to provide real-time earthquake information and
building and site responses, the NSF-funded EarthScope Program is a network that will attempt to apply
modern observational, analytical and telecommunications technologies to investigate the structure and
evolution of the North American continent and the physical processes controlling earthquakes and volcanic
eruptions. Both programs are models for federal-state-university collaboration.5 Groat pointed to a number
of other accomplishments under NEHRP, including advances in hazard assessment and in
-5 leer discussions Off ANSS and l-,arthScope see boxes 6-1 and G-2 of N1(C, 2002.
3
OCR for page 4
(the geologic study of the past behavior of acitve faults), the latter having extended the history of seismic
events back thousands of years. Among the challenges facing NEHRP he noted were the need to operate in
an environment in which homeland security is a dominant issue and the need to work extra hard to show the
continuing significance of earthquake research and ~itgai~on efforts. The upcoming NEHRP reauthorization
hearing may provide an opportunity for showcasing the continuing importance of earthquake research and
mtiigaiton efforts. Giving necessary attention to earthquake prediciton, which had cooled off for at least the
last dozen years or so, was seen as another challenge facing NEHRP. Groat also emphasized the need for
the USGS to have closer ites with social scieni~sts, particularly economists, with the private sector, and with
the disaster management community. (For an expanded summary of earth science accomplishments in hazard
mapping see, Frankel et al., 2000 and Leyendecker et al., 2000~.
, , ~
Anthony S. Lowe, Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mii~gaiton Administration, Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), pointed to a number of accomplishments of NEHRP during
the past 25 years, including advanced knowledge on how faults behave, the development of seismic building
standards and guidelines, and advances In the research infrastructure as exemplified by the earthquake
research centers and the development of the Network for Earthquake Engineering Sin~ulai~on program. He
indicated that because of its successes, NEHRP is relevant to countering the threat of terrorism as well as
earthquakes, and therefore the program should operate in an all hazards environment.
Lowe sees a number of challenges facing NEHRP in the years ahead. He suggested that the program
should become more performance based, with increasing attention given to ~mplementaiton as well as
research. Another challenge he sees is the need for NEHRP to give more attention to research coordination,
and a group will soon be formed to consider this issue. Lowe sees funding as one of the most significant
challenges facing NEHRP. He emphasized that there is a need for a separate budget for NEHRP aci~viiies In
all of the four paritcipai~ng agencies. Lowe stressed that agencies should set forth a budget system that Ices all
dollars to missions and goals to address concerns regarding coordination, strategic planning, and other issues
expressed by Congress. Despite the many accomplishments of the program, For the last 25-years NEHRP's
funding has generally been flat (which is a 1/3 loss in value due to inflai~on). Thus the NEHRP budget has
declined in constant dollars (see Figure 1) (NRC, 20025. If this budget pattern continues, NEHRP work will
have to be more effective and efficient in order to produce worthwhile results. Lowe believes that NEHRP
may provide a sound organizing principle for other programs in a similar budget predicament.
NEHRP Funding 1978-2002
c
c ~
~ co
,, —
rL ·—
I —
z
Year ~ N N
Annual NEHRP Funding
978 Dollars ~
Biannual NEHRP Funding
Annuai NEHRP Funding
(1978 Doliars)
FIGURE 1 NEHRP Funding 1978-2002. (Presented by Craig Wingo, FENIA)
4
OCR for page 5
PUTTING NEHRP TO USE
This Decor Revolved d'~-G~srion or the accomplishments and challenges of~zmplement`ng NEHRP from the perspective of private
sector and gorerr~mer~t Take holder-.
Ellis M. Stanley, Sr., General Manager of the Emergency Preparedness Department of the City
of Los Angeles, discussing his department's goal of making Los Angeles more disaster resistant, underscored
the importance of partnerships with local communities to help communities better understand their role in
earthquake preparedness. Assisting communities to have a better understanding of their earthquake risks and
formulate options for mitigation is one of NEHRP's most promising implementation activities (OTA, 1995~.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency works with community redevelopment efforts in Los Angeles
to build a model for earthquake preparedness and mitigation. The initiatives of FEMA and California's
Citizens Corps have also advanced this cause, along with local chapters of the American Red Cross and the
Allstate Insurance Company. Aside from NEHRP, the city also collaborates with private institutions on
earthquake related safety. The Institute for Business and Home Safety, a major private insurance company
supported organization, has also helped promote non-structural earthquake hazard mitigation in Los Angeles.
.
An Important part of the Los Angeles Emergency Preparedness Department's program Is to examine
building codes, restrict unsafe building activity, and identify high-risk structures- based on NEHRP
Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings. They use support tools such as HAZUS for
computer simulation of earthquake damage, ETEAM simulation maps, and GIS decision analysis. The
department's Community Emergency Response Teams train people at the local level, by supporting hrst
responders, aiding disaster victims, and engaging in non-emergency project work. The department also uses
incident management approaches and corporate information sharing (e.g., traffic and weather) to improve
emergency preparedness.
Lloyd S. Cluff, Director of the Geosciences Department, Pacific Gas and Electric (PO&EN
reviewed earthquake related achievements since NEHRP's creation
\ ,
~ in the areas of paleoseismic
investigations, earthquake forecasting and ShakeMaps, national hazard maps, characterizing surface fault
rupture effects and near ground motions, and regional hazard assessments. He noted that one
accomplishment of NEHRP is its lifeline (i.e., those essential utility and transportation systems that serve
communities across all jurisdictions and locales) research efforts (American Lifelines Alliance, 2003~. For
example, using the results of NEHRP research, the t+~(~S fling, (~-~:-~ on ( alifornia l~arthquake
I'~>I',~:iti~ies is able to move away from short-term predictions and to make regional earthquake probability
forecasts (see Figure 29. Figure 2 shows a 70 percent probability of earthquake occurrence in the San
Francisco Bay region and more intensely in the areas of Hayward and Rodgers Creek faults, which is part of
PG&E service area. Cluff emphasized that PG&E recognizes the importance of public-private partnerships
in providing seismic safety. PO&E, under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA)
on earthquake hazards with USGS, has integrated its strong motion instruments with USGS' ANSS. PG&E
also participates in the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center's Lifelines User-Driven Research
Programed and the FEMA-sponsored American Lifelines Alliance7. Along with other corporations, PG&E
has provided funding support for earthquake disaster reduction efforts to help offset the NEHRP budget
erosion caused by inflation.
7 Other members include USGS, NIS 14, the US Bureau of Reclamation, Federal I Iighway Administration, waste\\7ater organizations,
telecommunication organizations, and the Michael Balker Corporation.
OCR for page 6
Chris Poland, chairman and president of
Degenkolb Engineers, traced the development and
contributions of NEHRP efforts that are relevant to
structural engineering related to both new and existing
buildings. An example of the NEHRP sponsored process for
the development of codes and guidance for structural
engineering related to existing buildings can be mapped from
American Technology Council (ATC) 14, "Evaluating the
Seismic Resistance of Existing Buildings" to FEMA 178,
"NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings", to the third generation of evaluation technology in
FEMA 310, "Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of
Buildings: A Prestandard". This process is used for most
codes that are now being developed and has now accelerated
the transfer of new knowledge into the practice. In discussing
past NEHRP accomplishments, Poland noted that advanced
analysis procedures for buildings have been developed. But
much more work is needed, for example to stop
strengthening buildings that do not need strengthening and
focus on those that do need it. He also pointed to new
structural systems have been developed and applied through
NEHRP, leading to a reduction in the "brute strength
method". Poland emphasized that there is a need to take a
more holistic approach to seismic safety as "a matter of
public welfare, which involves the potential for loss of life or
injury, disruption of lifeline systems, and costs to insurers,
property owners, and governments for earthquake losses and recovery" (EERI, 2003~. In this regard, the
NEHRP should also find ways to bridge the gap between the public and design professionals by
understanding better the public decision making process and the role it plays in designing building that can
repel damages. Poland suggested that it is now time to pick up the pace of activities because the vulnerability
of the nation is growing. This will require practicing engineers working more closely with engineering
researchers funded through NEHRP.
~ ,~ ~~ I: :X, ~ ~!i ~ )~ '. " ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~= ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ '::
-- -- N~ ~~ ~~f-~sr~inc==r~:;
~':5''~$'~ ~ ' '; . ..--. ~~ 0t ~~e~n~ ~ ~—n taught ~ ~ hi;
~~--~.~.~ ii~'~x'~-~'r~
:::: :::::: :~: ~ :: : :~: :: ~ ~ :::: :::: :: ::
,~.,,.,.i,,,,,,,,i.',,'.,,.,:~; : ~~:~ ~ ':::
~~ .. .~ i- E,F~nd~ll~ urban Amp-;
: I: ~ ~ : ~:~-~ .
:: ~ ::
.~ ~~ - ~0
::~ :~: : :~ B.7 or greaser q~eX`-~ -
before 2030 on the ~~:~ ~~.
Mated fault :~::~
A: :~ :
A, Ads for faults that ,`
i: ... f At prev,~u~y CHILI
fly pr3=bili~y Patties ~~;
, ~ . :. ~ In: a,
. S ~ /.~3 .
. I qua;,`;e o~ - vie
~10~ fits sit segmer~:5 ~ ~ ~~
I ~~1t prob3blssi<~ie~ 4~ ~?
~~nce~ain by in t~o 10~ ;_,]
FIGURE 2 San Francisco Bay Region
earthquake probability. Source: USGS Working
Group on California Earthquake Prediction,
1 999.
Clifford Roblee, Chief of Applied Geotechnical and Ground Motion Research at the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), discussed some of the challenges facing NEHRP from the
standpoint of transportation users of the information and technology generated by the program. Several
NEHRP innovations have been diffused to and adopted by the transportation user community, but much
remains to be done. The NEHRP program is generally appreciated for the quality of its researchers, facilities,
and educational and training programs, but needs to improve the transparency of the overlapping agency
roles and overcome the relatively insular nature of the earthquake research community. Roblee noted that the
earthquake research community is a vibrant research network with a high level of scientific innovation and
discovery. However, he also indicated that the applied engineering research community has generally not
kept pace with the science; thus bridging the gap between researchers and practitioners is a major challenge
for NEHRP. The NEHRP research community must shift from a 'science based' discovery-centered
orientation toward a greater emphasis on 'applied-engineering based' research and implementation in order to
rapidly improve mitigation. Applied research should focus on issues such as systematically gathering basic
data used in existing models, verification and calibration of existing engineering models, consensus building
and test applications. Roblee also identified the need to get end-users much more involved in NEHRP
strategic planning and programmatic decisions to assure applicability to practice. He suggests identifying a
6
OCR for page 7
percentage of research funding to be prioritized exclusively by end users rather than by researchers. He
pointed to the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center's Lifelines Program as a good example of
how both researchers and users can be brought together to advance seismic safety.
PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE FRONTIERS IN RESEARCH
DISGH]JiO~ I~ this eon focused on NENFRI~ accomplishments arid challenges from the perspective of the science, engineering and
social science research communities.
Thomas Jordan, W. M. Neck Professor of Geological Sciences and director of the Southern
California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, noted that one of NEHRP's major
achievements has been promoting the integration of earthquake science and earthquake engineering, resulting
in a more coordinated system level science. He expressed hope that the transformation of the field into a
system-level science will help close the implementation gap that exists in earthquake research and engineering
practice. He maintained that researchers must look globally at earthquakes in order to better understand U.S.
earthquakes. A better understanding is needed to determine how the earth is deforming to cause seismic
events. Before and after studies of earthquake deformation may now be easier to conduct given advances in
Satellite Assisted Research (SAR) imaging. Given the immense potential of these technologies, Jordan
suggested that researchers may be closer to better prediction of strong ground motions. People need to
appreciate that "risk" equals hazard multiplied by exposure multiplied by fragility. Therefore, accurate
intensity maps are necessary along with deployment of more and better seismometers.
Jordan noted that in the United States, only 129 people have perished in earthquakes since 1980.
However, earthquake fatalities worldwide over the same period exceed 200,000. Collecting and saving
perishable earthquake data are necessary to better understanding the history of earthquake occurrences.
Jordan noted that economic losses from earthquakes are rising rapidly, and this in part stems from immense
growth in buildings and infrastructure.
Jordan reviewed some of what the science has yet to know about earthquakes. There is no physical
theory to explain why earthquakes start and stop. There is lack of understanding of near-fault rupture and
there is little known about the interaction between faults. However, advances in earthquake science have
driven earthquake motion data collection and dissemination to near "real-time." While there are uncertainties
about when large earthquakes will occur, the science has a good understanding of where earthquakes are likely
to happen. Earthquake prediction has not yet reached a statistically reliable level, though researchers have
made significant progress in explaining more about how faults work, in a direction where prediction is
approaching statistically reliable levels on decadal terms or shorter.
Jordan stressed the importance of education and outreach. Researchers in seismology, geodesy,
geology, geotechnical engineering, and rock mechanics need to promote integrated, multi-disciplinary studies
of the earthquake phenomenon similar to "distributed collaboratories" used by climate science researchers.
Jordan noted that substantially more investment in earthquake research is required and that the Advanced
National Seismic System (ANSS) should be one of the nation's highest science priorities.
Thomas D. O'Rourke, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University and
president of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute discussed accomplishments and challenges
in earthquake engineering research. He indicated that nationwide research programs of the type supported by
NEHRP have helped the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issue guidelines on new building
and structures: FEMA 36,8/36'3, which set forth model seismic regulations for new buildings and FEMA
35G/3~7, which focus on seismic retrofitting of existing buildings. O'Rourke pointed to HAZUS, the
7
OCR for page 8
OCR for page 10
Representative terms from entire chapter:
earthquake engineering
national loss estimation methodology, as another major accomplishment of NEHRP. He also mentioned
progress in the A, work on lifeline systems, underground construction technology advances,
and geographic information technologies. However, he said more work is needed in spite of the progress that
has been made over the years. This is reflected in the fact that estimated losses in the 1994 Northridge
earthquake exceed $20 billion. (I
activity will be integrated into the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). He recommends that
researchers identify NEHRP work that contributes to specific DHS goals. There are great opportunities that
NEHRP interests will kind new partners within the OHS community.
As a future direction, Wingo proposed the formation of a new NEHRP subcommittee that would
coordinate research activities across the four participating agencies. The chairpersonship would rotate among
the agencies. One of the roles of the subcommittee would be to develop a more coordinated research agenda
to maximize the existing and emerging resources of NIST, NSF, USGS and FEMA, such as NEES and
ANSS. Wingo commented on the need to develop metrics to better measure program progress. He also
noted that one of the major challenges facing NEHRP is developing effective incentives that motivate
stakeholders to engage in sound seismic mitigation.
Wingo stressed that FEMA was committed to leading the completion of the NEHRP strategic plan.
Such planning is critical since NEHRP budget for its activities has not kept up with inflation. Such planning
should give increased attention to the need for interagency coordination and furthering and expediting the
flow of research results into practice.
~ O
[ohn Filson directs the U.S. Geological Survey's Earthquake Hazards Program. He pointed to
several advances under NEHRP, including improved hazard monitoring and the development of
paleoseismology. NEHRP is very important to USGS's work and as such the agency has a budget line item
for NEHRP activities. In terms of future directions, Filson pointed out that more NEHRP research is
needed in Alaska and the northeast; and that increased attention should be given to laying the scientific
groundwork for earthquake prediction, which will require some initial strategic thinking. He also indicated
that funding for ANSS was a major priority for USGS. In relation to this, the National Research Council has
~ O ~
been asked to conduct a study on the benefits and costs of this system (ANSS).
Filson noted that NEHRP faces management and other major challenges. He said NEHRP requires
strong leadership with a stronger program oversight from Congress. Congressional authorization and
appropriation committee staffs must collaborate in addressing NEHRP. He also called for the creation of
national and regional NEHRP platforms, venues, or opportunities that would allow stakeholders to get
together to discuss their needs.
Priscilla Nelson, senior advisor in the Directorate for Engineering at NSF, saw a number of
major challenges facing NEHRP. These include providing adequate funding for research to be carried out
through NEES he and wow ~c ~ ~) implementing the ~2~ understanding
, ,
the human dynamics of earthquake hazard reduction, and furthering performance-based engineering. Nelson
said that one of the highest priorities for the program should be to develop an integrated cross-agency
program that enables the earthquake community to make progress in research leading to hazards reduction,
and that effectively implements the NEHRP strategic plan. NEHRP agencies also need to develop a strategy
for making the case to the Office of Management and Budget that the program deserves strong support.
Nelson pointed out other priority needs including increased multi-hazard activities (especially involving the
social sciences), a greater incorporation of information technology into research and related activities, more
international cooperation, and increased attention to earthquake hazard reduction workforce needs.
Shyam Sunder, chief of the Materials and Construction Research Division in NIST's Building and
Fire Research Laboratory, noted that when NEHRP was created federal construction activities became part
of the program's concern. Thus, NEHRP's Interagency Committee for Seismic Safety in Construction
(ICSSC) was formed in 1978, which NIST has chaired since 1982. A major success for NEHRP has been the
development of provisions for seismic safety for existing and new buildings, an effort in which NIST had a
key role. Sunder noted that NIST was recently given new authority to investigate building failures, which is
similar to responsibilities the National Transportation Safety Board has for investigating major transportation
9
accidents. In this capacity, NIST operates as a neutral third party. NIST is researching the problem of
progressive building collapse with the aim to promote retrofitting to prevent failures caused by multiple
agents.
Sunder noted that one of the major challenges facing NEHRP is the promotion of improved lifeline
seismic codes. He indicated that a private sector partnership is working to develop such codes with FEMA
funding and the ICSSC is working to do the same for federal lifelines. Comparing damages from different
disasters, he pointed out that while the United States annualized losses for wind damage is about $8 billion,
and about $12 billion for fire damage, earthquake damages are about $4 billion, but a single earthquake event
can exceed $100 billion in damages.
REFLECTIONS ON NEHRP
Th~sfir~al seizors Molted reflections or the program by a senior Take/older.
Robert A. Olson, president of Robert Olson Associates, reviewed the legislative history of
NEHRP. He took special note of the role of NEHRP's congressional champions, A,
(~o~p,ress~nan C,e(~4,e 1 . 1317~:~) and (~O114,FeSS11]aI] (~1eS if. FL`~'sher who formed an advocacy coalition
, ,
that built political support for the program. Olson asserted that the 1964 Great Alaska Earthquake was a
watershed event that helped propel national earthquake research. This interest was later reinforced by the
losses caused by the 1971 San Fernando earthquake.
Reflecting on his own knowledge and drawing on comments made earlier during the workshop,
Olson made several observations about NEHRP:
· In terms of real dollars, NEHRP's purchasing power has declined steadily to the level where
essential program activities are being sacrificed because appropriations have not kept pace at least with
inflation. Additionally, the community has identified other important needs that will further risk reduction if
funding is provided.
· FEMA was assigned the leadership role in NEHRP in 1980. How the leadership role will be
carried out now that FEMA is a part of the Department of Homeland Security is a concern for many in the
earthquake community.
· In addition to the four NEHRP agencies, many federal agencies, such as Department of Defense,
Department of Veterans Affairs, and General Services Administration, are directly involved in construction,
which in many areas deals with earthquake risks. While NEHRP acknowledges these agencies, mechanisms
for integrating these other risk reduction activities would increase seismic safety in the nation.
· A significant gap exists between the production and utilization of knowledge. There is a real need
to reduce this gap through the program and quicken the pace of knowledge application.
· NEHRP agency representatives work in very complex and competitive environments. The
agencies housing NEHRP activities have other missions and priorities. Thus any changes to NEHRP must
be sensitive to these environments and address the organizational and financial capabilities needed to
implement them successfully.
· Earthquake forecasting has been a useful tool in furthering community mitigation and
preparedness actions. Perhaps earthquake prediction deserves to be revisited, especially given the advances
that have been made in forecasting, accumulated knowledge in the earth sciences, and in relevant technology.
10
