SUSTAINABLE CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS

A FRAMEWORK FOR MEETING 21ST CENTURY IMPERATIVES

Report of a Workshop

Toward Sustainable Critical Infrastructure Systems: Framing the Challenges Workshop Committee

Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 R1
SUSTAINABLE CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS A FRAMEWORK FOR MEETING 21ST CENTURY IMPERATIVES Report of a Workshop Toward Sustainable Critical Infrastructure Systems: Framing the Challenges Workshop Committee Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report was supported by Sponsor Award No. W912HQ-06-P-0089 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Sponsor Contract No. CMMI-0751285 between the National Academy of Sci- ences and the National Science Foundation; Grant No. UPTV-8510 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Construction Industry Institute; and the Presidents’ Committee of the National Academies (NRC-8868). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organiza- tions or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-13792-8 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-13792-6 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www. nap.edu. Copyright 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal govern- ment on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the char- ter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstand- ing engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate profes - sions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engi- neering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
T O WA R D S U S T A I N A B L E C R I T I C A L INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS: FRAMING THE CHALLENGES WORKSHOP COMMITTEE DAVID J. NASH, Chair, Dave Nash and Associates, Birmingham, Alabama E. SARAH SLAUGHTER, Vice Chair, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MASSOUD AMIN, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MARK EBERHART, Colorado School of Mines, Golden HENRY J. HATCH, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (retired), Oakton, Virginia SUE McNEIL, University of Delaware, Newark ROBERT PRIETO, Fluor Corporation, Princeton, New Jersey GARRET P. WESTERHOFF, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (chairman emeritus), Fairlawn, New Jersey S ta f f LYNDA STANLEY, Study Director KEVIN LEWIS, Senior Program Officer HEATHER LOZOWSKI, Financial Associate TERI THOROWGOOD, Administrative Coordinator 

OCR for page R1
BOaRD ON INfRaStRUCtURE aND tHE CONStRUCtED ENVIRONMENt DAVID J. NASH, Chair, Dave Nash and Associates, Birmingham, Alabama JESUS de la GARZA, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg REGINALD DesROCHES, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta DENNIS DUNNE, dddunne & associates, Scottsdale, Arizona BRIAN ESTES, U.S. Navy (retired), Williamsburg, Virginia PAUL FISETTE, University of Massachusetts, Amherst LUCIA GARSYS, Hillsborough County, Florida THEODORE C. KENNEDY, BE&K, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama PETER MARSHALL, Dewberry Company, Norfolk, Virginia DEREK PARKER, Anshen+Allen Architects, San Francisco, California JAMES PORTER, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, Delaware E. SARAH SLAUGHTER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge WILLIAM WALLACE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York S ta f f GARY FISCHMAN, Director LYNDA STANLEY, Senior Program Officer KEVIN LEWIS, Senior Program Officer HEATHER LOZOWSKI, Financial Associate TERI THOROWGOOD, Administrative Coordinator LAURA TOTH, Program Assistant i

OCR for page R1
Preface Much has been written in the past 20 years about the deteriorating condition and quality of the nation’s roads and bridges and its power and water systems and about the trillions of dollars that it will take to fix them. The issues, however, are much more complex: How we as a nation choose to renew our infrastructure systems in the coming years will help determine the quality of life for future generations. It will also help deter- mine our success in meeting other national challenges, includ- ing those of remaining economically competitive, reducing our dependence on imported oil, and dealing with issues related to global climate change, national security, and disaster resilience. Many of the ideas and much of the information in this report were generated at a workshop held May 7 and 8, 2008, at the National Academies in Washington, D.C. In the time between the workshop and the completion of this report, global and domestic financial markets and systems have faltered in ways reminiscent of the 1930s. An economic stimulus package has been approved that includes funding for some infrastructure projects. Nonetheless, the message of this report—that a paradigm shift is needed in how the nation thinks about, builds, operates, and invests in critical infrastructure systems in the long term—is more relevant than ever. The terms critical infrastructure and sustainability are frequently used in different contexts. In this report, critical infrastructure refers to the water, wastewater, power, transportation, and telecommu- ii

OCR for page R1
nications systems—sometimes called lifeline systems—without which buildings, emergency response systems, dams, and other infrastructure cannot operate as intended. Sustainability is broadly defined to mean the ability of systems to meet the needs of current and future generations by being physically resilient, cost-effective, environmentally viable, and socially equitable. In recent years, many organizations and individuals have called attention to the deteriorating condition of our infrastruc- ture and have offered solutions for renewing it. At this time, however, the United States does not have a vision or concept of, or stated objectives for, the future configuration, level of per- formance, or level of services that critical infrastructure systems should provide. Current local, regional, and national policies, processes, and practices are structured to treat these systems as stand-alone entities even though they are interdependent and the solutions chosen to “fix” one system will affect the others. Lack- ing an overall strategy for infrastructure renewal and focusing on one system, one issue, or one problem at a time, the nation runs the risk of wasting increasingly scarce resources and of creating new problems for future generations. In addition, the nation has not yet fully considered how criti- cal infrastructure system renewal can be leveraged to help meet other national challenges, especially economic competitiveness, global climate change, national security, energy independence, and disaster resiliency. Although not intuitive, the linkages between these challenges and critical infrastructure systems are real and significant. Power, transportation, water, and tele- communications are the basis for producing and delivering goods and services that are key to economic competitiveness, emergency response and recovery, and quality of life. These sys- tems also account for 69 percent of the nation’s total energy use and for more than 50 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions linked to global climate change (EIA, 2008b). Because the infrastructure systems in the United States are deteriorating and require significant reinvestment, now is the time to conduct a fundamental reexamination of the value and purposes of critical infrastructure systems, their interdependencies, and the policies, processes, and procedures that guide their planning, construction, operation, and investment. A world of new possibili- ties and approaches to infrastructure renewal will open up if we choose to think about critical infrastructure more holistically, in terms of the services that these systems provide—water, waste- iii PREFACE

OCR for page R1
water removal, power, mobility, and connectivity—and as part of a strategy for meeting other national imperatives. To paraphrase Albert Einstein, the significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. The difficulties inherent in achieving a paradigm shift in the ways that Americans think about and invest in infrastructure cannot be solved by any one group or single strategy, nor do they need to be. New approaches, strategies, and ideas for providing and financing infrastructure-related services are being generated at the grassroots level; in universities; by local, state, and federal gov- ernments; by regional and not-for-profit organizations; and in the private sector. New technologies and materials can allow people to provide power and mobility using alternatives to imported oil, to save water and other dwindling resources, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to create infrastructure systems that are more durable, reliable, resilient, and cost-effective. The challenge is to marshal the knowledge, creativity, finan- cial resources, and energy of a diverse array of individuals, inter- ests, and organizations to develop new concepts, approaches, and strategies for critical infrastructure renewal. A framework is needed to allow these groups to work collaboratively in a struc- tured way in order to develop practical, cost-effective solutions based on objective, evidence-based information. This report provides the elements of such a framework. It calls for a broad and compelling vision for the future; a focus on providing essential services; recognition of the interdependen- cies of critical infrastructure systems to enable the achievement of multiple objectives; collaborative, systems-based approaches to leverage available resources; and performance measures to provide transparency about infrastructure investments. Bringing the various stakeholder groups together to under- take this challenging endeavor first requires a call to action from leaders at the highest levels of government, academia, and indus- try. Succeeding in this effort will require imagination; a commit- ment to collaborate in the search for innovative, cost-effective, long-term solutions; and the will to stay the course. David J. Nash, Chair Toward Sustainable Critical Infrastructure Systems: Framing the Challenges Workshop Committee ix PREFACE

OCR for page R1
The Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environ- ment (BICE) was established by the National Research Council (NRC) in 1946 as the Building Research Advisory Board. BICE brings together experts from a wide range of scientific, engineer- ing, and social science disciplines to discuss potential studies of interest, develop and frame study tasks, ensure proper project planning, suggest possible reviewers for reports produced by fully independent ad hoc study committees, and convene meet- ings to examine strategic issues. Only those board members who were appointed to the Toward Sustainable Critical Infra- structure Systems: Framing the Challenges Workshop Com- mittee were asked to endorse the committee’s conclusions or recommendations. Previous BICE reports on the nation’s critical infrastructure systems include the following: In Our Own Backyard: Principles for Effective Improvement of the Nation’s Infrastructure (1993); Toward Infrastructure Improvement: An Agenda for Research (1994); Measuring and Improving Infrastructure Performance (1995); The Challenge of Providing Future Infrastructure in an Environment of Limited Resources, New Technologies, and Changing Social Paradigms: Proceedings of a Colloquium (1995); and Financing Tomorrow’s Infra- structure: Challenges and Issues: Proceedings of a Colloquium (1996). These reports and additional information about BICE can be obtained online at http://www.nationalacademies.org/bice. x PREFACE

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments The authoring committee acknowledges the significant contributions made by all of the workshop participants, who willingly and enthusiastically volunteered their time and ideas. Special recognition is owed to Hans Van Winkle and Wayne Crew of the Construction Industry Institute and to Jesus de la Garza, formerly with the National Science Foundation, whose conversa- tions in 2006 were the genesis of the workshop. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this inde- pendent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional stan- dards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: George Bugliarello, Polytechnic Institute of New York University, John L. Casti, Complexica, Nancy Rutledge Connery, Independent Consultant, Woolwich, Maine, xi

OCR for page R1
Pablo Garcia, Sandia National Laboratories, Paul H. Gilbert, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, James Elliott Moore II, University of Southern California, Yossi Sheffi, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Kumares C. Sinha, Purdue University, and Robert D. Yaro, Regional Plan Association. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Richard Wright, National Institute of Standards and Technology (retired). Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 WHY CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS 7 MATTER Lifeline Systems, 7 Effects of Deteriorating Conditions, 9 Origin and Background of the Report, 11 2 MEETING 21st CENTURY IMPERATIVES WITH 13 20th CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS Economic Competitiveness, 14 Reducing U.S. Dependence on Imported Oil, 17 Global Climate Change, 18 Environmental Sustainability, 20 Disaster Resiliency, 21 3 UNDERLYING ISSUES 23 Legacy Infrastructure, 23 Interdependencies, 26 Ownership and Financing Structures, 28 Public Support for Infrastructure Investment, 29 xiii

OCR for page R1
4 CREATING A NEW PARADIGM 31 Ingredients for a New Paradigm, 31 A Framework for Developing Sustainable Critical Infrastructure Systems, 36 Moving Forward, 41 REFERENCES 43 APPENDIXES A Biosketches of Committee Members 49 B Workshop Participants 55 C Workshop Agenda and Draft Infrastructure Challenges 59 D Summary of Workshop Outcomes 63 xi CONTENTS