PAGENO="0001"
`71L~ ~
EARTHQUAKE
DEP ~3S I TORY
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JUNE 22, 23, AND 24, 1976
[No. 811
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Science and Technology
RUTGERS LAW SCHOQi LI~$~
~ ~ ~
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFF1~ 0
6649 0 WASHINGTON 197G
PAGENO="0002"
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
KEN HECHLER, West Virginia
THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia
DON FUQUA, Florida
JAMES W. SYMINGTON, Missouri
WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama
ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey
MIKE McCORMACK, Washington
GEORGE B. BROWN, JR., California
DALE MILFORD, Texas
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas
JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York
RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
PHILIP H. HAYES, Indiana
TOM HARFIN, Iowa
JIM LLOYD, California
JEROME A. AMBRO, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
MICHAEL T. BLOUIN, Iowa
TIM L. HALL, Illinois
ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas
MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee
JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Michigan
TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado
DON FUQUA, Florida
WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama
MIKE McCORMACK, Washington
GEORGE E. BROWN; JR., California
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas
JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York
TOM HARKIN, Iowa
JIM LLOYD,. California
CHRISTOPHER J. DOD~, Connecticut
TIM L. HALL, Illinois
ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas
MARILYN LLOYD, .Tennessee
TIMOTHY B. WIRTH, Colorado
CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio
ALPHONZO BELL, California
JOHN JARMAN, Oklahoma
JOHN W. WYDLER, New York
LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas
LOUIS FREY, Ja., Florida
BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR., California
MARVIN L. ESCH, Michigan
JOHN B. CONLAN, Arizona
GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania
DAVID F. EMERY, Maine
LARRY PRESSLER, South Dakota
OLIN E. TEAGUE, Texas, Chairman
JOHN L. SWIGERT, Jr., Ea'ecutive Director
HAROLD A. GOULD, Deputy Director
PHILIP B. YEAGER, Counsel
FRANK R. HAMMILL, Jr., Counsel
JAMES B. WILSON, Technical Consultant
J. THOMAS RATCHFORD, science Consultant
JOHN D. HOLMFELD, &Yience Consultant
RALPH N. READ, Technical Consultant
ROBERT C. KWrCHAM, Counsel
REGINA A. DAVIS, Chief Clerk
MICHAEL A. SUPERATA~ Minority Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
JAMES W. SYMINGTON, Missouri, Chairman
CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio
MARVIN L. ESCH, Michigan
LARRY PRESSLER, South Dakota
(II)
PAGENO="0003"
CONTENTS
WITNESSES
June 22, 1976: Page
The Honorable John Burton, Representative from California 6
The Honorable Alan Cranston, Senator from California 9
Dr. H. Guyford Stever, Science Advisor and Director, NSF 14
Dr. V. E. McKelvey, Director, U.S. Geological Survey 32
Dr. Richard N. Wright, Director, Center for Building Technology,
NBS 90
Mr. Thomas Dunne, Director, FDAA, Department of HUD 109
June 23, 1976:
Dr. Frank Press, chairman, Department of Earth and Planetary
Sciences, MIT 128
Dr. Clarence Allen, Department of Geology and Geophysics, California
Institute of Technology 143
Dr. Otto Nuttli, Department of Geology, St. Louis University 158
Dr. Karl Steinbrugge, Department of Environmental Design, Uni-
versity of California at Berkeley 167
June 24, 1976:
The Honorable Frank E. Moss, Senator from Utah 173
Dr. Gilbert White, University of Colorado 203
Dr. Robert Whitman, MIT 213
Dr. James Whitcomb, Cal Tech 254
Mr. Charles Manfred, California State Office of Emergency Services. 265
APPENDIX
FURTHER STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD
John E. Beebe, executive director, Consulting Engineers Association of
California 275
Elmer E. Botsai, vice president, American Institute of Architects 276..
Henry J. Degenkolb, president, Earthquake Engineering Research Insti-
tute 284
Robert W. Dressel, chairman, Property Insurance Committee, American
Insurance Association 286
James E. Jones, Jr., governmental affairs representative, American
Mutual Insurance Alliance 290
Richard L. Miller, president, Structural Engineers Association of San
Diego 292
Carl L. Monismith, chairman, Department of Civil Engineering, Uni-
versity of California, Berkeley 293
James W. Skehan, S.J., Association of Professional Geological Scientists 300
(III)
PAGENO="0004"
PAGENO="0005"
EARTH QUAKE
TUESDAY, JuNE 22, 1976
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in room 2318,
Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James W. Symington (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. SYMINOTON. Good morning, everybody. I am happy to have you
here bright and early.
Today the subcommittee begins 3 days of hearings into earthquakes.
The purpose of the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Tech-
nology in holding these hearings is to gath~r information to help de-
termine ~what legislation might be desirable in~the area of earthquake
hazard reduction. We are going to hear that phrase "earthquake
hazard reduction" frequently in the next few days, so let me explain:
"earthquake hazard reduction," means reducing by any available
methods the harm done by earthquakes. The methods under considera-
tion for earthquake hazard reduction cover a broad range, including,
for example, constructing earthquake-resistant buildings, preparing
earthquake emergency plans, and preventing major earthquakes from
occurring at all.
Before I call the first witness this morning I would like to describe
some of the events which have led to these hearings and to pose the
questions we believe to be important to investigate.
Tn the past 12 years the United States has suffered two major earth-
quakes-in Alaska during 1964 and in San Fernando, Calif. during
1971. Each of these caused about half a billion dollars damage. The
United States may expect to be subjected to equally intense earth-
quakes in the future. Even now there is in California what geologists
call an uplift-a vast area of land raised 2~S centimeters or so above its
normal elevation-which many believe to be the precursor of a severe
earthquake. Indeed, based on the evidence of the uplift and other
factors, an earthquake has been predicted in California by a seismolo-
gist at the California Institute of Technology. The science of earth-
quake prediction has not yet progressed far beyond an art, and there
are scientific disputes over the meaning and validity of evidence
thought by some to indicate a future earthquake. In the present in-
stance, a council of experts evaluated evidence for an earthquake in
the California uplift area and reported "The council did not conclude
that the probability of an earthquake in the area in question is signif-
icantly higher than the average for similar geologic areas of Cali-
fornia." This subcommittee has no intention to judge t.hat particular
(1)
PAGENO="0006"
2
dispute, but the situation is richly illustrative of the current state of
earthquake prediction. Not only are there elements of technical dis-
pute in that situation; there are also social elements of interest.
The comparative experience of foreign counties shows the critical
importance of the social element. We might contrast events in China
and Italy. The Chinese, it is reported, embarked on a major effort in
earthquake prediction and preparedness following a destructive
earthquake in 1966. By 1975 the Chinese system had developed to the
point where an earthquake warning led to the evacuation of over a
million people to the outdoors, and the probable saving of tens of
thousands of lives when a destructive earthquake occurred as pre-
dicted. In Italy, according to the Washington Post, an Italian
seismologist, Raffaele Benandi, published an article in 1975 predicting
a major quake in Northern Italy. There was no program to evaluate
the prediction or to take action if it had been evaluated, and there was
no significant reaction to the prediction in the press or other media.
On Thursday, May 6, Northern Italy was hit unprepared by a major
quake and hundreds were killed. Now, I suspect that the Chinese are
more accustomed to being regimented than the Italians, and this may
explain part of the difference. It seems likely to me, however, that
the difference in Government policy was critical.
Our purpose is to determine what Government policy should be in
the United States. The Senate has already passed S. 1174, entitled the
"Earthquake Hazard Reduction Act." That is Senator Alan Cran-
ston's bill, as amended. Several bills have been introduced in the House
of Representatives toward the same end. My colleagues John Burton,
Alphonzo Bell, and Charles Mosher are responsible for the introduc-
tion of those bills. The executive branch has not ignored the area
either. There are continuing efforts against earthquakes in several
agencies and a recent initiative to plan for earthquake research in the
near future has been spearheaded by Guy Stever acting as the Presi-
dent's science adviser.
We plan to address five rather broad questions during these hear-
ings. These are:
1. What is being done now by Federal and State agencies to assure
general earthquake preparedness, to predict or modify earthquakes, to
protect lives and property if a prediction is made, to render post-
earthquake assistance, or to take other actions for earthquake hazard
reduction?
2. What is the current state of earthquake prediction and mnodifica-
tion, and what is the likely future development of these areas? What
are the costs of development likely to be?
3. What can be done to reduce the damage done by earthquakes, and
what are the costs of taking these actions? This question is meant to
be broadly construed, and under it we hope to investigate such areas
as building design, planning, insurance, evacuation, and so forth.
4. How can the earthquake hazard reduction efforts of various
parties be coordinated?
5. How well do the pending bills, 5. 1174, H.R. 13722, and H.R.
13845 meet the Nation's needs in earthquake hazard reduction? We
hope to identify the virtues and deficiencies of each bill.
The subcommittee has assembled a group of witnesses of high com-
petence to address these questions. In the next 3 days we shall hear
PAGENO="0007"
3
from two Senators and Congressman John Burton, from representa-
tives of four Federal agencies with the President's science advisor as
the first of those representatives, from the~ academic leaders in earth-
quake research and research of human behavior related to earth-
quakes, and from representatives of State agencies.
Several of the witnesses have been to China and Russia to study
their earthquake prediction efforts. The chairman of the National
Academy of Sciences Panel on Earthquake Prediction will appear,
as will the Cal Tech seismologist who predicts an earthquake in
California.
I expect to hear much fascinating testimony this week and I look
forward to it.
Speaking of uplift in California, I always thought that referred to
the work done by my colleague, George Brown. I would like to
recognize him at this point.
Mr. BROWN, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do not have a prepared statement. However, I do wish to point out
the great importance to California of this legislation. I am sure the
witnesses from California will testify to the same point. California
has long been noted as a State subject to frequent and generally severe
earthquakes. And there is great concern about being able to alleviate
this situation in some fashion or another. It is no coincidence that our
distinguished Senator has offered legislation to enhance the capability
of our Nation to deal with this problem and another distinguished
California Member of the House has offered comparable legislation in
the House to accomplish this goal. I would like to indicate my own
very great appreciation to you as the chairman of this subcommittee
for the promptness with which you have shown your concern for this
problem by scheduling hearings on the subject.
I know your own deep concern with all programs aimed at increas-
ing the scientific knowledge of this country to meet the problems which
face us. It has obviously become true within just the past few years
that we have now an emerging field of scientific knowledge that has
the capability of doing a great deal of good for the people of this
country. It has applications in ways which will save lives and property.
It is appropriate that you, as chairman of this subcommittee, con-
cerned with the health of the Nation's science and technology, would
take the initiative in holding these hearings and I want to compli~nent
you for that.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.
Mr. Mosher?
Mr. MOSHER. Mr. `Chairman, I think I will say only that this ob-
viously is an extremely important subject. I think perhaps it is a
crucially important subject at this time. These hearings are, therefore,
important and timely and are undoubtedly past due. I salute you for
organizing this effort and .1 anticipate participating actively.
Mr. Chairman, you speak of Mr. Brown as being a symbol of uplift
i~ C~lif~~th~. Of course, on our side we have a similar symbol of
uplift, Mr. Goldwater.
Mr. SYMINOTON. I am quite aware of that and I would like to
recognize him.
Mr. BROWN. If the gentleman would yield, may I point out that both
the political and the physical uplift occur in Mi~. Goldwater's history,
if I am not mistaken.
PAGENO="0008"
4
Mr. SYMINGTON. It is true and we would be happy to recognize our
friend, Mr. Goldwater, at this time for any comments he wishes to
make.
Mr. GOLDWATKR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I recall back in 1971 waking up with most of my constituents in Los
Angeles at around 6:30 in the morning due to the earthquake that was
centered in my congressional district. As I later on in the day looked
down upon the once three-story building that was called the veterans
hospitni out near Sylmar that en'trapped some 30 men, I wondered at
that point why we had not progressed further in handling natural
disasters. Previous to that, I had a forest fire that raged from one end
of my district to the Pacific coast, some 60 miles, burning out literally
millions of acres and killing untold life and destroying a lot of
property.
I also wondered why we had not really been more serious about our
concern for natural disasters, obviously one of the most devasting of
which is the earthquake. I think it is far past time thaL members of
the Governiiient begin addressing themselves seriously to the whole
area of earthquake.
`There is a recent breakthrough, I understand, in enabling us to bet-
ter understand earthquakes and even perhaps to predict earthquakes.
I think that is good and we probably should pursue this faster `and
more extensively. Not knowing w'hat is going to happen oftentimes can
spell disaster. On the other hand, knowing what is going to happen, as
I think we have proved here, how `to `handle masses of populations with
regard to these predictions, with regard to evacuation `and shelter, et
cetera, is a very serious question because not only do we get into the
area of prediction of the future but we also get into the whole question
of relief once the event occurs. How do `we handle that? It doesn't
matter whether it is an earthquake or a fire or a tornado or hurricane,
how do we best handle the disaster which is before us?
I feel `th'at we have not gone very far ui this whole area of address-
ing ourselves to how we adequately provide relief to specific areas.
Lastly, the thing that conies to my mind is how we can best provide
for future protection. I can only rely upon `my experience dealing with
the Federal Government in the eart'hquake of 1971 and I w'atched the-
I think it was then called Office of Emergency Preparedness of the
White House-move into the area of the San Fernando Valley and
how inadequate the machinery `was to really do what was needed.
I have to say for what was available `and what the experien'ce was
that they did a good job. But they, in my opinion, were not equipped
to handle a disaster. The whole question which arose in my mind is:
Why aren't the people who are in this business doing this, the insurance
industry, for instance, `with their `adjustors who are trained profes-
sionals in moving in and assessing damage and assigning value?
But instead we had bankers, accountants, contractors, people out of
jobs who are assigned the responsibility of evaluating the results of the
disaster. So I said `to myself: Why is tIme insurance industry not more
involved in the whole `area of coverage of natural disasters? We pro-
vide coverage for fires that destroy our houses. We cannot get `a loan
from a bank unless we have fire coverage, an insurance policy covering
fire and theft. Yet `we have nothing to cover earthquake or other nat-
ural disasters. rfhere is earthquake coverage `that you can get and t'here
also is water, but why don't we have a comprehensive natural disaster
PAGENO="0009"
5
program. The~e are a lot of questions that I have had in my mind, and
I think it is timely that these hearings have been provided for. And
certainly in the forefront of this has been my colleague, Al Bell, and
Senator Cranston on the other side and John Burton from up in north-
ern California, as well as Charles Mosher, who have all introduced
pieces of legislation drawing our attention to the whole question ot
disaster.
I thank the chairman for providing this forum and opportunity.
Mr. MUSHER. May I make a comment'?
Mr. SYMINGTON. Yes.
Mr. MOsHEi~ Lest anyone tend to think that the only concern about
earthquakes is in California-I am sure no one here would make that
mistake-we have over here a map prepared by my staff-in fact, pre-
pared by a congressional fellow in my staff-and each oiie of those red
circles, as I understand it, locates a very substantial earthquake that
has occurred. This means that every State is vulnerable. We need to
keep in mind that this is a matter of national concern and not just
California concern. If I am not mistaken, historically probably the
major recorded earthquake in this country occurred in Missouri and,
therefore, I am sure the chairman is concerned.
Mr. SYMINGT0N. That is quite true and I see that one of the red dots
is probably on top of my house there. Unlike lightning, earthquakes
apparently can strike the same place twice, and so we are very con-
scious of it. Unfortunately, it has increased the cost of some housing
projects.
I thank also the gentleman from California, Mr. Goldwater, for his
remarks.
Our first witness today is one of the authors of a bill which is before
us. We welcome him, our good friend, I-Ion. John Burton, Congress-
man from California. We are happy to have you with us today.
[A brief biographical sketch of Mr. John L. Burton and Mr. Bur-
ton'~ written testimony follow:]
John L. Burton, Congressman from California, Fifth Congressional District,
"The Golden Gate District," San Francisco, Mann, and southern Sonoma Coun-
ties, Democrat; younger brother of Congressman Philip Burton (D., San Fran-
cisco); the only brother team serving in the Congress; raised and educated in
San Francisco public schoois; B.A., San Francisco State, 19~4; LL.B., University
of San Francisco Law School, 1960; U.S. Army, 1954-56; dues-paying member of
Bartenders Union, Local 41; member of the California State Assembly, 1965-74;
chairman of the Assembly Rules Committee, 1971-74; sponsor of California Con-
stitutional Amendment for open legislative meetings; led the first successful veto
override in California in 28 years to maintain hospitals for mentally ill and men-
tally retarded; recipient of California Society for Autistic Children Award;
author of legislation providing the highest level of benefits for aged, blind, and
disabled of any State in the Nation; cochairman of the California Democratic
Delegation to the National Convention, 1972; chairman of the California Demo~
cratie Party, 1973-74; active in the peace movement; dedicated to achieving so-
cial and economic justice for all peoples; elected to the 9'3c1 Congress in a special
election on June 4, 1974; reelected to the 94th Congress in November 1974; mar-
ried to the former Sharon Bain; one daughter, Kimiko; member of Committees
on Government Operations, House Administration, and the Select Committee on
Aging.
STATnMENT or CoNGREssMAN JOHN L. BURTON
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and members of the subcommittee
for the opportunity to appear and testify `before you this morning on earthquake
PAGENO="0010"
6
legislation, especially H.R. 4892, the Earthquake Disaster Mitig~tion Act which
I introduced on March 13, 1975.
On May 24, 1976, the Senate passed 5. 1174, the Earthquake Hazard Reduction
Act, sponsored ~y Senator Alan Cranston. Senator Cranston has been an advocate
of earthquake research for quite a while, and I am pleased that the Congress is
taking positive action in this important area. H.R. 4892 and 5. 1174 are similar
in many respects, and I look forward to the House taking positive action as
well.
I am particularly aware of what an earthquake can do, inasmuch as I repre-
sent a portion of San Francisco which suffered through the famous 1906 earth-
quake. As a member of the California State Assembly, I played a part in the
passage of various earthquake measures, including a Seismic Safety Act.
H.R. 4892, and an identical bill, H.R. 13453, would provide for a $50 million-a-
year, 10-year nationwide research and engineering program to develop opera-
tional methods for predicting earthquakes, an early warning system to reduce
casualties and property loss, and improved construction practices and land use
in areas of seismic risk. Scientists would also investigate ways of controlling, or
moderating the effects of, earthquakes themselves.
There is a growing recognition that earthquakes are not just a California
problem. Studies show that 39 states, with nearly 35 percent of the population
of the United States, have been identified as lying in zones subject to moderate
to major damage, and all 50 states are subject to some earthquake hazards.
Substantial progress has already been made in earthquake prediction espe-
cially in China, Japan, and the Soviet Union, but development has lagged in the
United States primarily because of insufficient investment of funds.
HR. 4892 would provide nearly five times more money than the federal gov-
ernment is currently putting into earthquake research and earthquake resident
engineering.
The measure gives joint responsibility to the U.S. Geological Survey and the
National Science Foundation, with the U.S.G.S. having primary responsibility
for research and implementation. The N.S.F. would concentrate on engineering,
planning, and social science.
To paraphrase an old saying, the only things in life that are certain are death,
taxes, and earthquakes. No one denies that the United States will suffer future
damaging earthquakes. Our task should be to take effective action now to miti-
gate the destructive potential of these earthquakes.
This Subcommittee will also be considering an earthquake bill authored by my
colleague from Ohio, Congressman Charles Mosher. Congressman Mosher shares
my concern in this important matter, and his measure, H.R. 13845, approaches
the problem in a different way.
The basic difference between the Cranston-Burton and the Mosher bills is one
of technique and priority. Both HR. 4892 and S. 1174 seek to attack the earth-
quake problem with a combination of engineering, research, and funding. The
Mosher measure seeks a solution through the use of various management organi-
zations and techniques.
I respectfully suggest that the magnitude of the dangers posed by earthquakes,
together with the degree of death and destruction that they have inflicted in the
United States, calls for action that moves beyond the concepts advocated in H.R.
13845.
I believe that it would be a wise use of funds, and a prudent move on the part
of Congress, if an earthquake research program as proposed in H.R. 4892 were
approved and implemented.
STATEMENT OP HON. JOHN BURTON, REPRESENTATIVE PROM THE
STATE OP CALIFORNIA
Mr. BURTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and members of the sub-
committee for the opportunity to appear and testify before you this
morning on earthquake legislation especially H.R. 4892. The bill that
introduced was the companion bill to Senator Cranston's measure. His
bill as it passed the Senate had some changes in it that would have
changed the funding authorization from 10 years to 3 years with the
PAGENO="0011"
7
first year providing no funds, the second, year $50 million, and the
third year $60 million of authorized funding. And the bill also pro-
~rided authority to have the President direct the program with special
emphasis on involving and coordinating with the National Science
Foundation, and the U.S. Geological Survey and would assure coordi-
nation with other Federal agencies.
There is another bill before this committee by the distinguished
gentleman, Mr. Mosher, who is ranking on the subcommittee, that goes
basically to a structuring in management organization and techniques
of some of the present availabilities of the national agencies which
should be involved in such programs as mitigation of earthquake dis-
asters. The basic difference is that we feel it is also important at this
time to make a commitment of investment of funds to provide engi-
neering and research to show the best type of structures that may be
built in certain areas that are proximate to earthquake faults. In our
State of California I think it was in 1932,. there was an act passed
called the Field Act that stated that all public buildings had to meet
a seismic safety test. And until the earthquake of 1971 that was rather
ignored but after the earthquake, 1970 and 1971, it started to be im-
plemented and panic went throughout the various public localities
where schools had to be closed and public buildings had to be closed,
torn down, and rebuilt because they did not coincide with the stand-
ards of the so-called Field Act within our State.
California certainly isn't the only State affected by earthquakes
but because `they seem to come more frequently than they do in other
areas, we did move to establish a joint committee on seismic safety in
the State. There is seismic safety legislation in the State that unfortu-
nately doesn't go far enough. It almost just points out the problems
and says what should be done `but doesn't provide the implementation.
I feel that the bill I have introduced, which has `been coauthored
by Mr. Goldwater and others, does go a step beyond Mr. Mosher's. It
does come to the realization that there should be an investment of
funds in the area of research, in the area of finding the right type
of technology and engineering that could prevent great damage. As
I am sure the committee knows and as was stated in the Senate's re-
port on Senator Cranston's bill, the People's Republic of China,
through their early warning system or evacuation system and other
type.s of programs they have in an area where there was a very sub-
stantial earthquake have managed to evacuate the people and save
approximately 10,000 lives. I can remember back in 1957, I believe, in
San Francisco, when I was attending school sitting on the ledge of the
Student Union Hall which was all glass-in effect where the cafeteria
wa.s the glass was back to the first row here and all I heard was a
rumble and I turned around and saw this wall of glass come. It must
have been this far from my face and just snapped tack. And had that
entire glass wall broken, there would have been several of the students
injured.
I don't know of any statute which could have prevented that from
happening except possibly had there been an early warning system
and had there been a program that when earthquakes are predicted
that certain areas should be evacuated for safety. That type of oc-
currence, had it reached its magnitude, would not have had an adverse
effect at least on this individual.
PAGENO="0012"
8
I would commend the chairman greatly for moving expeditiously
into this area, because it is one that seems rather esoteric. It is the type
of thing people don't talk about until it happens. But I think it is our
duty, as Members of Congress, to try to be a little bit ahead of
disasters.
I think again that Mr. Mosher's measure has merit to it. It is a
step in a meaningful direction but again I feel that time is of the es-
sence and certainly we should `be willing to go beyond that to make
an investment of funding to provide really ways of dealing with the
subject matter. We all agree that the~ problem is there and we all know
the type of calamity that can happen. I would think a mere adminis-
trative arrangement would solve some of the problems once the earth-
quake happened such as the problems that were faced down in Mr.
Goldwater's district, problems that have been faced in other areas
after an earthquake hit, and the lack of coordination of programs.
But I believe we should go beyond that and be able with great ac-
curacy to predict potential earthquakes, to have recommended engi-
neering structuring that in certain fault areas should be the norm in
construction and, lastly, to provide some type. of meaningful evacua-
tion from areas where an earthquake is likely to hit in the very near
future.
The highway system initially was developed after World War II
as a means of evacuating people out of the areas in case of a military
disaster. One of the problems that has been found when you have an
earthquake, is that some of these highways and freeways go right
down with the rest of the buildings since they are not structurally able
to withstand seismic shock. So I would commend to you the provisions
of the legislation that I have introduced along with Mr. Goldwater
and others. I would say that I believe the provisions of this legislation
and the provisions of Mr. Mosher's bill are not incompatible. I believe
there is definitely an area where the concerns are the same but the
approaches to the solution are somewhat different and they can be
married to provide the type of legislation that not only could merit
the support of this subcommittee but I believe also enjoy final support
by the administration.
And I thank you.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Burton, for
bringing this bill before us. It is a benchmark initiative. I thank you
very much for your testimony in support of the bill and also, of course,
in analyzing the problem.
Are there any questions by the panel?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I wonder if you have any thoughts on this: I believe
in your legislation you provide the National Science Foundation as
the lead agency and I am wondering why you did it that way instead
of, say, having NASA or the U.S. Geological Survey or someone else?
Mr. BtIRTON. It was felt by those who did the basic research on this
problem based on the Senate hearings that the National Science
Foundation should well be the place to implement the basic research,
that USGS would develop the prediction system and monitoring, et
cetera, but it was felt, notwithstanding the Bauman amendment, that
the National Science Foundation would be the area where this type
of basic research could be implemented. I assume that is because of
the way they operate, that they lay grants out to the various institu-
PAGENO="0013"
9
tions of higher learning, et cetera and that way it would be within
their normal function that they could draw on the expertise through
their grant system of various colleges and universities throughout the
Nation, whereas I do not know that the USGS has that type of present
situation.
But that is what comes to my mind.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Goldwater.
Mr. BURTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members
of the committee.
Mr. SYMINGTON. We now are privileged to hear from the distin-
guished senior Senator, Senator Alan Ci:anston, who is here this morn-
ing to testify on the bill he has submitted. We are grateful to you,
Senator, for spending this time with us today and we look forward to
hearing your testimony.
[A brief biographical sketch of Mr. Alan Cranston follows:]
Alan Cranston, Senator from California, Democrat, of Los Angeles; born in
Palo Alto, Calif., on June 19, 1914, son of William and Carol Cranston; reared
in Los Altos, Calif.; attended Mt. View Union High School in Los Altos, Pomona
College and University of Mexico; graduated from Stanford University, 1936;
International News Service, covering England, Germany, Italy, and Ethiopia,
1937-38; returned to the United States and continued writing, 1939; chief, foreign
language division, Office of War Information, 1940-44; enlisted in the U.S. Army,
144, and served until the conclusion of World War II; national president, United
World Federalists, seeking to strengthen the United Nations, 1949-52; wrote
Killing of Peace, rated by the New York Pimes as 1 of 10 best books published
in 1945; founded and served as the first president of the California Democratic
Council, 1953-57; elected first Democratic controller of California in 72 years,
1958; reelected in 1962; wife, Geneva; two sons, Rob and Kim; his business
career has been in land investment and home construction; elected to the United
States Senate November 5, 1968, reelected November 5, 1974; member: Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs, Labor and Public Welfare Committee, Veterans'
Affairs Committee, Budget Committee, Select Committee on Nutrition and Human
Needs.
STATEMENT OP HON. ALAN CRANSTON, SENATOR PROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator CRANSTON. Thank you very much. 1 am very very grateful
to you for arranging this hearing and I am also grateful to Congress-
man John Burton for his effective work on the House side on the com-
panion measure which he introduced to S-1174.
I appreciate the promptness of this hearing on this measure and
your attention to the other proposals under consideration to establish
an accelerated and coordinated Federal program to reduce the many
hazards associated with earthquakes.
I do not intend to make a lengthy statement today. You will have
an opportunity to hear from the experts over the course of your 3
days of hearings on the earthquake problem. But I do want to touch
upon a few points which need emphasis.
First, the threat of future destructive earthquakes is a national
problem. Certainly, the Pacific Coast States-principally Alaska and
California-are especially vulnerable to earthquakes and related dis-
asters. Yet nearly every State in the Nation faces some degree of risk
from future earthquakes, and some 70 million people live in the 39
States that are wholly or partly in areas facing a risk of moderate to
major damage from future earthquakes. Earthquakes have occurred
PAGENO="0014"
10
in our history all over the United States, with major earthquakes in
Charleston, S.C. (1886), New Madrid, Mo. (1811-1812), Cape Ann,
Mass. (1775), Seattle, Wash. (1949) and Hebgen Lake, Mont. (1959),
and the terrible "Good Friday" earthquake in Alaska (1964).
Second, we must remember that despite a considerable seismic his-
tory, the United States has been extraordinarily lucky. Less than 1,200
people have lost their lives in U.S. earthquakes. Compare this to the
more than 20,000 Guatemalans who died earlier this year in a major
earthquake and its aftershocks. rrhroughout history somewhere in the
neighborhood of 74 million people have died in earthquakes. And in
just the second quarter of the 20th century, more than 350,000 people
worldwide have lost their lives in earthquakes and related disasters.
Third, the United States today faces the greatest potential danger
from earthquakes that we have ever faced. It is only in the last decade
or so that our population has become concentrated in major cities and
along our coastal regions, and major construction has occurred on
land-fill and other unstable soils. Thus, it is only very recently that
the potential for great earthquake destruction in this country has ex-
isted. Indeed, if the San Andreas Fault were to give us an encore of the
1906 San Francisco earthquake, the deaths could number in the tens
of thousands and the property damage could excess $20 billion. On top
of this, we must consider the incalculable losses resulting from the loss
of economic and social functioning. Such an earthquake would have
enormous repercussions on our national economy and our national
psyche.
In the past few months, many of us have grown concerned about the
existence of the so-called "Palmdale bulge"-a substantial land uplift
straddling some 100 miles along the southern section of the San An-
dreas Fault just north of Los Angeles.
If this uplift is a signal that a major earthquake will occur in the
near future-as some experts believe-then the legislation before this
committee becomes all the more urgent. Estimates of the potential
damage in the Los Angeles areas go as high as $25 billion in destroyed
property and as many as 12,000 lives lost. Such a catastrophe would
certainly have national economic repercussions.
Even if the uplift does not culminate in a destructive earthquake in
the near future, it is still in the public interest to establish a well-
funded earthquake program so that we can be better prepared for the
earthquakes that are inevitable in our future. We know that major
destructive earthquakes have struck the United States before-and not
just in California-and it is therefore logical to assume they will occur
again. A major earthquake could strike tomorrow, next year, or 30
years from now. It is irresponsible, in the face of new advances in the
sciences of earthquakes and engineering not to take preventive action
now.
The time remaining in this second session of the 94th Congress is
preciously short. I am therefore appealing to this committee to make
every effort to complete work on a final legislative proposal before we
adjourn in October.
In closing, I would like to comment briefly on the differences in ap-
proach embodied by the bills offered by Congressman John Burton
and myself and the bill offered by the distinguished ranking minority
member of this committee, Congressman Charles Mosher. I believe the
PAGENO="0015"
11
problem envisioned by S. 1174 and H.R. 4892 is superior in two
respects: (1) it established a national commitment to solving the
earthquake problem, and (2) it spells out a specific set of goals and
objectives backed up by an adequate level of funding. Mr. Mosher's
proposal, on the other hand, is probably superior to mine in the area of
coordinating a Federal earthquake program that spans a large number
of existing Federal agency responsibilities. The issue of Federal co-
ordination certainly needs this committee's attention. I, therefore,
recommend that this committee consider how best to meld together
the program spelled out by S. 1174 and the coordination addressed by
H.R. 13845.
The issue, to be sure, is not whose bill is finally passed, but rather
the establishment of a well-funded and effective Federal earthquake
program. I am convinced, based on my 4 years of work on earthquake
legislation, that the $50 million a year level of funding authorized by
S. 1174 can be effectively spent and is urgently needed.
I deeply appreciate this opportunity to participate with the House
toward the goal of enacting legislation to establish a Federal earth-
quake hazards reduction program.
Thank you.
I do most strongly urge action before this Congress completes its
work.
Mr. SYMINOTON. Thank you very much, Senator Cranson, for your
fine statement which will be very helpful to us. And I commend you
very much on your initiative. Are there questions for Senator
Cranston ~
Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Chairman, 1 would just like to say how much I
appreciate his positive comments concerning the legislation I have in-
troduced. I would like to repeat one sentence in his testimony because
I think it is crucial. The Senator says it is irresponsible in the face of
new advances in the sciences with regard to earthquake engineering
not to take preventive action now. I think that needs to be reempha-
sized throughout these hearings and I expect it will be. I assume,
Senator, that that type of action you would agree should be com-
prehensive action which might be a wedding of the two pieces of leg-
islation I have introduced.
Senator CRANSTON. That is exactly what I mean and I am greatly
encouraged by the fact that you singled out that particular section of
my remarks.
Mr. SYMINUTON. Thank you, Mr. Mosher, and thank you very much
Senator Cranston.
Senator CRANSTON. Thank you.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Symington, I have some questions.
Mr. SYMINGT0N. I beg your pardon.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Senator Cranston is m.y good friend and a colleague
in this effort. He certainly has provided leadership and all of Califor-
nia should be thankful. There are a few questions I have concerning
the legislation. In the legislation passed in the Senate there is a pro-
vision, I believe, concerning the development and application of local
building codes. Is it your intention that the Federal Government
should be dictating to the local government on this aspect?
Senator CRANSTON. Absolutely not. The only purpose there is to give
assistance in research that can lead to locally made decisions on codes
PAGENO="0016"
12
that would be beneficial in terms of reducing the dangers of earth-
quake.
Mr. GOLDWATER. The thrust of your legislation is primarily in the
area of prediction research and development in this area. Do you feel
that we ought to be also going into the area of looking at the mecha-
nisms for providing relief? Third, there is a question which I raised in
my opening remarks, concerning getting the Federal Government out
of the business of disaster relief and getting the private sector-specifi-
cally, I was thinking of the insurance industry, which is far more
qualified at least to provide coverage-looking into it instead of hav-
ing these disaster programs which seem to be a band-aid kind of ap-
proach after the fact. If these programs cannot develop with the pri-
vate sector, maybe a quasi-public/private insurance kind of coverage
utilizing the private sector, who are professionals in the area of mov-
ing in and making adjustments and analyzing disasters or damage or
what have you, could be developed. Do you feel that this is an ap-
propriate kind of legislation for examining that?
Senator CRANSTON. I think the matter of insurance is certainly one
that merits study and action, but it is a very complicated matter that
I think might well be kept separate from this particular piece of legis-
lation. This legislation does not address it. I think we might get bogged
down on all of the difficult details of how you might make an insur-
ance program work effectively. The focus in this legislation is more
on preventing disasters from occurring than on dealing with the con-
sequences once they have occurred.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I would like to thank you for coming over and
sharing your expertise on this matter.
Senator CRANSTON. Thank you very much.
Mr. SYMINGTON. At this time we welcome to the witness table the
distinguished Director of the National Science Foundation and the
Science Adviser to the President, Dr. Stever, accompanied by Dr.
Gharles Thiel with the Foundation. We are grateful to have you here
today, Dr. Stever, knowing that you have given much thought to this
problem, as well as the others that you face.
We look forward to hearing your testimony.
[Brief biographical sketches of Dr. H. Guyford Stever and Dr.
Charles Thiel follow:]
Da. H. GUYFORD STEVER
Dr. H. Guyford Stever assumed the post of Director of the National Science
Foundation on February 1, 1972, following his nomination by the President to a
six-year term and his unanimous confirmation by the Senate.
In addition to his duties as Director of the Foundation, Dr. Stever has been
named Science Adviser and Chairman of the Federal Council for Science and
Technology by the President.
He is also the U.S. Chairman of the U.S-U.S.S.R. Joint Commission on Scien-
tific and Technical Cooperation; Chairman of the Board of Governors of the
U.S-Israel Bi-national Science Foundation; and Chairman of the Energy R. & D.
Advisory Council.
Dr. Stever is a member of the National Science Board and Chairman of the
Board's Executive Committee. He is also a member of the Energy Resources
Council; President's Committee on the National Medal of Science; National
Council on Educational Research; National Cancer Advisory Board; National
Cancer Institute; U.S.-Japan Committee on Scientific Cooperation; Federal
Council on the Arts and the Humanities; the Senior Executives Council of The
Conference BoaM~ and the Joint U.S-Saudi Arabia Commission on Economic
Cooperation.
PAGENO="0017"
13
Prior to his appointment to head NSF, Dr. Stever has served as President of
Carnegie-Mellon University (and one of its predecessors, Carnegie Institute of
Technology) since February 1965. His presidency was marked by significant
change and growth in the university.
Before his appointment to the Presidency of CMU, Dr. Stever served on the
faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for more than 20 years.
He held positions which included Head of the Departments of Mechanical Engi-
neering, Naval Architecture, and Marine Engineering (1961-1965) ; Professor of
Aeronautical Engineering (1956-1965); and Associate Dean of Engineering
(1956-1959). He was Science Liaison Officer at the London Mission of the Office
of Scientific Research and Development from 1942 to 1945.
During the time he was at MIT, Dr. Stever achieved prominence as an educa-
tor and in his service to the Federal Government. He was Chief Scientist of the
U.S. Air Force from 1955 to 1956 and was a member of the Advisory Panel to
the House of Representatives Committee on Science and Astronautics from 1959
until 1972. He was a member of the President's Commission on the Patent System
from 1965 to 1967 and Chairman of the Commission's Ad Hoc Science Panel. Dr.
Stever also has headed many other aeronautical and scientific advisory commit-
tees at the Federal level.
Professionally, Dr. Stever has specialized in aeronautical, missile, and space-
craft engineering, design, and performance, particularly aerodynamics; radiation
physics; scientific and engineering education; university administration; and
science policy, with principal contributions in the fields of high speed flows of
compressible fluids and control and guidance of flight vehicles. He is best known
for his work on condensation phenomena in high speed flows and the growth of
the boundary layer behind a sboekwave. He has pioneered in missile guidance,
and increased our understanding of the stability and control of transonic aircraft.
As an internationally-known expert on aeronautical engineering and space
technology, Dr. Stever has often been honored for his work in both fields and for
his service to the Government. He is a member of the National Academy of
Sciences, National Academy of Engineering (Chairman, Aeronautical and Space
Engineering Board, 1967-1969), Institute of Aeronautical Sciences (Vice-Presi-
dent, 1958-1959; President, 1960-1962), American Physical Society, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (Fellow), American Academy of Arts
and Sciences, Royal Aeronautical Association, American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Phi Beta Kappa, and other organizations.
Dr. Stever received his A.B. from Colgate University in 1938 and his Ph.D. in
physics from California Institute of Technology In 1941. He has received 14
honorary degrees and other honors, including the President's Certificate of Merit,
1948; Exceptional Civilian Service Award, U.S. Air Force, 1956; Scott Gold
Medal, American Ordnance Association, 1t~60; Distingui~hed Public Service
Medal, Department of Defense, 1968; he was named Pittsburgh's "Man of the
Year" by the Junior Chamber of Commerce in 1966; and was appointed an
Honorary Councilor of the Superior Council for Scientific `Research of Spain in
1975.
He is the author of more than 45 publIshed articles, papers, or chapters on
scientific, technical, educational, and science policy matters.
Dr. Stever is married to the former Louise Risley Floyd. They have two daugh-
ters, Sarah Newell and Margarette Risley, and two sons, Horton Guyford, Jr. and
Roy Risley.
CHARLES C. THIEL, Jr.
Dr. Charles C. Thiel is Acting Director and Deputy Director, Division of Ad-
vanced Environmental Research and Technology, Directorate for Research Ap-
plications, National Science Foundation. He was born in 1940 in Chicago, Illinois,
and received his education at a number of schools throughout the country, prior
to receiving a Ph.D., in Engineering Sciences from Purdue University. Prior to
joining the Foundation's staff, he was a research engineer for the General Tech-
nology Corporation `and a member of the Purdue University faculty. Within the
National Science Foundation, Dr. Thiel was program manager for Earthquake
Engineering prior to assuming management responsibilities within the division.
Dr. Thiel organized and chairs the Interagency Discussion Group on Disaster
Mitigation. Internationally, he is a member of the Joint Committee of the US/
USSR Agreement on Housing and Other Construction and serves as Chairman
of the Construction in Seismic areas group. He also is Task Group Chairman for
76-649 0 - 76 - 2
PAGENO="0018"
14
Engineering Seismology of the ITS/USSR Agreement on Cooperation in the Field
of Environmental Protection. Dr. Thiel serves on several professional committees,
is a member of several professional societies, has served on organizing commit-
tees for national meetings, and has published in his areas of specialty.
STATEMENT OP DR. H. GUYPORD STEVER, SCIENCE ADVISER TO
THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDA-
TION, ACCO1\~ANIED BY DR. CHARLES THIEL
Dr. STEVER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of
the subcommittee.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss with you the Fed-
eral activities for reducing the hazards of earthquakes and their rela-
tion to the several bills-all dealing with earthquake hazard reduc-
tion-now pending before the subcommittee.
In the opinion of most Americans, I would say, earthquake hazards
in the United States are limited to the Pacific coast, especially to Cali-
fornia. When we talk of earthquakes, we talk of San Francisco in 1906,
Long Beach in 1933, Alaska in 1964, and San Fernando in 1971.
But major earthquakes are by no means unknown to the rest of the
country. Earthquakes occurred in the St. Lawrence River region on
several occasions from 1650 to 1928, in the vicinity of Boston in 1755,
in the Cenfral Mississippi Valley at New Madrid, Mo., in 1811 and
1812, in Charleston, S.C., in 1886, and at Hebgen Lake, Mont., in 1959.
What's more, earthquakes affect human beings and their activities
over widely spread areas. The San Francisco quake was felt over a
400,000-square-mile area; the quakes at Charleston, New Madrid, and
along the St. Lawrence were felt over an area of 2 million square miles.
And in 1973, earthquakes were felt in 34 States.
This last figure may be a better index of the extent of earthquake
hazard in the United States. A recent study suggests that all or por-
tions of 39 States lie in regions of major and moderate risk-with a
con~bined population in 1970 of more than 70 million persons.
Fortunately, a damaging earthquake at a given site is a relatively
rare event in this country. And perhaps that is why the average annual
loss from earthquakes is relatively low. During the past century, it has
amounted to about $30 million per year.
Still, historical data can be misleading. The development of dense
populations in seismically hazardous regions, for example, is a rela-
tively recent phenomenon in the United States. If such development
continues, an NSF funded project estimates the average loss for the
rest of this century resulting from earthquakes could exceed $1 billion
per year.
Mr. Chairman, it is a very interesting experience to fly down the
San Andreas Fault in California and discover new communities, dams,
and new freeways-just amazing construction. Right across that fault
runs one of the finest scientific instruments in the world, the linear
accelerator at Stan'ford University. So we have built where there
is great danger.
A recurrence of earthquakes at specific sites, of course, is estimated to
result in much greater damage and loss. Another catostrophic San
Francisco earthquake, for example, could, in the worst possible case,
cause losses in the tens of billions of dollars. Clearly, earthquakes
now pose an increasingly costly threat to the local and national
community.
PAGENO="0019"
15
As you know, two items of the past year have brought renewed
attention to the threat of earthquakes. In China, a major earthquake
of magnitude 7.3 destroyed the town of Haicheng and damaged indus-
trial plants. In the Los Angeles area, Geological Survey scientists re-
ported an uplift of the eaiitI~i's crust along a section of the San Andreas
fault, a section said to have been "quiet" for the past 40 years. This
uplift is not equivalent to an earthquake prediction, since such uplifts
are not always followed by a major earthquake.
The two items are unrelated and unconnected, yet both draw in-
creased attention to this subject. Chinese scientists actually predicted
the Haicheng quake, the population was removed from hazardous
buildings, and few were killed even though 1 million live in the area.
In the opinion of one California scientist, seismic velocity anomalies
along the San Andreas uplift near Palmdale indicate an earthquake of
magnitude 5.5 to 6.5 within the next year.
Early last winter, these items and recent earthquakes in other parts
of the world were `brought to the attention of the President `by several
means. The Presidential science advisory committees known as the
Baker-Ramo Committees, then examining new opportunities in
science, determined that the area of earthquake hazard reduction
might be an area where increased research could be especially bene-
ficial. Discussion of this subject among officials of the executive branch
led to a recommendation on my part and others, approved by the
President, that a program to monitor the Palmdale uplife and evaluate
the resulting data be undertaken. This has resulted in the reprogram-
ing of $2.6 million in research funds for the Geological Survey, of
which $2.1 million is to monitor the scientific implications of the uplift
and $0.5 million is to increase their earthquake prediction research pro-
gram. Whether this uplift is a premonitor of an earthquake is as yet
unclear. The research to be undertaken `by the Geological Survey is
intended to help determine whether this is indeed the case.
The growing prospects for earthquake prediction, based in part of
the still tentative experience of the Chinese, Japanese, and the Soviets,
suggest that in coming decades we may have a capability to predict
earthquakes in the United States. The achievement of prediction will,
in part, be limited by the capability and capacity of our scientists to
observe and interpret premonitory effects. It should be noted, however,
that unless local communities have made ~hanges in their land use
and building codes to reduce earthquake vulnerability over long
periods, the capability to predict an earthqua1~e would not result in as
much reduction in property damage and life loss as otherwise would
be possible.
All impacts of an earthquake ultimately revolve around property
damage. Damaged or collapsing structures are the source of most life
loss and injury during an earthquake. While the Federal Govern-
ment has been funding most earthquake prediction and hazard miti-
gation research, the principal responsibility for using this knowledge
through the reduction of building damage during an earthquake rests
with State and local governments and private individuals. Thus, the
actual limitation of the impact of earthquake prediction lies in non-
Federal hands.
As noted above, the reprograming of funds from the NSF and the
USGS to undertake a $2.6 million research activity will help us under-
PAGENO="0020"
16
stand the Pahndale uplift as a possible premonitory effort of a major
southern California earthquake. In addition, NSF and USGS are
jointly preparing a plan to outline the research which would `be neces-
sary `to provide the technological base for making `predictions, chang-
ing building codes, and restructuring land use. An advisory group
on earthquake prediction and hazard mitigation has been established
and held its first meeting on June 14. Based upon a draft plan to be
presented to this group and their deliberations, a revised plan will
be prepared for submission by the Science Adviser to the President.
This plan will form the basis for consideration by the affected agencies
in preparation of their fiscal year 1978 and subsequent budget pro-
posals in these areas.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, let me discuss the three `bills pending
before the subcommittee. The first, the Earthquake Hazard Reduc-
tion Act, 5. 1174, as introduced by Senator Cranston and passed by
the `Senate, prov'ides for the establishment of a program in research
on earthquake hazard mitigation. The Earthquake Reduction and
Preparedness Act of 1975, H.R. 13722, introduced by Mr. Bell, would
establish a Federal research program on prediction and control and
provide for earthquake prediction `preparedness. The National Earth-
quake Hazards Reduction Conference Act, H.R. 13845, introduced by
Mr. Mosher, provides for the establishment of a National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Conference.
I might point out that the NSF and the USGS have the authority
to pursue research on earthquakes and indeed are doing so. They have
received `authorization and appropriation iii the areas covered by
S. 1174. Thus, the Cranston bill would direct Federal agencies to under-
take numerous activities for which they already have the authority.
`As I have noted, an advisory group in earthquake prediction and
hazard mitigation is preparing a plan for research which will identify
types of actions needed to reduce earthquake impacts. Under the Fed-
eral Disaster Assistance Act of 1974, Public Law 93-288, the Federal
Disaster Assistance Administration of HUD is delegated responsibil-
ity for the warning of impending natural disasters, including earth-
quakes. HUD redelegated its authority concerning earthqu'ake warning
to Interior; specifically, the director of the USGS has been delegated
responsibility for the issuance of earthquake predictions. Thus, it
would appear that the proposals of the Bell bill are being accomplished
through current executive action.
There has been considerable experience within the executive on the
operation of large Federal committees to achieve specific purposes.
The establishment of a 29-member conference which includes 22 Fed-
eral officials may be unwieldy. The objectives set out for this confer-
ence are probably most readily accomplished with a smaller, more
focused group. If additional coordination is necessary, the question
must be asked: Can it be accomplished under the broad authority in
the Federal Disaster Assistance Act of 1974, or is more legislation
needed to achieve effective coordination? There are already several
formal and informal mechanisms that provide some degree of
coordination.
Dr. McKelvey will describe an organization which the Geological
Survey has established for this purpose. Further, an interagency dis-
cussion group on disaster mitigation, hosted by the RANN program of
PAGENO="0021"
17
NSF, meets monthly to discuss not oniy earthquakes, but other sorts of
disaster agents. By the way, it is a completely informal group. On the
other hand, it publishes a newsletter. rfhat newsletter on disasters has
gone through 11 editions. While it is not at all clear that yet another
coordinating body shou]d be established, the executive branch is re-
viewing this question.
If another `sort of coordinating body should be established, there may
be adequate legislative authority to do so under the Federal Disaster
Assistance Act and the legislation which recently created the Office of
Science and Technology Policy.
Summing up, let me say, the administration agrees with the broad
objectives of these three bills, two of which are: Reduction of property
loss and personal injuries from earthquakes is a desirable and poten-
tial achievable goal; many private, local, State, and Federal decisions
need to be coordinated in order to h~lp achieve that broad goal.
Then there are two which are implicit in the bill: The Federal role
is limited to conducting research and attempting to develop the tech-
nological base to enable reliable warnings to be issued in the future;
and budget resources to support the Federal role in this program area
will need to be fully justified in terms of program priorities and in-
vestment timing.
We believe existing authorities are adequate, but should our cur-
rent effort in developing a program plan reveal some deficiency which
would require additional authority, the administration would make
the legislative proposal it believes appropriate. Accordingly, we rec-
ommend that the committee defer action on these three bills.
Mr. Chairman, in saying that, I do not want at all to say that action
on earthquakes is unimportant. What I am pointing out is that the au-
thority to do the job is there. What we really have to do is to find out
how much money is needed and from which parts of the society it is
needed to do the job.
Mr. SYMINGTON. May I interrupt at that point?
Dr. STEVER. Yes.
Mr. SYMINOTON. The authority you say is there and what you need
to find out is whether the money is there. Is this what prompted you
to consider it at all at this point in time?
Dr. STEVER. It has been under observation for some time, and money
has been spent in both USGS and NSF. The recent events which have
called everybody's attention to this phenomenon have enlivened activ-
ity all around. But my personal feeling is that when the chips are
down we are going to have to figure out how much money is needed
by each of these agencies to do the job properly and which agency is to
do it. That is the real problem.
Mr. MOSHER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SYMINOTON. Yes.
Mr. MOSHER. Dr. Stever, are you implying that probably these
agencies do not have sufficient funds at this time?
Dr. STEvER. My personal feeling is that we shotdd strengthen the
programs, and I think this is what we are trying to look at.
,Let me turn to the programs of the National Science Foundation.
Here my discussion will touch on the nature of the problem, the pos-
sibilities for adjustments to reduce earthquake impacts, and the NSF
research program.
PAGENO="0022"
18
Earthquakes impact the community in three distinct ways Through
di rect loss of life, injury, and pi opei ty damage , th~ ough indirect losses
and costs incurred in the operation of disaster relief `rnd rehabilitation
programs, loss of income due to business disruption, personal injury,
and disaster caused physiological problems , through curi ent invest
ments in capital sti ucture, restructured land or facility use, and con
demnation of hazai dons structures to achieve adequate performance
This latter point is particulai ly important since overinvestment to
achieve community earthquake safety may retard the achievement of
individual and community goals, just as underinvestment may increase
future suffering Clearly there are real costs in condemning buildings,
changing building codes, and restructuring land use
Current knowledge of earthquake vulnerability `md the social and
technical means to moderate earthquake impacts is not sufficient to
chart an economic, practical course through the maze of actions that
might be taken to affect earthquake impacts The life loss, injury, prop
erty damage, and economic and social disruption caused by an earth
quake occurrence result from public and private decisions made at
virtually every level-from the individual to the corporation, from
local to Federal Government The majority of these decisions are made
by private individuals or groups who are selecting alternatives for
their actions-actions unconstrained by public regulation or require
ments oi constrained at most by some form of minimally prescriptive
requirement-for example, building code, tax regulation, investment
incentive
The general objective of any individual or group attempting to deal
with a potential earthquake is to control the consequences of the event
through adjusting its impacts Possible adjustments the decisionrnakei
may seek to accomplish are
Control the event by prevention or modification of the event
Construct facilities so as to perform acceptably during and after the
event
Plan for the ~ ai fling, response, and recovery from the event
Distribute the economic i isk, for ex'tmple, through insurance and
redevelopment loans
Generate and select alternative physical development plans
Adopt and enforce zoning, construction, and management standards
Clearly these adjustments are both physical and social in nature and
they depend critically on each other Moreover, a balanced combination
of adjustments will undoubtedly yield the maximum benefit in rela
tion to social and economic costs over a period of time Some estimated
benefits resulting from such adjustments are
The restriction of population growth in high damage potential areas
in the San Francisco Bay area could reduce the impact of a recur
rence of the 1906 earthquake e'trly in the next century by one quarter-
if adopted now That, of course, is entirely `~ decision of the people in
the area, and I am not suggesting that the Federal Government should
press for such action
Reinforcement of hazardous structures in the 47 highest hazard
counties in the United States could reduce losses by one quarter per
year The costs incurred could be enormous
Replacement of hazardous buildings 10 years earlier than normal
could reduce the Nation's loss from 5 to 10 pcrcent by the turn of the
century
PAGENO="0023"
19
Improvement of building codes by the doubling of lateral force re-
quirements for new construction could reduce the national annual
loss by some 10 percent by the turn of the century.
The impacts of these adjustments are preliminary but indicative,
and do not make allowance for the cost of achieving the adjustment.
It is important to note, however, that better earthquake disaster
policies will reduce the impact of other hazards such as accidents, ex-
plosions, and extreme winds. In addition, many of the benefits will
accrue to the public at large as well as those directly affected. Public
Law 93-288, the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, established a broad pro-
gram of relief and rehabilitation for disaster-struck communities.
Thus a reduction in an earthquake's impact translates directly into
reduced Federal expenditures under this act to aid the victims and
restore the community.
At this time, there is a crucial need to determine the full costs asso-
ciated with achieving these beneficial adjustments. The development
of effective methods to estimate these costs requires joint effort in the
application of research, experience, and good judgment.
Since its inception, the National Science Foundation has supported
research on earthquakes and their effects. Our program has two major
thrusts: basic research in the Earth sciences and applied research in
earthquake engineering and public policy.
Basic research is focused in the Division of Earth Sciences pro-
grams on geophysics and ocean sediment coring. The latter program's
support of drilling in the central Atlantic has provided widely
accepted evidence for the plate tetonic theory of the Earth's crust.
This theory has greatly enhanced our understanding of the mecha-
nisms of earthquake generation and has provided an explanation for
`the general location of most earthquakes along plate boundaries. The
geophysics program has supported over the past two decades the
Nation's principal academic activity in seismology, geophysics, and
geology as they relate to earthquakes. The basic knowledge developed
tinder its support sets the limits on that which can be expected to he
accomplished in the near future.
Applied research is centered in the Foundation's research applied to
national needs program (RANN). Earthquake engineering research
has been supported by RANN since its inception. After the 1971 San
Fernando earthquake, RANN broadened the scope of the program to
include all those aspects of problem-focused research that could poten-
tially reduce the public's exposure to earthquake losses.
The general objective of the earthquake engineering program is to
develop methods that allow decisionmakers tO control the consequences
of earthquake occurrences. The specific objectives of the program are
as follows:
DESIGN
Development of economically feasible design and construction
methods for building earthquake-resistant structures of all types.
LAND USE
DevelGpment of procedures for integrating information on seismic
risk with land use planning processes.
PAGENO="0024"
20
SOCI0EC0NOMICS
Development of an improved understanding of socioeconomic con-
sequences of individual and community decisions on earthquake-
related issues.
UTILIZATION
Presentation of program results in forms most suitable for the user
communities.
The RANN program does not include the topics of the scientific
basis for earthquake prediction and control. Basic and applied research
in these areas are respectively supported by the NSF Earth Science
Division and the USGS.
I would like to take a few minutes to discuss two specific initiatives
that we have undertaken. The first is the cooperative Federal program
on building practices for disaster mitigation which is a major utiliza-
tion effort initiated and supported by NSF and conducted by NBS.
The purpose of this work is to develop comprehensive, nationally
applicable seismic design provisions for buildings through the inte-
gration of activities and resources in Federal agencies, professional
organizations, private practitioners, State and local governments, and
researchers. It involves a concentrated effort to update, expand, and
substantially revise present seismic design provisions to incorporate
the latest state-of-the-art research results. The public relies heavily on
building codes to foster a constructed environment that protects life
and limb from the hazards of fire, wind, and earthquake. For the most
part, the seismic provisions adopted throughout the country are based
on documents prepared in the 1950's. Thus, the products of the co~
operative Federal program will fill a vital public need. The draft pro-
visions are now out for review. The publication of the final provisions
and associated commentaries will take place early next year. At that
time, they will be available for incorporation into building codes. I
am sure that you can appreciate the size and complexity of this unique
effort to collect, evaluate, and synthesize the products of two decades
into an economically realistic set of building provisions applicable in
a national context.
The second initiative involves research on the public consequences
of earthquake mitigation. As part of a comprehensive assessment of
natural hazards, a major examination was made of the mix of availab].e
policies and procedures. This has formed in l)art the basis for future
program development.
In addition, we have supported a major effort under Dr. Haas, an
associate of Dr. White who will appear later in these hearings, to
investigate the "socioeconomic and political consequences of earth-
quake prediction." I might add that earthquake prediction presents
a number of problems not encountered in the warning programs asso-
ciated with other hazards.
For the next decades, the earthquake vulnerability of our cities
will be dominated by those older structures now standing that cannot
be expected to withstand a major shake. The biggest challenge to the
public official is to develop economically and politically realistic pro-
cedures and policies for the condemnation of substandard structures.
And for their reinforcement, replacement, or abandonment. Earth-
quake prediction in conjunction with building practices to reinforce
PAGENO="0025"
21
these hazardous structures is in all likelihood the only economically
and politically practical method to reduce life loss and property dam-
age in the next few decades. The development of these building prac-
tices and the prediction capability are. now limited,
The possibility of predicting events to take place 10 years hence
greatly complicates the public policy decisions that must be made. It
is important to note that the multiplicity of issues presented by such
a prediction are at an early state of investigation.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I will be pleased
to answer any questions that you and members of the subcommittee
may have.
Mr. SYMJNOTON. Thank you very much, Dr. Stever, for your fine
statement. Clearly, there are some things happening in the Govern-
mont and in the administration and elsewhere that have impact on the
problem. I wonder if you could state again succinctly why you would
object to this kind of congressional initiative at this time to essentially
find and declare the States which are vulnerable to earthquakes and
to set up a somewhat more systematic way of dealing with it ~
Dr. STEVER. I guess, Mr. Chairman, my own personal feeling is that
the problem is very heavily concentrated outside the Federal Govern-
ment. Authorization to do many of the things that have been sug-
gested in these bills seems to be there. It is clear in my view that we
have not-although I am now speaking for myself-that we have not
supported enough the work of prediction and the technological work
that is the responsibility of the Federal Government, but the tremen-
dous load still devolves onto the State, local, and private decision-
makers.
I will say this: The attention that has been brought to this problem
by the authorization bills in front of us is very important. It has
brought an understanding to the scientific. community, the concerned
community, the people who have these responsibilities in the local
centers, and the general public who just worry that they are in danger.
This attention has brought that understanding together; in that re-
spect it is of great importance. I do come back to the point that the
science may be outrunning our sociogovernmental capability.
Mr. SYMINGTON. That is why we want to address legislation to en-
able the political structure to catch up with science. Where is the locus
of responsibility in the Government for earthquake prediction and
measures to mitigate the damage today?
Dr. STEVER. I am sorry, is that a question, or I thought it might be
a rhetorical question.
Mr. SYMINGTON. It is a question.
Dr. STEVER. I think the Disaster Assistance Act clearly says that it
is the intent of Congress by this act to provide an orderly and con-
tinuing means of assistance by the Federal and State and local govern-
ments in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering
and damage which result from such disasters. One of these forms of
assistance is achieving general coordination and responsiveness of
disaster preparedness and relief programs.
Another is to encourage hazard mitigation measures to reduce losses
from disasters, including the development of appropriate land use
and construction regulations. And somewhere in the act there is some-
thing having to do with research.
PAGENO="0026"
22
In section 2, application of science and technology and research, the
President is authorized to establish a piogi am ot disaster prepared
ness that utilizes the services of all the appropriate agencies, including
the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency
So authorization seems to be theie, but with so many actions of
government, authorizations may drift unnoticed, and in tact, it takes
emergencies or something to tell us that we are actually holding the
authorization to do things and get these programs going.
Mr SYMINGTON That is a very broad range of responsibility that
devolves upon the Government for disaster relief I think the focus
on earthquake prediction and mitigation is somewhat diluted there
It seems to have gotten lost in this shuffic What Government initiative
do you anticipate would bring it back into proper focus under the
existing structure without any further assistaiice ft om Congress ~
Dr STEVER There is going to have to be assistance from the Con
gress I actually think that the appropriations must be strengthened
I think that the oversight function-asking what are we doing about
coordinating these groups with respect to earthquakes-is a function
of the Congress And mind you, I am glad that what we see happening
is happening because all of this discussion does represent a change
in which the science has made progress to a point where m'rybe we can
take some of the authorizations more ser iously than we have in the
past
However, I do want to point out that just aiming at the money that
will be spent by the Federal Government is only one small portion
of the job
Mr SYMINGTON The Disaster Relief Act kind of divides up re
sponsibility among different agencies, doesn't it ~
Dr STEVER It delegates it to HUD and with r espect to earthquakes
1-IUD has redelegated it to Interior and the Geological Survey for
earthquake prediction and warning
Mr SYMINGTON Doesn't anybody want to take it on, is that the
trouble ~
Mr GOLDWATER Mr Chairman ~
Mr S~ MINGTON Yes
Mr GOLDWATER I think we are getting into `in area of the pi oblem
that we will have to address ourselves to sometime, that is, the prolif
eration in this ~ hole area I notice that our colleague from Kansas,
Larry Winn, generated some interest in toinado work I think that
is now under NASA They are doing most of that work, is that
correct ~
Dr STEVER I would think NOAA would be
Mr GOLDWATER We h'ive NOAA doing tornado work and
USGS-
Dr STEVER And NSF does work in this area too
Mr GOLDWATER Obviously, we want to call the expertise here into
being, but who is the lead agency ~ I ~ onder if Dr Stever has thought
about this and how you see it We have hurricanes and tornadoes and
e'irthquakes and they all cause disasters
It seems that the Federal Government has its hand in each disaster
Dr STEVER I think, Mr Goldwater, there is no question that co
ordination is one of the toughest things we do in the Government and
we should do more and more effecti~ ely I think the bill that has been
PAGENO="0027"
23
put out by this committee on the science advisory mechanism in the
White House will help, but it will take more than that. I think it is
very important to pinpoint the responsibility in agencies for these
different disasters.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Where do you think the lead should be? Where is
the logical place for all of this to be centered?
Dr. STEVER. For Federal Government action, I think the Depart-
ment of the Interior and the U.S. Geological Survey, ~as far as earth-
quake prediction is concerned. But we still have a tough problem: a
lot of the action to be taken that will save lives is the responsibility of
the private sector and the State and local areas. We can coordinate
and bring them together.
Your State, because of the repetition of earthquakes throughout its
history, began a long time ago to take the correct action with respect
to building codes.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I think the main concern here is the research and
development, the R. & D. money spent to better understand these phe-
nomena which then gives us some direction as to how we are going
to respond.
Dr. STEvi~n. Mr. Goldwater, there is another important fact. The
agencies that have to do with land use as opposed to building codes are
terribly important in this effort, because, again, while your State has
its building codes very well in hand, I think the land use problem in
the State of California is one which will have to be addressed carefully.
Mr. GOLDWATER. You are not advocating that the Federal Govern-
ment take over the land use problem.
Dr. STEVER. That is the point. That is not what I recommend.
Mr. SYMINGT0N. Maybe they could just tell them when they have
a disastrous land use policy.
Dr. S~rmri~ii. Mr. Symington, let me say another thing: While I did
say I thought that Some of the authorizing legislation being talked
about here is repetitive and we already have it, the very fact that you
bring out this point is very important, because you have to bring these
matters to the attention of those land use groups in California or any
other State-there are tens of thousands of them.
Mr. SYMINGTON. We will recess for a moment.
[Recess.]
Mr. BROWN. The subcommittee will reconvene.
The other members will be here shortly.
Dr. Stever, just a minor question: In the first part of your statement
you made some reference to the area over which earthquakes could be
felt which puzzled me a little bit. How do you define the area over
which earthquakes are felt. Obviously~ it depends on how sensitive
your sensors are.
Dr. STEVER. This is subjective in the sense of whether citizens re-
spond by saying my glassware shook or I shook in bed. Of course, this
could be done much more technically by actually defining the regions.
It varies from quake to quake and different quakes have different
magnitudes.
Mr. BROWN. So you are really aiming at trying to determine whether
there is some visual or perceptual indication ?
Dy. STEVER. Yes,
PAGENO="0028"
24
Mr. BROWN. It occurred to me in this discussion of earthquake warn-
ing and earthquake disaster damage mitigation that we have some
parallels with the situation that developed with regard to more com-
mon kinds of disasters such as flood's. I could give you a `small example
in my own district. The Corps of Engineers prepared 40 or 50 years
ago a small darn to mitigate the flood hazards within ~ certain runoff
channel. Today they are considering vastly increa~ing that. The
changes in the circumstances are, of course, that there has been a
great deal more construction developed in the path of potential flood
damage.
A $10 million dam of 50 years ago will be replaced by a $500 million
dam at present. The cost-benefit justifies that.
Dr. STEVER. Mr. Brown, again, I think I made the point that the
damage has only been $30 million per year in this last century from
earthquakes. But because of the change in our population centers,
what you say is now true. I do think that where the USGS has lead
agency responsibility for monitoring and studying earthquake pre-
diction that the NSF has been trying to think of ways to mitigate
damage in the sense of building structures differently and so on. I
think a great deal of progress has been made in both of those areas.
rrhey are quite different sciences. The science of earthquake predic-
tion brought along by USGS and helped by NSF has gone a long way.
The other one is going a long way. The change in our population
location makes the point that you are talking about. Yes, I think it is
a very good time to reexamine the total of where we stand in all of
these aspects.
Mr. BROWN. The corps and other agencies, have developed sort of
benchmarks of what they call 100- and 200-year storms, for example.
Of course, these can be measured and presumably earthquakes could
be measured in somewhat the same fashion and there could be some
prediction of what you could expect.
Dr. STEVER. It is pretty well known as to frequency and damage.
Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Mosher, I will yield the remaining 5 minutes to
you. Dr. Stever has to leave after that.
Mr. MOSHER. Dr. Stever, on page 6 you comment on the legislation
that I have introduced with several cosponsors and you rightly, I
think, raise an important question concerning our legislation. My bill
essentially provides a coordinating mechanism and you suggest that
that mechanism would be at best unwieldy and at worst unworkable.
Dr. STEVER. I changed it when I spoke to say: "It may be unwieldy."
Mr. Mosni~. Whatever you said, it is a valid comment. I don't quar-
rel with the comment at all. I recognize this is the crucial question
about it. The emphasis though in the legislation I have introduced is
to the effect that the present responsibilities in this important area are
terribly fragmented within the Federal Government and some sort of
coordinating mechanism I think is crucially needed. The very fact
that attempting to pull them together in my legislation requires so
many people and so many agencies, dramatically indicates how frag-
mented the present responsibility is.
Dr. STEVER. Mr. Mosher, may I interrupt to say that I personally
agree with you in this respect: As I try to describe the problems I
recognize that how they are seen really varies among quite different
PAGENO="0029"
25
kinds of persons-basic researchers and engineers and State and local
officials and so on. And we might bring earthquake prediction to a
high peak and have done nothing about mitigating loss.
Mr. MOSHER. That is right. The right hand needs to know what
the left hand is doing.
Mr. BROWN. If you could yield for a moment, maybe I could ask
Dr. Stever to comment on how many people were involved in the ad-
visoiy group which he describes on page 5.
Mr. MOSHER. I was just going to get to that myself. Can I get to that
in just a second, George?
Mr. BROWN. OK.
Dr. SPRYER. Mr. Brown has a way of pricking all the bubbles.
Mr. MOSHER. You suggested that the objectives might be accom-
plished with a smaller more focused group and my legislation does
emphasize the fact that this coordination should be dOne by a smaller
group. In fact, specifically, as I remember it-I don't have it in front
of me-it specifically proposes a 10-member executive group. Now I
was just going to get to the point that Mr. Brown is mentioning on
page 5 where you say that an advisory group on earthquake prediction
and hazard mitigation held its first meeting on June 14. That date is
i'ather interesting because it does indicate how recent this coordinating
effort is because my legislation was prepared and introduced I think
well before that time. So I am glad that we, or something stimulated
the creation of the advisory group. Later you point again to the vari-
ous formal and informal arrangements that now exist. And the ques-
tion that Mr. Brown has just asked is, as you suggest, very pointed.
How many people are involved in those informal arrangements by
which you are hoping to achieve better coordination?
Dr. SPRYER. First of all, that particular group is to give' us advice
on the earthquake predictions and earthquake mitigation warnin.g and
so on. It turns out that the number is 21.
Mr. MOSHER. That is only a limited aspect.
Dr. SPRYER. That is only a limited aspect. I don't want to say th~t
we have not been coordinating work. I already mentioned the inter-
agency discussion group on disaster mitigation that RANN has run
informally and within the FCST we have been coordinating with
other agencies. The real point of the bills being brought up to date is
that there is more focus on earthquake, and it may be that is what we
should be doing right now.
What it is going to show, I think, is' that we can strengthen some
parts of our programs and there are some parts `that the Federal
Government has rated only on an informational basis.
Mr. MOSHER. I yield for one question by Mr. Goldwater.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Dr. Stever, is this 5. 1174 incompatible with what
you are doing now?
Dr. SPRYER. No; I don't think so.
Mr. GOLDWATER. It is not?
Dr. SPRYER. No. My colleague, Dr. Thiel, says it reads as if it were
written from our program point of view. No; it is not incompatible
and in that sense bringing attention to it would be helpful.
Mr. GOLDWATER. The only difference, it seems to me, is as to point 6:
The President shall, within 180 clays identify the department, agency, or task
force which shall have primary responsibility.
PAGENO="0030"
26
Dr. STEVER. We have primary responsibility in NSF for earthquake
mitigation, design of structures, buildings and dams, and so on. USGS
has primary responsibility for earthquake prediction and m ~nitoring.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Do you have to leave at this time?
Dr. STEVER. Thank you. I do have to leave. I would be glad to answer
further questions in written form.
[Further questions in written form were forwarded to Dr. Stever.
The questions and responses follow:]
PAGENO="0031"
27
Earthquake
Questions and Answers
1. Q. Please submit a statement of the dollar amounts obligated by
NSF for earthquake work in fiscal years 1974, 1975, 1976 and
1977 (planned). The statement should be broken down into major
categories and further into subcategories if this is informative.
In-house work should be separated from work under grants, contracts,
or interagency transfers.
A. During the FY 1974, 1975, 1976, and 1977 (planned) the Foundation
has initiated (plans to initiate) the following amounts in grants
for the conduct of research on earthquakes. The table presents
three items for each year: the amount spent for earthquake
engineering, fundamental earthquake research, and the total amount
obligated during each year.
Earthquake Seismic
Year pgineer4ng~ Research
FY 1974 $7, 982, 900 $2, 450, 000 $10,432, 900
FY1975 5,356,372 1,970,000 7,326,372
FY 1976 7,150, 000 2, 600, 000 9, 750, 000
FY 1977 (Est.) 6, 800, 000 3, 500, 000 10, 300, 000
2. Q. How would NSF utilize the funding that would be authorized by
5. 1174 if that funding were made available ($20, 000, 000 in
FY 1978, for example)?
A. The assumption is that the $20, 000, 000 referred to in S. 1174
would be the total funds available to the Foundation for the pursuit
of earthquake related applied research. As currently structured
S. 1174 does not provide for support of basic research in seismology,
geophysics, and the earth sciences as they relate to earthquake
prediction, control and hazard identification. If these funds are
available, the RANN program in Earthquake Engineering and Societal
Impact will focus in three principal areas:
1) Earthquake engineering, that is, the development of technical
procedures to reduce the impact of earthquakes;
2) Societal response to earthquakes - that Is the development
of an understanding of the social, behavior, economic, and legal
implications of earthquakes and how they may be managed to reduce
the suffering of an occurrence and hasten the return of the community
to its pre-quake functioning; and,
PAGENO="0032"
28
3) Utilization studies and activities whose purpose is to
present to the public in a most appropriate and usable form the
benefits of the Federal Earthquake Research Program.
Approximately 60% of the available funds would be directed at
the objectives enumerated below:
1) Develop methods to characterize the nature of strong
ground motion suitable for application in analysis, design, and
planning;
2) Obtain a comprehensive data base of the response of soils
and structures to earthquakes;
3) Develop methods to evaluate and control soil response and
failure;
4) Determine appropriate models for the strong motion response
of structures and structural elements from analytic and experimental
studies;
5) Develop principles for local and regional planning that
consider direct and indirect effects; and,
6) Extract from the above principles a set of guidelines that
may be used to develop suitable criteria and reliable, practical
simplified methods of design of structures.
Approximately 25% of the available funds would be expended on studies
whose objectives are:
1) Define options for the mix of measures to mitigate earthquake
hazards by considering research, social, economic, legal, and
political barriers to policy implementation;
2) Assess public and private regulation impacts and develop
alternatives;
3) Facilitate the beneficial utilization of earthquake hazard
mitigation efforts by developing effective techniques for communicating
information to the public and decision makers.
4) Increase the capability of public officials to implement
earthquake hazard mitigation measures through land-use planning,
preparedness planning, building inspection, and disaster response; and
PAGENO="0033"
29
5) Define alternatives the private sector could adopt for
mitigating earthquake hazards.
Approximately 15% of the available funds would be expended on
projects whose purpose is to facilitate the utilization of the results
of this research program. Scientific and technical knowledge and
its application generally should not be separated. These studies
will be conducted as part of the ongoing research program. One
of the most important aspects of facilitating improvements in the
public's practice of earthquake mitigation is to make sure that
those who perform research are aware of problems faced by
practitioners. These needs will be met by conducting regular
workshops of users to identify problems needing conclusions,
surveying how practitioners use information, and by regular
evaluation and priority assessment.
3. Q. Please provide a copy of the damage estimate report mentioned
on page 2 of the testimony.
A. The report,referred to in the National Science Foundation
Testimony is "Budgeting Justification for Earthquake Engineering
Research, " prepared by the J. H. Wiggins Company. A copy is
appended.
(Committee note: This report was received and is
available for inspection in the Committee offices.)
4. Q. How will the establishment of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy affect planning and coordination for earthquake hazard
reduction?
A. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was recently
established and provides a focus for the examination of science
opportunities and the coordination of the Executive Branch science
activities. Within the context of the question OSTP could provide
a possible focus for the coordination and planning of civilian agencies
research programs. However, the desire is to keep OSTP small,
policy focused, and avoid the assignment of operational responsibilities.
Many of the problems posed by earthquakes cannot be dealt with by
research alone. Indeed the central issue in changing the public's
vulnerability to earthquakes is how state and local governments and
the private sector incorporate into practice that which is now known
and that which may be developed under this accelerated research
program. OSTP has responsibilities in science Policy but does not
have the capability to coordinate the manner in which Federal,
state, local or private individuals or organizations might apply such
knowledge. Thus OSTP presents a possible focus for research
coordination and planning but would not be a logical focus for the
coordination of actual earthquake hazards reduction programs.
76-649 0 - 76 - 3
PAGENO="0034"
30
5. Q. Please provide the Subcommittee with a copy of the plan
which NSF and USGS have been developing recently for research
on earthquake hazard reduction.
A. A copy of the plan which the National Science Foundation and the
U. S. Geological Survey prepared for consideration at the June 14th
meeting of the Earthquake Advisory Group on Hazard Mitigation is
appended. In addition, a copy of the draft plan prepared for the
August 12th and 13th meeting is also appended.
(Committee note: This material was received and is
available for inspection in the Committee offices.]
6. Q. How does NSF ensure that the results of its earthquake research
programs get used?
A. The NSF! RANN program has undertaken an extensive program
in research utilization for its Earthquake Engineering Research.
This extensive program is multi-faceted and includes the following
items:
1) Grants to the University of California, Berkeley, and
the California Institute of Technology have established a
National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering.
The NISEE publishes on a regular basis an Abstract Journal in
Earthquake Engineering summarizing the published literature
throughout the world. They have established a Software
Center which collects, validates, documents and distributes
computer programs developed by NSF and other agencies,
public and private, to the public and private sectors. The
reference collection of these two institutions is now among the
largest in the world and is used by a large variety of researchers
and practicing professionals. They have collected an extensive
library of strong motion earthquake response of the ground,
and buildings, and other structures as measured during the
occurrence of U. S. earthquakes. This catalog has been prepared
for computer use and has been widely distributed.
2) Under a joint program initiated with the National Bureau
of Standards called Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation,
RANN has made substantial investments in the development of a new
set of building design provisions, criteria, and standards which
incorporate the latest information and experience in earthquake
resistant design. These provisions are now nearing completion and
have been prepared so that they may be readily incorporated into
local, state and Federal building codes and regulations.
PAGENO="0035"
31
3) The Earthquake Engineering Program has supported
a number of workshop conferences and meetings at which the
results of research programs have been presented to practicing
professionals, researchers, and public officials. Among these
was a meeting hosted by the Association of Bay Area Governments,
the nine San Francisco Bay counties, which met in January to
examine the area's earthquake problem from a public perspective.
The Society for Engineering Education under joint support of NSF
and the Defense Civilian Preparedness Agency has conducted for
the past two summers a course to inform continuing education
instructors of the latest developments in earthquake mitigation
procedures.
4) Each award pursued under RANN support must have a
utilization strategy appropriate for that award's activities. These
individual utilization activities complement the overall program
thrusts which are illustrated above.
5) Each grantee is encouraged to participate in professional
associations. This has led to a very extensive representation
of RANN grantees in professional societies, standards setting
committees and similar associations. Among these are the
American National Standards Institute, American Society for
Testing Materials, American Society for Civil Engineers, American
Concrete Institute, the Structural Engineers Association of California,
and numerous others. Grantees have also participated in a wide
variety of state, local and regional commissions and bodies, e.g.
Participation in these activities is often partially reimbursed by the
award from the Foundation.
7. Q. What legislative authority does the National Science Foundation
currently have to operate programs related to earthquakes? Please
cite sections of the U. S. Code or Statutes.
A. The National Science Foundation's basic act provides authority
for the NSF to engage in basic and applied research. The specific
authority to engage in earthquake research is inferred through
the Foundation's FY 1976 Authorization and Appropriations Bills.
We have received specific legislation instructions to support
earthquake engineering research through minimum expenditure
levels established by NSF's Authorizations &nd Appropriations.
PAGENO="0036"
32
Mr. SYMINOTON. Thank you very much, Dr. Stever, for being with
us this morning. It has been very helpful to us.
We now will be happy to hear from Director V. E. McKelvey of
the U.S. Geological Survey accompanied by Robert Hamilton, Chief,
Office of Earthquake Studies, USGS. We are glad to have you with
us this morning, sir, and we look forward to your testimony.
[Brief biographical sketches of Dr. V. E. McKelvey and Dr. Robert
M. Hamilton follow:]
Dr. VINCENT E. MCKELVEY
Vincent E. McKelvey has been Director of the United States Geological Survey
since December 8, 1971. He was born in Huntington, Pennsylvania, on April 6,
1916, graduated with honors in Geology from Syracuse University in 1937, re-
ceived his MA. (1939) and Doctorate (1947) from the University of Wisconsin,
and has been a member of the U.S. Geological Survey since 1941.
Special assignments have included: Consultant, Chief of Engineers, Manila,
1945; Chief, Western phosphate investigations, 1947-194~; Chief, radioactive
mineral studies, 1950-1953; Minerals Specialist, USICA-Goverriment of Jordan,
1958; Assistant Chief Geologist, 1960-1964; Department of the Interior Energy
Policy Staff, 1961-1971; U.S. Representative and Advisor to Energy'Committee,
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1965-1967; Leader,
Department of the Interior Study Group, Outer Continental Shelf Oil, Gas, and
Sulfur Leasing Policy, 1968; U.S. Representative to Economic and Technical
Subcommittee of United Nations Committee on Peaceful Uses of Seabed and
Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction, 1968; Chief Geologist,
1971; Chairman, Project Independence Blueprint Interagency Oil T~isk Force,
1974.
Research publications dealing with the geology of manganese, phosphate,
uranium, mineral and fuel resources, marine resources, methods of estimating
reserves, prospecting methods, stratigraphy, sedimentation, and mineral
economics.
Honors Include the Department of the Interior's Distinguished Service Award
(1963), Henry Krumb Lecturer for the American Institute of Mining Engineers
(1968), Seventh McKinstry Memorial Lecturer at Harvard University (1971),
National Civil Service League Award (1972), Rockefeller Public Service Award
(1973), and honorary Doctor of Science, Syracuse University (1975).
Dr. ROBERT M. HAMILTON
Dr. Hamilton received the degree Geophysical Engineer from the Colorado
School of Mines, Golden, in 1958, and M.A. and Pb. D. degrees in Geophysics from
the University of California, Berkeley, in 1963 and 1965, respectively. He en-
gaged in research studies on earthquakes in New Zealand from 1965 to 1968 at
Seismological Observatory of the New Zealand Department of Scientific and
Industrial Research, then joined the USGS as a Research Geophysicist at the
National Center for Earthquake Research in Menlo Park, California. In 1972,
Dr. Hamilton moved to Washington, D.C. to become Deputy for Earthquake
Geophysics, and in 1973 assumed his current position.
STATEMENT OP V. E. MOKELVEY, DIRECTOR, U.S. GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY, ON EARTHQUAKE DISASTER MITIGATION
Dr. MCKIDLVEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for this op-
portunity to discuss t~ie Department of Interior's role in earthquake
hazard reduction and mitigation and to comment upon several pro-
posed items of legislation concerned with earthquake problems.
The Department is sympathetic to the general objectives of S. 1174,
H.R. 13722, H.R. 13845 and is actively involved in the administration's
program to accomplish the objective of reducing risks from earth-
quakes. However, we would point out that the objectives of the bills
PAGENO="0037"
33
can be accomplished under the existing authorities already available
to Federal agencies. Indeed, as Dr. Stever has indicated, the National
Science Foundation and the Geological Survey are identifying types
of earthquake research and their practical applications in developing
a research program plan to provide the underlying knowledge to deal
with earthquake hazards. The plan is to be available in time for con-
sideration in preparing the 1978 budget.
The U.S. Geological Survey within the Department now has the
principal Federal responsibility for earth science aspects of earthquake
hazards reduction. Our present program has evolved over the past
decades under the administrative guidance of several agencies, includ-
ing the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey and its successors under the
Environmental Science and Services Administration, and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In 1973, the
earthquake programs of NOAA were merged with those of the Geologi-
cal Survey and the Survey was given the responsibility for Federal
earth science earthquake research. The USGS also undertakes seismic
engineering data-gathering and research on behalf of the National
Science Foundation, which has the principal Federal responsibility
for earthquake engineering research. As a result of a recent redelega-
tion of authority under the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, the Survey
also has the responsibility for issuing warnings of earthquakes and
certain other kinds of geologic disasters such as volcanic eruptions
and landslides, to the extent that they are predictable.
The Federal program in earthquake research and the Disaster Relief
Act Amendments of 1974 were the result of the growing recognition
that earthquakes are not only capable of causing enormous losses to
life and property, but that the risk of such losses is increasing with
urban growth in high risk areas. Dr. Stever has already provided
the committee with estimates of damage and risk.
It is useful to think of the consequences of a major earthquake in
terms of primary, secondary, and perhaps even tertiary effects-not in
the sense of importance but in the sense of the sequence in which they
develop. Primary effects are those directly involved in the crustal
movement-strong ground shaking, warping of the Earth's crust, and
vertical or horizontal movement along a fault at the Earth's surface.
Strong ground shaking is the principal cause of damage during earth-
quakes. Rupture of the ground surface, although rarely the major
cause of destruction, can destroy even the largest and best engineered
structures that are located on the lines of rupture, Permanent warping
of the Earth's surface also can have profound and long-term impact,
resulting either in the flooding or draining of facilities along the
coast.
These primary effects, of course, can be devastating in their immedi-
ate impact on manmade structures. In large earthquakes, however,
the principal damage often results from the secondary and tertiary
effects-the forces set in motion by the primary shaking and tectonic
movement. Transient stresses generated by earthquake waves com-
monly trigger landslides, differential settlement, and liquefaction and
lateral spreading of the ground.
Among the most terrifying secondary effects of some earthquakes
are tsunamis. These large ocean waves, as much as tens of feet high,
are generated by sudden vertical movement of the ocean floor. The
PAGENO="0038"
34
waves can travel thousands of miles and devastate coastal communities
within their reach.
Other secondary effects include destructive seiches or oscillations
of the surface of lakes or bays, caused by crustal tilting or major
landslides. Flooding resulting from earthquake-induced dam or levee
failure may `be a greater threat to life and property in heavily popu-
lated areas than the primary effects of an earthquake.
Tertiary effects can also be highly devastating. They include fire
storms, which are turbulent blasts of scorching air resulting from the
large fires that may develop after the earthquake. They may also in-
dude the consequences of the panic of people under the stress of a
terrifying disaster, and possibly disease and hunger resulting from the
disruption of food and water supplies and the destruction of trans-
portation systems. The latter effects were of great concern in the areas
in Guatemala struck by the 7.5 magnitude earthquake on February
and its aftershocks.
If appropriate measures are taken, `damage from these effects can
be much reduced and some of the secondary and tertiary effects-such
as catastrophic floods from breacheed reservoirs and large fires and
fire storms-can be avoided altogether. The capability for earthquake
hazard reduction is already in hand to some degree and the results
of research already achieved indicate that it can be much advanced by
a combination of continued research and the determination to apply
the knowledge already in hand. Earthquake hazard reduction involves
several components: (a) Improved design of manmade structures to
increase their resistance to earthquakes; (`b) identification of active
faults and areas subject to strong ground motion, landslides and other
forms of ground instability as a basis both for improved construction
design and engineering and for land use planning and zoning; (c)
development of improved capability to predict the time, place, mag-
nitude, and effects of earthquakes; (d) earthquake insurance to spread
the economic losses; and (e) emergency preparedness, to utilize most
effectively earthquake predictions and to have essential defensive meas-
ures at hand even for unexpected `disasters.
Implementation of most of these actions is the responsibility of
private individuals and State and local civil authorities. Federal
agencies such as the Survey, NSF, the Federal Disaster Assistance
Administration, and the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency also have
responsibilities for implementation and can assist the other groups.
The Geological Survey's part in earthquake hazard reduction is a
critical one, and its major program objectives include: (1) Acquisition
and dissemination of information on earthquake occurrences; (2) map-
ping and evaluation of earthquake hazards; `and (3) development of
an improved capability to predict the time, place, and magnitude of
earthquakes. I will briefly describe here some of our activities in these
areas.
The Survey's National Earthquake Information Service locates and
rapidly evaluates important earthquakes worldwide, provides data
supporting the Tsunami Warning System operated by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and notifies appropriate
disaster authorities and the public within 2 hours of the occurrence.
From these data, the Geological Survey publishes seismic risk maps
that indicate expectable values of earthquake frequency and levels of
PAGENO="0039"
35
shaking; these are widely used by the engineering community in
developing building codes and in assisting in the safe design of
structures.
Geological Survey maps and reports on earthquakes hazards are
used by planners to avoid areas of greatest potential danger from the
destructive effects of earthquakes. Active faults are identified on the
basis of seismologic and geologic evaluations. Areas are delineated that
could be subject `to surface faulting, strong shaking, ground failure,
tectonic elevation changes, or earthquake-induced flooding from seismic
sea waves or from dam failure. Methods for assessing these various
earthquake hazards also are published to enable scientists in the aca-
demic community, State agencies, and the private sector to analyze
the origin, distribution, and effects of earthquakes.
The Geological Survey also has underway research on the predic-
tion of the time, place, magnitude, and effects of earthquakes. Mount-
ing evidence from the United States and from China, Japan, and the
Soviet Union indicates that technology can be developed to predict
at least some large earthquakes. Our present efforts are concentrated
heavily in central California near the town of ilollister, where small
to moderate earthquakes are frequent. We have deployed there various
kinds of instruments that monitor the state of the earth over this
seismically active region continuously. The data are analyzed at our
center in Menlo Park, Calif., to which t'hey are telemetered. Recon-
naissance networks of seismographs and other instruments are located
in southern California and the San Francisco Bay area and other U.S.
urban areas of high risk, but the density is sparse.
Earthquake disasters, of course, are an international threat. The
Geological Survey has maintained close contact with hazard reduction
efforts in other earthquake-prone nations, especially with regard to
development of earthquake prediction techniques. Cooperative studies,
including the exchange of scientists, are underway with the Soviet
Union. We also participated in an exchange of delegations of earth-
quake specialists with the People's Republic of China. Geological Sur-
vey scientists currently are visiting China as part of a National
Academy of Sciences team that is investigating prediction methods
used by the Chinese in forecasting a potentially disastrous magnitude
7.3 earthquake that occurred in 1975.
Early this year, analysis of data from precise leveling showed that
a large uplift has occurred in the past 15 years in `the vicinity of the
San Andreas fault in the Mohave Desert just north of Los Angeles,
with the land surface rising nearly a foot in the central part of the
uplift. The origin of this uplift and its `possible relation `to future
earthquakes is not understood but there is clearly cause for concern.
Such uplifts have preceded some earthquakes in the past; but in this
very area one occurred earlier this century with no following earth-
quakes. Copies of our February 13 press release describing the uplift
will be provided for the committee.
[The press release follows:]
PAGENO="0040"
36
DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR
news release
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Forrester (703) 860-7444
For release: on Receipt (prepared February 13, 7~)
LAND SWELLING IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISCOVERE]
Recent land uplift of as much as about 10 inches (25 centimetres)
has been discovered astride a large section of California's San Andreas
fault about 40 miles north of Los Angeles, according to scientists of
the U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.
The land swelling, in the shape of a huge kidney, has a 120-mile
axis oriented roughly east-west and extending from the Pacific Ocean
into the Mojave Desert. This uplift is receiving close attention among
USGS earthquake specialists because similar swelling has occurred prior
to some earthquakes in California and elsewhere. The scientists emphasize,
however, that such uplifts also have occurred without subsequent earthquakes.
Discovery of the uplift was made by R. 0. Castle, 3. P. Church, and
N. P. Elliott, scientists at the USGS Menlo Park, California field center.
Centered north of Los Angeles near Palmdale in the western Mojave.
Desert, the swelling apparently began about 1960 near the junction of
the San Andreas and Garlock faults. Since then, it has grown east-
southeastward to include an area of about 4,500 square miles (12,000
square kilometres).
The uplift discovery resulted from analyses of repeated measurements
taken over a number of years along precisely surveyed elevation lines
crossing the southern California region. The measurements were made by
various organizations, including the USGS, the National Geodetic Survey,
and several southern California municipalities and counties.
The significance of the uplift is not fully understood, according
to USGS scientists; they are concerned, however, because it occurs
astride a sector of the San Andreas fault that has remained "locked"
since a great earthquake in 1857. Thus, the scientists explain,
considerable strain could be building up in this area.
(more)
PAGENO="0041"
37
2
Dr. Robert H. Hamilton, Chief of the USGS Office of Earthquake
Studies at the Survey's National Center, Reston, Virginia, said that,
following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, analysis of data collected
earlier indicated that similar swelling had preceded that quake. Uplift
has also been determined to have preceded earthquakes in other parts of
the world, including uplift in Japan that started ten years before a
destructive earthquake at Niigata in 1964.
"However," Hamilton emphasized, "such uplift also has occ~1rred
without being followed by earthquakes. For example, an uplift may have
occurred between 1897 and 1914 within the Transverse Ranges north of
Los Angeles, but no large earthquake followed. Consequently, the present
swelling may or may not indicate that an earthquake is coming. We must
not jump to conclusions based on geodetic data alone."
"Considerable additional information on the land deformation and
seismic activity in the region is needed before we will be able to
evaluate the significance of the uplift," Hamilton said.
Hamilton reported that some new studies of a limited nature are
being started aimed at getting a better understanding of the uplift
occurrence. He said that the new studies include additional geodetic
surveys, installation of seismometers and tiltmeters (devices for
monitoring of minute changes in the ground surface), and surveys of
the Earth's gravity field in the region. "We hope that these new
limited investigations will provide at least some information on the
cause of the observed uplift," Hamilton said.
# # # #
(Note to Editors: See attached diagram showing area of uplift.)
PAGENO="0042"
EXPLANATION
~+ 0.1 5~
Contours of equal elevation change (in meters)
Fault
+O.n
TRANSVERSE
+0.05
~0o~ RANGES
miles
`0
PAGENO="0043"
39
Continued analysis of elevation of data by our scientists now demon-
strates that the area of uplift is much more extensive than originally
noted. A region of more than 10,000 square miles--extending from
the Tehachapi Mountains to the Saiton Sea-appears to have risen
since 1962. Furthermore, analysis of horizontal geodetic data indicates
that a period of anomalous horizontal shear strain coincided with
the development of the uplift.
In March, we met with the staff of the California Congressional
delegation and with the staff of Governor Brown to brief them on the
uplift. The Geological Survey pointed out that while some evidence
can be interpreted as precursory to a major earthquake in the south
California region, there is no basis at present for predicting the time
it will occur. The sum of the geologic and seismologic evidence, how-
ever, led us to warn `that a great earthquake would take place in the
region sometime in the future and that preparedness actions are
justified.
Clearly, there is a critical need for evaluation of the significance of
the southern California uplift. I am pleased to report that the Presi-
dent recently has approved increases in our fiscal 1976 earthquake
budget to expand observation and analysis of the uplift. We have
begun to monitor geophysical phenomena in `the area of the uplift
more intensely and will increase studies of potential earthquake haz-
ards of the region. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, through its National Geodetic Survey, is cooperating in studies
of the uplift. NGIS now is involved in an intensive effort at evaluating
all leveling and gravity da'ta in southern California, and will work
with the Geological Survey to provide an integrated picture of the
land elevation changes in `the `southern California area.
I mentioned earlier the responsibility recently redelega'ted to the
Survey with respect to the `issuance of warnings of impending disasters
of geologic origin. Frankly, however, the capability to issue warnings
is very limited, particularly with respect to predictions as to the time
an event will occur. As an initial step in respond'ing to this expanded
responsibility, however, `the Geological Survey currently is reviewing
its `capabilities for prediction of natural disasters and is developing
procedure `for `issuance of the tentative predictions we are able to
make so that they can be `used most effectively by local authorities.
In carrying out the responsibilities under the Disaster Relief Act,
we will he in a difficult position `while an earthquake prediction capa-
bility is `being developed. The impact c~f incorrect predictions, a subject
presently under review, could be socially and economically adverse.
Prediction research is a complex and difficult program and the `period
of uncertain and inaccurate predictions could well stretch over the
next few decades. We are looking at possible ways to reduce this period
of uncertainty.
Mr. Chairman, `in your June 9 letter to Secretary Kleppe inviting
us to appear today, you asked that we discuss, among other things,
how Interior's efforts are coordinated with those of other agencies and
what is the expected future role of the Department of the Interior
in earthquake `hazard reducti'oh. Speaking first to the matter `of coordi-
nation, let me say that the reorganization accomplished lii 1973 and
the `placing of responsibility `for earthquake hazard reduction research
in the Geological Survey and `the National Science Foundation did
PAGENO="0044"
40
much to reduce the coordination problem. Between the NSF and
the Survey, NSF is responsible for earthquake engineering and the
Survey is responsible for Earth science aspects of earthquake hazards
reduction, and `coordination is accomplished by direct and frequen't
contacts between the two agencies.
Other organizations, however, have certain activities or interests
in our research, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the National Bureau of Standards, the National
Academy of Sciences, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Na;tional Aero-
nautics and Space Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion, the Department of Housing and Urban 1)evelopment, the De-
fense Advanced Research Proj ec'ts Agency, the Veterans Adminis-
tration, and the Federal Highway Administration. Representatives
of these agencies are liaison members of the Geological Survey~s
Earthquake Studies Advisory Panel, which meets twice a year to re-
view the USGS earthquake research program. This panel has been
very effective in permitting the exchange of information and in the
coordination of program development.
Currently, we are working closely with Dr. Stever to prepare a
program plan identifying types of earthquake research and applica-
tions for reducing earthquake hazards. rfte plan will be considered in
developing the 1978 and future budgets. rfhis planning effort is in-
tended to assure that Federal earthquake studies are well designed and
coordinated, and that research products will be effectively utilized by
State and local governments and the private sector. Last week, Dr.
Stever convened a panel of earthquake specialists from outside the
Federal Government to help develop this comprehensive program
plan.
Three bills are under review today:
5. 1174 as passed by the Senate would authorize ihcreased levels of
research in earthquake hazards reduction research by the Geological
Survey and the National Science Foundation and would establish
earthquake disaster mitigation as a national objective. It also would
provide a new coordinating structure for a national earthquake pro-
gram. The bill would authorize specific amounts of appropriations in
three parts-for the USGS, for the NSF, and for the general
program.
A key element of S. 1174, as passed, would be the establishment of
an advisory committee to the President composed of representatives
of the research community (including the design professions), and
Federal, State, and local entities concerned with earthquake hazards,
and qualified individuals experienced in earthquake hazard research.,
planning, implementation, or preparation. This advisory committee
apparently would perform a similar function to the USGS Earth-
quake Studies Advisory Panel, but have a somewhat broader scope.
H.R. 13722 would establish Federal and National councils to develop
comprehensive programs for earthquake prediction and preparedness
that would be submitted to the President and Congress.
The bill would establish a Federal Council composed of six heads of
Federal agencies or organizations concerned with earthquakes. The
Council would be required to develop and submit to the President and
the Congress a plan for all aspects of Federal earthquake research
and hazard reduction.
PAGENO="0045"
41
rphe research would be conducted by the Geological Survey and the
National Science Foundation in coordination with research efforts of
State and local governments and the academic community.
The bill would also establish a National Board on Earthquake Pre-
diction, Preparedness, and Coordination composed of eight heads of
Federal agencies concerned with earthquakes and four representatives
of the States. The Board would be required to develop and submit to
the President and the Congress a plan for seismic risk mapping, a
proposed earthquake prediction system (to be operated by the Geo-
logical Survey), and a program for expanded preparedness planning.
The Federal Disaster Assistance Administration would be responsible
fo rconducting the earthquake preparedness program.
H.R.. 13722 is concerned primarily with the development of a pro-
gram plan for Federal research into earthquake prediction and emer-
gency preparedness, and with coordination of research efforts with
those of State. and local governments, the academic community, and
foreign governments. As I have already mentioned USGS and NSF
currently are developing such a program plan in conjunction with a
broadly representative panel of non-Federal experts.
H.R. 13722 assumes a much more advanced state-of-the-art in earth-
quake studies than actually exists. For example, it specifies that the
prograni plan of the National Board shall divide the country accord-
ing to relative seismic risk. HI.R. 13722 would also specify an earth-
quake prediction system for areas of high seismic risk without con-
sidering that earthquake prediction itself is in a research phase and
that the methods and instruments for forecasting have not been fully
determined.
H.R. 13845 seems to emphasize earthquake prediction over other
hazard mitigation aspects. It calls for earthquake preparedness plan-
ning without giving adequate attention to the development of capa-
bilities in earthquake engineering and. the mapping and evaluation
of earthquake hazards.
I-I.E. 13845 would establish a management structure for a national
earthquake hazards program that would coordinate activities of exist-
ing agencies. A Conference of Federal, State, and private sector rep-
resentatives would evaluate the status of earthquake hazards reduction
and recommend appropriate legislation.
The Conference is a committee comprised of 29 members, including
23 who are officials of Federal agencies or organizations concerned
with earthquakes and 6 who are appointed by the Secretary of HTJD
and ai~ not in the Federal Government. In addition, there would be
four nonvoting members from Congress. An Executive Committee of
the Conference would also be established.
Although the concerns addressed by H.R. 13845 are real, the bill
would nevertheless establish a very cumbersome mechanism for assum-
ing responsibilities that would normally belong in a Government
agency. The oversight function is partially being carried out by the
TJSGS Earthquake Studies Advisory Panel, which has liaison repre-
sentatives from all agencies with a strong interest in earthquakes. We
also note conimittee representation would include many agencies that
have only a minor interest in earthquake problems. Furthermore,
insofar as I-T.R. 13845 establishes a new mechanism to evaluate the
PAGENO="0046"
42
earthquake problem, it duplicates and retraces the steps of numerous
published studies both in and out of government.
One of the duties of the Conference is to establish an earthquake
prediction board to evaluate predictions and issue authenticated pre-
dictions. This warning responsibility currently is assigned to the
USGS under the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 and subsequent redelega-
tions of authority.
The Conference would be authorized to issue contracts for research
and implementation studies. This authority currently rests with the
USGS and NSF.
It appears that the authority for accomplishing an effective earth-
quake hazards reduction program is presently available to the execu-
tive branch. Indeed, we recommend against enactment of any of the
bills because we believe adequate authority to conduct, research, and
to coordinate existing Federal efforts already exists. But let me add
that the administration is moving to survey its present efforts with
the objective of evaluating possible substantive additions to the pro-
gram and assuring a specific program of coordination; and, as Dr.
Stever has mentioned, will recommend legislation if it is needed to
supplement existing authorities.
The research program plan being developed by USGS and NSF
has not been completed, but its form is clear. It will be based on
research in three broad areas: Earth sciences, engineering, and socio-
economic problems. The objective of these studies is an understanding
of earthquakes sufficient to predict their occurrence, modify their
activity, reduce structural damage, and provide the information
needed for decisionmakers to design the institutions necessary to pre-
pare our citizens for both preparation for earthquakes and the recov-
ery from earthquakes. Our knowledge in each of the three research
areas varies in quantity and quality-for example, prediction is at an
embryonic stage, whereas zoning for earthquake hazards is being
implemented by local and State entities. A major operational pro-
grain in all aspects of earthquake mitigation, therefore, would be pre-
mature ~t this time.
Concerning earthquake research, one of our primary problems is the
structure of such a broad ranging program. Within the administra-
tion, considerable attention is being given to determining the priority
among program elements, both with regard to timing and funds. Some
problem areas may simply not be benefited by rapid expenditures,
while others may effectively be addressed by relatively brief, intensive
studies.
For example, the payoff to society in prediction research is highly
dependent upon the leadtime and accuracy of any prediction capa-
bility we develop. A very accurate prediction with a long leadtime can
provide substantial benefits and will exact relatively low costs. For
example, unsafe structures would be evacuated, reservoirs would be
lowered and other measures would be taken for only short periods.
These measures could be quite costly if our prediction capability can-
not be made reliable. Two questions we must consider `are, How good
our prediction capability must become in order to justify spending
significant `sums on earthquake prediction, `and will significant fund-
ing provide this capability? Such questions may also be posed for other
elements in our earthquake program. Indeed they are common to all
research where the outcome is uncertain.
PAGENO="0047"
43
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. Dr. Hamilton and I
will be glad to answer the committee's questions.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Thank you, Dr. McKelvey.
Dr. Hamilton, did you wish to speak at this time?
Dr. HAMILTON. I have nothing now.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I want to thank you for that thorough exposition
of the on-going work of the Government in this area. I think it would
be helpful to the committee if you could submit a statement of the
dollar amounts obligated by your organization to earthquake work
in 1974,1975 and 1976 and the plan for 1977.
Dr. MCKELVEY. We would be happy to do that.
Mr. SYMINGTON. We would like that broken down into major cate-
gories or even into subcategories, if possible, and we would like to have
shown the separation of the inhouse work from those things done
under grants and contracts outside and where those went, a real break-
down of the budget for earthquake relevant work.
Maybe you could tell us a little bit about your support for data col-
lection and instrumentation at the Palmdale uplift, the dollar amounts
and the number of instruments. Perhaps you could tell us something
about that now.
Dr. McKELVEY. I will ask Dr. Hamilton to give some details on this,
but I may just say that we have, since we recognized the uplift in the
latter part of 1975, taken steps to augment our observation program
there. And the National Geodetic Survey, as I mentioned in my testi-
mony, has joined with us in a resurvey of a number of the leveling
lines in that area to acquire niore recent information and we are in the
process of installing additional instruments in a stepped up program
authorized by the President and also described by Dr. Stever, which
amounts to an increase of $2.1 million for studies in that area.
I will ask Dr. Hamilton to supplement that with more detail.
Dr. HAMILTON. $2.6 million is being made available for augmented
studies in southern California. It includes $2.1 million for the uplift
studies and $500,000 for restoration of requested cuts in the earthquake
program. The $2.6 million is being provided 50-50 by the NSF and the
Geological Survey. The $1.3 million from NSF has been received by
the USGS in the form of a grant. The funds from the Geological
Survey are currently awaiting approval from congressional commit-
tees, the House Appropriations and Senate Appropriations Sub-Com-
mittees. The request has gone from the Department of Interior and we
expect action perhaps by the end of the week, at least from the House
committee.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Are these reprogramed funds?
Dr. HAMILTON. Yes.
Mr. GOLDWATER. So you are just waiting for approval of the re-
programing?
Dr. HAMILTON. Yes. We have a request for reprograming $1.1 mil-
lion of fiscal year 1976 and $200,000 of the fiscal year 1977 effort to
make the total of $1.3. What we are currently awaiting is the approval
for the reprogramIng of the $1.1 million.
The $2.1 million for studies of the uplift would be used primarily
for instrumentation of the uplift region to detect further anomalies
and also for studies predicting the effects of a possible earthquake in
the Los Angeles region. The funds will be spent both within the Geo-
PAGENO="0048"
44
logical Survey and outside. We have estimated that about $1.24 million
will be spent outside through contracts with universities, private in-
dustry, and State and local governments, and $860,000 will be spent
inside. We have just issued a request for proposal; the closing date on
that is July 30.
We will be funding approximately $1 million through the request
for proposals. The studies will be comprehensive. They will include a
wide variety of instrumentation, seismographs, magnetometers, and
tiltmeters and a lot of surveys-leveling, triangulation, et cetera.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. Mosher, do you have any questions?
Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Chairman, maybe I should mention that I recently
had the privilege of spending several hours at Menlo Park, the center
there. I found it fascinating and impressive and I would urge that
other members of the committee go there. They are going to be moving
into larger, more efficient headquarters. And I think that will be help-
ful. I was impressed.
You now have been delegated the authority, and, I judge, the
responsibility to issue warnings of impending earthquake disasters
but you really don't as yet have the capability to give very precise
warnings. Dr. McKelvey indicates on page 8 that it may be several
decades before you actually have adequate information. This must be
very troubling to all involved as to just how you go about living up
to this responsibility within your capacity. I notice, Dr. McKelvey,
that on page 7 you say that in March you met with the staff of the
California congressional delegation and the staff of the Governor. Is
that the procedure that you probably would follow now as you get
evidence that there is a serious earthquake impending, even though
you cannot say precisely when or where?
Is that the first step in meeting your responsibility, to sort of in-
formally and behind the scenes discuss this with the State and local
officials? Is that the extent to which you dare go as of now?
Dr. MOKELVEY. I would not call it informally and behind the
scenes.
Mr. MOSHER. I did not mean that in any derogatory sense.
Dr. MOKELVEY. We are presently trying to develop procedures that
we would follow and will follow, recognizing that we are at the very
beginning of an entirely new process and whatevei we develop and
conclude now certainly will be modified by experience as time goes
on.
Last November we held a conference in San Francisco to which we
invited the Governors of nine Western States, the mayors of some of
the larger cities, and other public officials for the purpose of discuss-
ing just how we would handle the prediction problem.
We outlined a plan at that time which was generally well received.
When a prediction is developed we would have a process for authen-
ticating it and then for notifying the State and civil authorities who
then would have the responsibility for issuing a warning in the sense
of both a prediction and advice or instructions as to what to do. That
authority clearly rests with the civil authorities and is beyond both the
authority and competence of the Geological Survey and other Federal
agencies,
Mr. MOSHER. You are indicating that the responsibility for going
public with this in terms of potential newspaper headlines and that
sort of thing lies with the local authorities?
PAGENO="0049"
45
Dr. MOKELVEY. What we proposed, tentatively, at that time was
that we would first notify the State and local authorities and would
delay perhaps for a day or two a public announcement of the pre-
diction in order to give the State and local authorities a little bit of
leadtime in developing a warning that would accompany the predic-
tion. But certainly a public announcement would need to be made
rather quickly following authentication of the prediction. We would
not propose delaying that long if the State authorities did not them-
selves make the announcement.
Mr. MOSHER. In other words, your agency would not hesitate to
make a public announcement?
Dr. MOKELVEY. No; quite to the contrary, Mr. Mosher. We feel a
very weighty responsibility to the public to make known the results of
any prediction that would be developed by the Geological Survey.
Mr. MOSHER. Even though that could bring down. upon your head
furies of all sorts?
Dr. MCRELVEY. We are aware of that possibility and shudder to
think about it, but it is a responsibility that we cannot imagme could
be vacated by the Geological Survey. I certainly agree that the pros-
pects that we face, in the period in which the development of predic-
tions will involve some uncertainty, is very disturbing and worrisome
to all of us.
I mentioned the components of a prediction as consisting of a pre-
diction of the. kind of event that will take place, where it will take
place, what its magnitude and effects will be, and when it will take
place. It is that time component in which there is greatest uncertainty
now and which will give us the most trouble.
This is the kind of uncertainty involved with the Palmdale uplift.
We know that there is going to be a very large magnitude earthquake
in that area sometime, but we don't know when. That kind of uncer-
tainty may plague us for a very long time into the future. The kinds
of premonitory phenomena that we are recognizing are ones in which
there is a buildup over a period of time and then some sort of return
to normalcy just before the earthquake takes place.
Until those very near-term premonitory signals are recognized all
you know is that you are building up for an event sometime in the
future. In the case of the Palmdale uplift, we know that uplifts of this
kind have preceded some earthquakes, so we have to regard this as a
premonitory signal. We felt that even though we were unable to say
when, that it was incumbent upon us to inform the civil authorities of
what is going on and its possible significance. I was very pleased, Mr.
Mosher, in our meeting with the Governor's staff in Sacramento in
March that they recognize the value and significance of having that
kind of a warning even though we are unable to even approximate the
time at which such an event would occur. And they indicated that they
would take steps to respond to it and indeed have since then.
Specifically, a statement was made that as public officials responsible
for public safety in California they recognize that even a very long-
term prediction is one that is important for them to know about in
order to take steps to defend against the disaster that might be
involved.
Mr. M0sIIER. Mr. Chairman, just let me make one further comment:
It seems to me that the gist of Dr. McKelvey's testimony and also that
76-649 0 - 76 - 4
PAGENO="0050"
46
of Dr. Stever for that matter, is that the various executive agencies
are fully aware of the problem and also feel that they now have ade-
quate authority to do what needs to be done.
They might welcome some more money, but probably 0MB does
not give them the authority to ask for more money. I judge they are
sort of telling us not to panic. Don't push us too fast. We have the
authority and we're trying to pull ourselves together to do the job.
Dr. McKelvey, does that accurately indicate the gist of your testi-
mony and if it does, are you satisfied with the present coordinating
mechanisms in this area? Do you feel that the various right hands
know what the various left hands are doing, or do you think it is
necessary to find some mechanism to carry out these responsibilities?
Even though it is out on the fringe, you referred to the bill I intro-
duced as bringing in some people having very meager responsibilities
or interest, but nevertheless we do bring them in. Do you feel that the
present mechanisms are adequate?
Dr. MOKELVEY. Mr. Mosher, I feel that in the area of the research
effort on both the science and engineering side that the coordination
efforts presently in place are adequate. Through the mechanism that
Dr. Stever mentioned, the informal group that meets frequently, and
also through the USGS Earthquake Studies Advisory Panel, which
meets at least twice a year, all of the agencies with a direct concern
in those areas are well coordinated. I am sure anyone who has attended
them will attest that those meetings have been very effective in keeping
the agencies informed of each other~s activities and in a very broad
way coordinating their efforts.
However, there is the problem of coordination in the broader sense,
as Dr. Stever indicated, which is difficult. I am sure it is adequately
addressed. I am not sure that either your bill or any of the other ideas
as to how to go about it really would be effective with regard to the
problem.
Certainly, there are many agencies beyond those I mentioned in my
testimony with a more or less direct concern with regard to earthquake
studies. Beyond them there are many other Federal agencies that
would have some involvement in an earthquake disaster if one should
occur. For example, there is the Small Business Administration which
is not mentioned here. It has a direct interest in earthquakes. But if
there were a major disaster and it was anticipated, certainly the offi-
cials of the Small Business Administration would be concerned in
preparing for it. Similarly, I expect the Internal Revenue Service
would too.
One can go on through agency after agency. I think someone counted
upward of 50 Federal agencies that might have some involvement
or need for preparedness actions. The question of just how to address
that is very difficult.
With respect to the matter of earthquake prediction, per Se, the
Geological Survey proposed in the plan that I described to you and
which was presented at the conference in San Francisco last fall an
earthquake prediction council which would have the responsibility of
authenticating a prediction made within the Geological Survey or
submitted to it from someone on the outside. We proposed at that time
that the council would be composed both of Geological Survey experts
and members from the outside, experts on earthquake prediction. But
PAGENO="0051"
47
as we have turned that around and recently discussed it with our
Earthquake Studies Advisory Panel, we have come to realize that that
formal body might really be too inflexible to deal with some of the
kinds of problems that might be faced. Precursor signals might appear
possibly only a day or two in advance of an earthquake. It might be
very difficult to even convene such a formal body on such short notice.
So our own thinking with respect to that part of the problem has
been that we could need to shift to a more flexible arrangement, still
maintaining the general structure of reviewing and authenticating an
earthquake prediction but without establishing a formal body respon-
sible for it. That is the kind of problem I think which has to be rec-
ognized in this general area.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Dr. McKelvey, I assume the answer is no.
Dr. MCKELVEY. I tried to indicate, Mr. Goldwater, that I think the
coordination problem is adequately-
Mr. GOLDWATER. Why does the administration come up with a pro-
grain that obviously does not address the question? Why don't you
and Dr. Stever and who else get together and come up with a compre-
hensive program, not just prediction and warning, but research, the
whole program?
Dr. MOKELVEY. Part of the program is under development. And as
Dr. Stever and I indicated, the administration will come out with it.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I do not think the program is under development.
You have a study out which talks about one aspect of it. You are talk-
ing about USGS and National Science Foundation in the area of re-
search and dollars and predictions and scientific work. But you have
talked here with response to the question Mr. Mosher asked you, are
you satisfied that we have a program? You said no and then you went
on to enumerate numerous areas that were not adequately treated.
Now this study that you have out is not going to address all of those
areas.
Dr. MCKELVRY. It is not presently addressing the coordination prob-
lem. But, as I indicated, I think that this is an extremely difficult prob-
lem and one that needs to be looked at.
Mr. GOLDWATER. It becomes less difficult when you begin addressing
it. I would like to ask you, Dr. McKelvey, did you make a prediction
here today? You said that there will be an earthquake in the Los
Angeles area, around the P'almdale uplift, is that a prediction?
Dr. MOKELVEY. It is a prediction of a kind.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Has it been publicized in the Los Angeles area?
Dr. MCKELVEY. Yes; I think it was well publicized by the California
press.
Mr. GOLDWATER. You have not given a certain date, have you?
Dr. MCKELVEY. Indeed not.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I thought we would make some news here today
and issue a warning..
Dr. MCKELVEY. We are unable to do that, that is, to issue or predict
when such an event will occur, `but we can say with great certainty
that an earthquake of large magnitude will occur in the future.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Is this supported in the scientific community?
Dr. MOKELVEY. Yes; it is, Mr. Goldwater.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I was interested in your discussion with Mr. Mosher.
There are two things involved here. We have prediction which is a
PAGENO="0052"
48
scientific technical accomplishment and you have warning which is a
political phenomenon.
Do I understand correctly that the policy of at least the USGS is
not to get involved in a political decision, the political aspects of earth-
quake warning and leave that up to the local elected officials?
Dr. MOKELVEY. Mr. Goldwater, we are presently developing, as I
indicated, the procedures that would be followed. Whatever we do
certainly will be on a provisional basis.
Mr. GOLDWATER. In other words, you do not have a policy today in
that regard?
Dr. MOKELVEY. Our thinking today is-and this is what we have
already followed in the case of the Palmdale uplift-that we would
distinguish between a prediction and a warning, a prediction being a
forecast that an event is going to happen and the warning consisting
of instructions or advice as to what to do about it. The warning would
be issued by civil authorities who have that responsibility.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Are those Federal civil authorities?
Dr. MCKELVEY. No; State and local civil authorities. The Disaster
Relief Act of 1974 establishes the responsibility for issuing a warning
and that responsibility, as I indicated, has been redelegated to the
Geological Survey. It does not make a distinction between prediction
and warning.
Mr. GOLDWATER. There should be, should there not?
Dr. MCKELVEY. I believe there should be.
Mr. GOLDWATER. And do I understand, yes or no, that USGS has a
policy in this area?
Dr. MOKELVEY. The policy we have at the present time is that we
would issue the prediction and the civil authorities would issue the
warning.
Mr. GOLDWATER. How long has the USGS been involved in the earth-
quake business?.
Dr. MOKELVEY. Probably 75 or 80 years in one way or the other.
Mr. GOLDWATER. OK, just recently to the magnitude you are today?
How recent is that? I guess what i'm trying to get at is: Is your
activity, the current activity, a recent phenomenon?
Dr. MOKELVEY. The direct funding of earthquake studies I believe
began about 10 years ago at the level of about $1 or $1.5 million per
year and then as a result of studies that were made and recommenda-
tions developed in the scientific community. In fiscal 1973, the pro-
gram was stepped up to a level of about $5.6 million and in 1974 to a
level of $8.7 million. So the acceleration in the earthquake hazard re-
duction studies took place about 3 years ago and you might say that
the focus on earthquake hazard reduction took place in the late sixties.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Thank you.
Dr. Hamilton, it occurs to me that we are fortunate to have you
involved in this program. I notice by your background that you have
a long association in these areas of concern that we are talking about
today and that you are a graduate of the `Colorado School of Mines
and Berkeley and have taken part in a number of research programs
concerned with earthquakes. I am wondering from your vantage
point-we have heard about the China phenomenon-are we realisti-
cally close to dealing with and predicting earthquakes accurately?
PAGENO="0053"
49
Dr. HAMILTON. I am very familiar with the China phenomenon. I
was privileged to travel there in October 1974 with the American dele-
gation and so I had a firsthand view of the work going on there.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I believe you wrote a paper on that.
Dr. HAMILTON. I was one of the authors of the comprehensive re-
port published on earthquake re'search in China. The Chinese achieve-
ment is certainly a great one. There is no doubt that they saved tens
of thousands of lives through their prediction. They have also made
numerous false predictions. rrhey readily concede this. There have been
many errors in the program. So the capability that they have is not a
reliable capability, but indeed it has saved many lives. In the United
States, we are now in the situation where we have deployed many in-
struments and we are observing signals that show anomalies similar
to what have been observed in other countries.
So we are faced with the problem of trying to interpret those anoma-
lies and provide the best information we can. The difficulty is that we
do not have enough experience to have established a track record as
to how these anomalies behave. For example, the earthquake that oc-
curred in central California on Thanksgiving Day a couple of years
ago showed a magnetic anomaly that occurred before it, a very clear
anomaly. That is the only anomaly we have seen. It was a variation in
the Earth's magnetic field that preceded the earthquake.
Mr. GOLDWATER. And you were able to measure this?
Dr. HAMILTON. Yes. But that is one anomaly and one earthquake.
Now the next time we see an anomaly we will think there is probably
going to be an earthquake, but maybe that time there won't be one.
Then we will have a 50-50 record. What I am trying to say is that
while we are trying to develop a sound theoretical basis we are largely
in an empirical situation where we can base our predictions only on
the track record.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Do we have a cooperative effort around the world
in this so we can maximize the experiences?
Dr. HAMILTON. There is very good cooperation. We have a good ex-
change program with the Soviet TJnion, a fairly good exchange pro-
gram with Japan, and the exchange with China is picking up. We
have a delegation there right now. Those are the main countries en-
gaged in earthquake research. We feel that we have fairly good access
to the progress that is being made.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Is everybody talking the same language and is all
of the information going to be compatible so far as standards and in-
strumentation?
Dr. HAMILTON. Pretty much. I do not think there is any reason to
try to standardize on instrumentation at this point. There are still
so many quBstions unresolved that diversity is of great value. But we
are all talking to each other. We know each other and there is a lot
of communication back and forth. I think we in the United States are
in an excellent position to pick up on any new developments in these
three countries.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Goldwater. It has been a very in-
teresting discussion. I wish we could pursue it. Just one last quick
question, and I'm hoping for a brief answer from Dr. McKelvey:
PAGENO="0054"
50
Given the fact that there is some kind of time bomb situation involv
ing an earthquake in California and the need to improve the predic
tion skills so that you can get closer to the precursors and all of the
different varieties and possibilities, do you think the funding that is
currently invested in an effort to refine our prediction is sufficient ~
And if not, do you have a level which would appear to be appropriate
and which you would recommend
Dr. MOKELVEY. I do not think it is sufficient to develop the predic-
tion capability as rapidly as it probably could be developed with the
capability that exists
Mr SYMINOTON On that point, as I asked you earlier, as to the
I 977 dollar amount which you are going to submit-do you happen
to have it in your head at the moment ~
Dr MOKELVEY The 1977 request before Congress presently is for
$10 5 million
Mr SYMINGTON Do you consider that adequate
Dr MOKELVEY I do not believe it is adequate to develop a predic
tion capability as rapidly as could be done.
Mr SYMINCTON Do you h'ive in mind a figure that would ~
Dr MOKELVEY We have proposed ~ `trious levels, Mr Chairman,
`tnd this is presently one of the tasks that ~e are ~orking on with NSF
`tnd that will be review ed by the panel that Dr Stever spoke about in
time for consider'ttion in the 1978 budget
Mr SYMINCTON I understand, but in the consideration of the 1977
budget you settled on a figure of $10 ~ million which you yourself do
not think is adequate I am asking you wh'tt in your own mind would
have been better suited to absorb these t'tlents which are available to
you today. You must have a prediction?
Dr. MCKELVEY. I don't know that I can give off the cuff, Mr. Chair-
man, figures th'it were considered in the development of the 1977
budget
But certainly `is you indicated, more could be used Scientific talent
in this `irea could have carried out a larger effort th'm was actually
proposed
Mr SYMINCTON Were you involved in those discussions ~
Dr MCKFI vr~ I was involved in the discussions in the development
of the survey's budget
Mr SYMP~CTO~ I me'in the discussions th~t led to the decision to go
ii ith $10 million for 1977
Dr. Mc'KEr~.vEY. No, I was not.
Mr SYMINCTON Did anybody report to you as to ho~ the discus
sion~ went ~
Dr MCKFLVFY No I did not receive `my information as to any dis
cussions
Mr SYMINCTON Were you consulted `is to whether or not $10 mu
lion was `in `tdequ'Lte figure~
Dr MCKFTVFY As the President's buido'et is fin'illy dr'iwn up of
course Priorities h'ive to be balanced
Mr SYMINCTON I understand that, but before you c'in compromise
you have to know what the extremes `ire So I iust wondered if you
were consulted `md if you h'id inclic'ited your feeling' th'tt you could
not re'illy get wh'it w `is necess'iry Could von tell us what the figure
was
PAGENO="0055"
51
Dr. MOKELVEY. I am not sure I understood your question, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Before they decided on the figure of 10 they un-
doubtedly considered other figures. Wouldn't you say that is so? They
just didn't pull it out of the air? Would that be true?
Dr. MCKELVEY. They certainly considered the proposed level sub-
mitted by the Department.
Mr. SYMINOTON. Department of the Interior?
Dr. MCKELVEY. Department of the Interior.
I can't recall, Mr. Chairman, what the level of funding that was
recommended or requested by the Department actually was.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Would it be possible to get that figure for the
committee?
Dr. MCKELVEY. Yes.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I take it that figure would be closer to a reflection
of your concern as to what could profitably be used.
Dr. MCKELVEY. The Department also has to balance its priorities,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SYMTNGTON. That brings us down to your own original figure
which was cut by the Department and again by 0MB. What would
that be?
Dr. MCKELVEY. I would have to supply that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SYMINOTON. So now we can have three figures. The first we
know, since it is in the budget. The second is what Interior proposed
and the third is what you proposed internally. Would that be possible?
Dr. MOKELVEY. Yes.
Mr. SYMINGTON. That would be fine because we are anxious to know
what people who are intimately connected with this process have to
say about it. That is why we have you here as a witness. It shouldn't
be any secret really. We want to hold everybody accountable in the
Federal bureaucracy for the proposals they make. And if we do not
know what they are, it is difficult for us to perform that function.
Are there any other questions for Dr. McKelvey?
[No response.]
Mr. SYMINOTON. If not, I want to thank you very much for your
thorough and informative testimony.
Dr. MCKELVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Further questions in written form were submitted to Dr. Mc-
Kelvey. The questions and responses follow:]
PAGENO="0056"
52
1. Q: Please submit a statement of the dollar amounts obligated by
USGS for earthquake work in fiscal years 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977
(planned). The statement should bb broken down into major categories
and further into subcategories if this is informative. In-house
work should be separated from work under grants or contracts.
A: The total funds obligated for the Earthquake Hazard Reduction
Program are:
Fiscal Year 1974 1975 1976
Funds $8,6M $lO.9M $ll,1M
The opparent increase from 1974 to 1975 resulted from a transfer of
earthquake programs from NOAA to USGS.
In FY 1977 the President requested a reduction of $O.7M in the
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program. Both the House and Senate appropriation
subcommitteees restored the reduction, as did the conference committee.
A detailed breakdown of the fund distribution for FY 1975 on the
next page shows the program balance according to topic arid internal
vs. external project. The percentages for FY 1976 are very similar.
PAGENO="0057"
53
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program
(1,000$)
FISCAL 1975
Objective
EARTHQUAKE DATA SERVICES
% of Grand Total
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS:
Risk and Ground Motion
Recurrence
Ground Failure
Mapping & Evaluation
Earthquake Tectonics
(Geophysics)
~artnqua~e ectonics
(Geology)
Subtotal
% of Grand Total
EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION:
Seismic Studies
Crustal Deformation
Electrical Resistivity
Geochemical Indicators
Fluid Pressure Effects
Rock Properties at
High P&T
Source Studies
Stress Determination
Subtotal
OTHER
% of Grand Total
TOTALS
% of Grand Total
USGS Service
Internal in Support of External
Pi~j~ctsExtern~tjj~roi. Pro.iects
159.5 1,726.4
660.4
118.1
150.0
662.0
644.6
--
--
--
--
--
55.5
20.0
--
170.1
227.0
9b2.~
--
9.1
3,197.3
--
492.3
1,579.3
1,238.3
--
--
--
246.6
85.8
--
23.8
--
-~
--
970.1
259.1
123.3
35.0
145.7
89.9
227.8
69.2
--
--
42.8
72.0
3,361.2
109.6
1,737.9
23.6
75.8
7.7
6,741.6
62%
1,911.8
18%
2,237.9
20%
715.9
138.1
150.0
832.1
871 .6
9o .~
3,689.6
34%
2,635.2
1,4974
147.1
35.0
145.7
336.5
270.6
141 .2
5,208.7
48%
107.1
`1%
10,891 .3
100%
Tntal
-- 1,885.9
17%
PAGENO="0058"
54
2. Q: What are past, present and planned USGS efforts in earthquake
modification?
A: Geological Survey efforts In earthquake modification followed
the discovery In 1966 that pumping of fluid underground into a deep
disposal well was responsible for the triggering of earthquakes near
Denver, Colorado.
In order to test speculations that earthquakes might be controllable,
the USGS conducted a field experiment from 1969 to 1974 in an oil field
at Rangely, Colorado. Variations in local earthquake activity were
produced by alternately injecting and recovering water from wells that
penetrated an earthquake-generating zone. The experiment conclusively
demonstrated that earthquake activity at Rangely could be increased by
injection of fluid and decreased by pumping out fluid. S
Following the Rangely experiment, geologic and geophysical studies
were carried out in Western Nevada in order to identify a possible
area for a full-scale earthquake modification experiment on a natural
fault. Such an experiment, however, cannot be mounted within the present
budget.
Laboratory and theoretical studies of fluid pressure effects on
faulting also were begun. A modest effort in laboratory-scale simulation
of earthquake control currently is being carried out.
In addition to the possibility of modifying the behavior of active
faults, earthquake modification research is important because of the light
It may shed on reservoir-~triggered earthquakes. Filling of reservoirs
PAGENO="0059"
55
behind dams apparently has triggered earthquakes, in a few cases as
large as magnitude 6.5, causing damage and loss of life. At present,
there is no sound basis for evaluating which reservoirs might trigger
damaging earthquakes, nor what to do about earthquake activity once it
is stimulated. The Rangely experiment suggests that certain engineering
actions may he available to limit reservoir-Induced seismicity.
Present USGS research in earthquake modification is limited to
small-scale laboratory experiments. Studies that could be undertaken
include: (1) study oF the effects of reservoirs on seismic activity;
(2) study of the physical properties of fault zones in relation to
possible modification experiments; and (3) conduct of an earthquake-
control experiment on a remotely situated active fault.
3. Q: Please describe USGS support for data collection and instrumenta-
tion at the Paledale uplift including dollar amounts, number of
instruments and other descriptive material (if needed). Instruments
for measuring at least the following should be mentioned: earth
mvements, earth dimensions, tilts, electrical resistivity, well
levels, magnetic field, and gravitation field.
PAGENO="0060"
A: Proposed Studies of the Southern California Uand Uolift Projects are inciLded for observation, analysis
a r~ a a r o a a n o~n s ~r a in r~a o o~ tre u~if d for pre ctior
o a of lam n~ua in e~ a a lint n e as ,~ ge es area S C a atte nor
a gver to aa~a d;ssamna~non to racn~itate and eoccurge research studies.
Esti~eted Funds in Thousands of Dollars
USOS
* ?rc~act Pro~ict Pru~enn
I, icn~toring and Ana~ytis of the Uplift - The significance of toe uplift can be assessed by observation and evaluation of necthysicai 2hsnonana
that have bean reported as precursors and that are associated wi ;h the accumulation and release cf strain energy earthquake generatthn.
A. Strain Techniques - Defamation of the Earths surface has been observed before earthquakes and theories ef earthquake mechanics sup;est
e a o Lra~bl r r n r o b `drn ot a r~ss Ob er or o~ a r w o~ d o an cons ma s t0
theo~euicai caveiopvecnt sat nay yield earthq~ake pracurso~s.
I. Lcval Survnvs - Curry out precise leveling travamse-t to Jeterruine 175 25 230
chan~eo in land eThveticn with respect to elevation at t s;a of
rart~r surveys ~rd to establish a base for future surva's.
Relate hista.~nc vertical dufornation to current tectonic
orocesses and so :oiocsne daicrsation.
2. T~'iiataratinC Surveys - Measure the distance between lCD 130 0 103
:thrc of tncb marks sari-annually to determi~e horizont~l
land defamation.
3. Gravity assurentots - Measure gravitational attraction ton- 30 110 140
tinucssly at 5 sites and along traverses to determine el ~vation
and/or ones changes.
4. Stra~eraters - Monitor horizontal and volumetric strain 5 75 80
co~tiosousiy at sevaral sites in rock masses to measure
defcreati or.
5. Matar Mcli Manitor~ng - Macsure water level in walls to * 0 50 50
measure cilatatioral. strains.
6. Tiltreters - Monitor land tilt continuously at 5 new sit s. and * 60 40 103
35 exissth; ones to measure warping of the land surface.
PAGENO="0061"
USGS Non-US~.S
Project Project `Projoct Total Cost
7. ~auit Creep Studies - Detemnine the locatIon of fault mo. ement 0 15 45
by repacst geocetic surveys arc macsure continuously tbe mount
of fault slip cy croapreters. /
3. ~odeling of tee Uplift - Develop theoretical and numericnl models to 50 50 100
account for the observed strain and to predict future ge physical
pner.ornena. -
B. Stress Techniques - Evaluation of the magnitude and oricntaton of rock stress deep In the Eart:i will pennit the assessc~ent of earthquake
potential.
I. kydraulic Fracturing - inject fluid into holes about 200H feat deep 80 0 ` 30
to ceterrcine the skate of absolute stress.
2. kagnetoretors - i~oosure differential magnetic field varI~ticns at 70 0 70
6 sitas conti0000s,y -no provide measurements that can be inter-
preted in terms of coanges in rock stress.
C. Electromagnetic Techniques - Variation in electrical resistt ity has been recognized as an earthquake precursor. Additional observations
are needed to confirm electromagnetic techniques as useful fir earthquake prediction.
1. Apparent Pesistivity - ~ieesure induced electric currents to detect 0 70 73
variatioms in electrical properties of rocks.
0. Seismic Techniques - Variations in seismic wave velocity have been widely reported as earthquake precursors. SeIsmic date also indicates
precursors in variations of seisi;cicity patterns, focal-mechac ism solutions, and frequency content c~f seismic waves. Accurate earthquake
locations are-needed for all earthquake prediction studies.
I. Seisroorach Neteork - Establish continuously reccrding sismograph 0 110 110
staticos of 20 components to record seismic waves for locating -
ecrthquakas coo detecting seismic earthquake precursors.
2. Veocity ilonitoring - ~0onitor explosions periodically to detect 0 50 50
variations in seismic wave travel times.
3. Speciol Anolysis of Seismic Data - Analyze existing and Thture 50 50 103
seiom;c to reoogni:e anomalies in seisnicity praceong moderate
or urge onrt~qeukLs.
PAGENO="0062"
USGS n-USGS
Project Project ?ro~eot Total Cost
II. Evaluation ~f Earthquake Hazards Assoc~atod with the Uplift - A irge earthquake in the ares of the uplift would cause intense shzking over
large erect ard localized ground frecturing. The location and de~ree of these effects can be eot~cipated. E:rthquake tiçation plans can
then be guided toward the root effective actions. /
A. Definition of Tectonic Frarrework and Fault Hazard Assessment 75 130 2C5
Investigate geDio3iC faults in the uplift area to define the
tectonic frarr~ork witrin which the uplift has occurred and
must be analyzed and to evaluate fault activity and earthquak~
recurrence.
B. Prediction of Ground Shaking - Predict nature and character o~ 150 35 235
ground shaking in po7uiated regions for postulated large
earthquakes in the uplift area.
III. Dissercination of Data - Studies of the uplift will be carried out by many organIzations. Including many that are not supported under this
* program. Data produced urcer this program will be generally available to all qualified scientists. Procedures will be established and
equipccant will be provided to facilitate dare access.
A. Inter-Institutional Cocrmunicatiors - Establish a computer-based 15 0 15
teleconferencing system among toe organizations most involved
in studies and decisions relateato the uplift.
B. Data Center - Establish computer capabilities for real-tire a~d off- 0 350 350
line prccessing of uplift data and eisseeinotion of data to rasearch
sciartists.
Totals 360 1240 2100
PAGENO="0063"
59
4. Q: How would USGS utilize the funding that would be authorized by
S.1174 if that funding were made available ($25,000,000 in FY 1978,
for example?)
A: Funding to the Geological Survey authorized by S.1174 would be
used for program expansion in the following areas:
~rthquake~aS~ces
* Reestablish maintenance program for and upgrade the Worldwide
Standardized SeismOgraph Network
E~~guakeHazards_Evaluation
* Expand hazards mapping in western United States urban areas
at high seismic risk
* Begin hazards mapping in eastern United States urban areas at
..4~I. .~.A ~ ~ ~r ~
~ ~ `r- -~-~~-`-`--
vulnerability
o Develop and improve methods for estimating damage and loss,
and define more accyrately earthquake risk on a nationwide
and regional basis
* Increase studies of earthquake activity in selected areas of
the eastern U.S. to improve estimates of eastern U.S. seismic
risk and to determine geologic and seismologic reasons for the
differences in damage patterns between eastern and western U.S.
* Expand studies to estimate frequency and maximum size of earthquakes
by region using geologic as well as historical seismicity data
o Increase, studies of strong ground shaking and geologic factors
that affect earthquakes losses
PAGENO="0064"
60
~ Initiate a seismic zonation demonstration project in the San
Francisco Bay Region to develop products suitable for land
use decisions at State and local levels
~ Undertake utilization programs to bring together Federal,
State, local and private individuals for more effective use
of geologic information for earthquake hazard mitigation
Earth]ua ke Pred Ic ti on Research
~ Monitor and evaluate the southern California land uplift
m Upgrade earthquake prediction instrumentation and computer-
processing capabilities in California
o Expand studies of several types of earthquake precursors that
are presently poorly studied, if at all, including water well
fluctuations and geochomi cal van ations
o uep~oy networks of iristrusrierrcation for earthquake predicLion
experiments in Seattle, Reno, Salt Lake City, and south-central
Alaska regions to accelerate rate of observation of earthquake
precursors
o Expand theoretical, analytical and modeling studies to provide a
physical basis for interpreting all types of earthquake precursors
o Establish a computer and communications capability to monitor
earthquake precursors in real time
o Expand laboratory studies on properties of earth materials
pertinent to earthquake predictions and laboratory analogues of the
earthquake process
PAGENO="0065"
61
o Increase efforts to develop more reliable instrumentation for
monitoring possible earthquake precursors, including especially
instruments for measuring strain with long-term stability
o Initiate a field experiment and supporting laboratory studies
on earthquakes caused by reservoirs to develop criteria for
avoiding i nadvertantly triggered, damaging earthquakes
o Cooperatively install earthquake prediction instrumentation in
foreign countries to substantially increase the rate of obser-
vation of earthquake precursors
76-649 0 - 76 - 5
PAGENO="0066"
62
5. Q: Please provide a statement of the likely future development of
earthquake prediction and how it depends upon the level of funding
provided.
A: Earthquake prediction, in recent years, has emerged from the
realm of soothsaying to become a serious scientific endeavor with a
significant likelihood of a short-term technological breakthrough.
Observations reported primarily from the U.S~, China, Russia~ and
tiapon indicate that clearly observable phenomena precede some large
earthquakes. The time scale over which these phenomena emerge prior
to the event is measured in years to hours, thus providing the potential
for socially useful predictions of forthcoming destructive earthquakes.
Earthquake prediction depends on detecting precursors prior to
eartnquakes. ~eLiabIe prediction depenos on observing a variety ot
precursors, understanding their causes, and understanding the basic
physics of the earthquake source. Thus a prediction research program
must be broad based and will depend heavily on observations of precursors
of earthquakes within networks of a variety of densely spaced instru-
merits. The rate of progress toward a prediction capability is directly
linked to the rate at which precursors are observed, Multiple observations
on a variety of instruments are needed to develop an accurate physical
model for earthquake precursors. Dense instrumentation of an active
fault zone with a wide variety of sensors costs about $l2K per kilometer
of fault to install and about $7K per kilometer to operate each year.
The existing U.S. effort, funded at about $5 million in FY 1976,
has progressed significantly. Reliable instruments for detecting
PAGENO="0067"
63
most suspected precursors have been developed, tested, and deployed
in small prototype arrays. Real-time and automatic data processing
techniques have been developed. Hypotheses as to the nature of the
earthquake source and the cause of precursors have been developed and
partially tested in the laboratory. Now that this groundwork has been
laid, expansion of the national effort can be undertaken efficiently.
Considering the rate of occurrence of earthquakes of magnitude 5 and
greater and the costs of operating observational systems in the various
seismic regions of the U.S., the most economical and effective approach
is to instrument selected regions of high seisinicity in California and
Nevada. Some monitoring, however, should be done in regions on the
coast of Alaska where the likelihood of major earthquakes seems high.
It appears likely that the basis for a prediction capability can
be established after the precursors for on the order of 10 earthquakes
of magnitude 5 or greater are clearly recorded within a dense observational
network. At the current level of funding it is estimated that these
observations will be gathered in about 20-25 years. If the level of
funding were that authorized by S.1174, it is estimated that the requisite
observations would be gathered in about 5-10 years.
PAGENO="0068"
64
6. Q: What was the DOl request for EQHRP funding in the FY 1977 Process?
What was the US~S request to DOl?
A: The USGS requested a major increase of $17.8 million for a
total program of $29 & million (including goonagnetic observatories)
The DOt initially requested an increase of $1 0 million for a total
program of $12.1 million. In a subsequent proposed budget amendment,
the DOl requested an EQHRP increase of $16.6 million for a total program
of $27 7 million (excluding geomagnetic observatories)
7 Q What legislative adthority does the Geological Survey currently
have to operate ptograms related to earthquakes? Please cite
sections of the U S Code or Statutes
A The G~oloq1Lal Survey v~as cst(btished by the act of ~arch 3 1879
(?O Stat 3!~ 133 U S C 31) ~thich providcd fo~ The classification o
t~ic public lands and the ex~trrination of the geological structure mineral
resources and products of th~ national domain The Act ol September 5
1962 (76 Stat 427 43 U S C 31 (b)) expanded this duthorization to
incluae such exarnriations outside the national domain Further indication
of the authority of the Geological Survey in earthquake hazards investiga-
tions can be obtained from the U.S. Government Organization Manual,
which states that the Survey undertakes research into geologic prin-
ciples and processes to provide guidance ~or significant geologic
interpretations specialized research in geochemistry geophysics and
paleontology in support of the geologic and mineral resource investiga-
tions
PAGENO="0069"
65
Mr. SYMINGTON. We will now be pleased to hear from Richard
Wright, Director of the Center for Building Technology, NBS, ac-
companied by Samuel Kramer, Deputy Director.
Dr. Wright, as so often happens, being at the end of the list you
have patiently waited for a long time. We appreciate that, and we
would also appreciate it if under the circumstances you could give
your testimony fairly briefly and we will `certainly make your full
paper a part of the record.
[Bri~f biographical sketches of Dr. Richard N. Wright and Mr.
Samuel Kramer and the complete `prepared. statement of Dr. Wright
are as follows:]
PAGENO="0070"
66
RICHARD N. WRIGHT.
Date of Birth: May 17, 1932
Birthplace: Syracuse, New York
Education: (Degrees)
Syracuse University, B.S. Degree, Civil Engineering, 1953
Syracuse University, M.S. Degree, Civil Engineering, 1955
University of Illinois, Ph.D. Degree, Civil Engineering,
1962
Position:
Director, Center for Building Technology
Dr. Wright was appointed Director of the Center for Building Technology in June 1974. As
Director, Dr. Wright is responsible for programs encompassing the scientific, technological
and professional interests needed to identify and conduct research on measurement problems
arising in building design, construction, operation and maintenance. The scope of its
operations range from research and consultation on single building materials, components
and subassemblies, to whole buildings and entire building sites.
From 1957 to 1974, Dr. Wright served on the faculty of the University of Illinois, Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering. While on leave from the University, Dr. Wright headed the
Structures Section of the Bureau's Building Research Division, 1971 to 1972, and was Deputy
Director--Technical of the Center for Building Technology, 1972 to 1973.
Dr. Wright's research activities have included structural design for dynamic loads; flow
and fracture in structural metals; mechanics of thin-walled beam structures; optimum design
procedures; formulation and processing of design criteria; reliability and performance cri-
teria for buildings. At the National Bureau of Standards, Dr. Wright ha's been responsible
for structural engineering research on loadings due to wind and occupancy, structural per-
formance in serviceability and ultimate limit states of building systems, and criteria for
structural performance; development of a cooperative Federal Program on Building Practices
for Disaster Mitigation; led an NBS team investigating the performance of buildings in the
1972 Managua, Nicaragua earthquake; and conducted a review of the Nicaraguan building reg-
ulatory system for the Agency for International Development and the Organization of American
States.
Dr. Wright is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineering, the American Concrete
Institute, the Column Research Council, Reunion Internationale des Laboratoires d'Essais et
de Recherches sur les Materiaux et les Constructions, the International Association for
Bridge and Structural Engineering, Sigma Xi, Phi Kappa Phi, and Tau Beta Pi. He is regis-
tered as a professional engineer in New York and as a structural engineer in Illinois.
PAGENO="0071"
67
SAMUEL KRAMER
Date of Birth: June 2, 1928
Birthplace: New York City, New York
Education: (Degrees)
Bachelor of Civil Engineering, College of the City of New
York
Graduate School of Public Administration, New York
University
Professional License: Registered Professional Engineer (P.E.)
Position:
Acting Deputy Director
Center for Building Technology
Mr. Kramer, who serves as Acting Deputy Director, Center for Building Technology, is a
graduate civil engineer and has done graduate study in the field of public administration.
Mr. Kramer was in the military service from September 1950 through August 1953, during
which he served both in the United States and overseas. His primary assignment was as a
battalion staff officer with an engineering construction battalion that was responsible
for the construction of the major facilities in Europe.
Mr. Kramer was in the private construction industry before joining the Corps of Engineers,
where he served as a civilian engineer for 10 years. At the Corps of Engineers, Mr. Kramer
was responsible for the development of design criteria and the design and construction of
military projects throughout the United States. He received 12 citations and awards from
the Corps for outstanding engineering.
Subsequently, he joined the Bureau of the Budget, now the Office of Management and Budget,
Executive Office of the President, where he served for over four years. Mr. Kramer had
responsibilities in a number of major program areas, including the environmental quality
programs, the Federal Water Quality Control Administration of the Department of the Interior,
the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Panama Canal and interstate and Federal-interstate com-
pacts. He also served on many Executive Office and White House task forces as well as on
sub-Cabinet- level and inter-agency conanittees.
In July 1970, Mr. Kramer joined the National Bureau of Standards as the Federal Building
Research Program Coordinator in the Institute for Applied Technology's Building Research
Division. In July 1972, when the Center for Building Technology was formed at the National
Bureau of Standards, Mr. Kramer was appointed Chief of the Office of Federal Building Tech-
nology. In September 1974, he assumed the position of Acting Deputy Director, Center for
Building Technology.
Mr. Kramer is a registered professio~ial engineer (P.E.) and is a member of the American
Society of Civil Engineers and the A~erican Society for Public Administration. He is the
recipient of numerous awards and honèrs and was elected to Tau Beta Phi and Chi Epsilon,
National Honorary Engineering Organizations. He is also active in community, educational
and religious organizations.
PAGENO="0072"
68
Statement on Earthquake
Hazard. Reduction Legislation
by
Dr. Richard N. Wright
Director, Center for Building Technology
Institute for Applied Technology
National Bureau of Standards
Department of Cc~mnerce
Caninittee on Science and Technology
U.S. House of Representatives
June 22, 1976
PAGENO="0073"
69
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to
testify before your Committee today. It is a pleasure for me to comment on
this iiaportant legislation and to describe the National Bureau of Standards'
disaster mitigation program.
Recently, we have witnessed earthquakes in Guatemala, Italy, and the Soviet
Union. Thousands of lives were lost and millions of people were left homeless.
Property damage was estimated in the billions. Fortunately, we have not
experienced a maj or earthquake in the United States in five years. We may
not continue to be as fortunate. Studies by the Office of Emergency
Preparedness (OEP) and the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, for
exau~le, indicate that a repeat of the San Francisco earthquake of 1906
could cause approximately 10,000 deaths, 40,000 injuries and billions in
property damage. Losses on this scale could also occur following a large
earthquake in the Los Angeles area.
Although people normally equate the earthquake hazard with the State of
California, other regions of the United States are also susceptible to
this disaster. Although the probability of a serious earthquake occurring
at any given place and time is relatively low, studies show that earthquakes
pose a potential threat to over 70 million people in 39 States who live
in areas of high or moderate earthquake risk. Clearly, the earthquake
problem is a national one.
PAGENO="0074"
70
2
Since earthquakes could potentially cause great human suffering and
property losses in all regions of the U.S., we need a balanced
program of earthquake hazard reduction, which includes earthquake risk
assessment, mitigation and relief. Risk assessment identifies the
frequency and severity of future earthquakes. Earthquake mitigation
provides preventive measures such as improved building practices for
hazard reduction. Earthquake relief, a most familiar term, furnishes
assistance for earthquake victims.
The success of a balanced earthquake program requires the cooperation of
Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector. In the
past, most Federal programs have been aimed solely toward disaster relief.
Some work has been done in projecting the earthquake risk and improving
building practices, but too often we have been reacting after-the-fact
instead of taking corrective steps before the disasters occur. It is
imperative that the Federal Government continue to provide relief for
disaster victims, but we must also strive to develop ways for reducing
potential losses. It is preferable to save lives and to ensure that
buildings stand than to spend greater amounts of money rehabilitating
earthquake damaged areas.
The need for such a balanced program was recognized in the OEP report
on disaster preparedness to the Congress in 1972, in response to
Section 203(h) of P.L 91-606, the Disaster Relief Act of 1970. This
Executive Report was the first comprehensive examination of all natural
hazards. The report stated that: "Land use and construction regulations
PAGENO="0075"
71
3
containing strong disaster mitigation features can in the long run
alleviate losses caused by natural disasters." The Congress addressed
land use and construction regulations and promoted a balanced program
when, in 1974, the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, P.L. 93-288, was
enacted. The Act requires State and local governments to use Presidentially-
prescribed standards for Jand use and construction practices as a
prerequisite for disaster loans and grants. The coupling of disaster
relief and mitigation reversed the trend of much legislation and
provided a more appropriate perspective.
National Bureau of Standards' Disaster Mitigation Pro&ram
The National Bureau of Standards' Institute for Applied Technology
houses the largest and most comprehensive building research laboratory
in the United States. Its Center for Building Technology (CBT) which
has a staff of 240 and an annual budget of $12 million, provides the
focal point for the NBS disaster mitigation program. Other MRS units
also contribute to technology for reducing the earthquake hazard.
The Center provides technical information, measurement methods and
criteria for improving the usefulness, safety and economy of buildings.
Our research focuses on the performance concept which leads to the
development of criteria and test methods that give building designers,
PAGENO="0076"
72
4
manufacturers, and contractors maximum opportunity for innovation. For
example, we developed criteria for solar heating and cooling systems
called for in P.L. 93-409, the Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration
Act, which has been strongly supported by this Committee. We are now
assisting the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the
Energy Research and Development Administration (EBDA) in the planning
and evaluation of the solar demonstration. This is representative of
our role as a laboratory resource for the more than 30 Federal agencies
with building programs.
Our staff includes architects, engineers, physical scientists, psychologists,
economists, and other specialists from over 30 disciplines. Our interdisci-
plinary approach considers how buildings should perform to meet building
occupants' needs. To accomplish this task, we work closely with all
elements of the building community: design professions, builders,
organized labor, building regulatory authorities of State and local
governments, researchers in universities, national standards writing
bodies, building user organizations, and Federal agencies. With your
permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce for the record two
background papers delineating our interactions with thes'e groups of the
building community and terminology for codes and standards.
The NBS has a long history of disaster mitigation research. Beginning
with our pioneer work on the fire problem in 1910 and progressing from
the 1920's to the present with our research on the effects of winds on
structures and on the performance of masonry, the NBS program has focused
PAGENO="0077"
73
S
on the development of improved building practices to reduce damages
caused by various types of natural disasters, such as tornadoes,
hurricanes, earthquakes, and floods. Since buildings are subjected
to many types of natural hazards, we consider all substantial risks
in the design and use of buildings. Earthquakes and extreme winds,
as well as explosions and some accidents, produce similar effects on
a building. Integrated attention to all these hazards costs little
more than treatment of earthquakes alone and provides substantially
increased benefits. However, since the scope of 5. 1174, H.R. 13722,
and H.R. 13845 deals with earthquake hazard reduction, we will discuss
only this subject.
We have participated in post-disaster investigations in San Fernando,
California in 1971; Managua, Nicaragua in 1972; Guatemala in 1976; and
recently in Italy. We apply the knowledge gained from these investi-
gations to develOp improved building practices. We assisted Nicaraguan
authorities in evaluating damaged buildings and in upgrading their
building regulatory system. Following the San Fernando earthquake, our
assessnient of earthquake damage to residences was used by field inves-
tigators of the Small Eusiness Administration to validate Federal loans.
We also testified before the House Committee on Public Works at a field
hearing in California on February 23, 1971 and discussed the damage to
the San Fernando area. We accompanied that Committee in its own inspec-
tion of earthquake damage to help them assess the need for disaster
relief and subsequent legislation.
PAGENO="0078"
74
6
The San Fernando earthquake of 1971 showed the need for a balanced
approach to earthquake mitigation. The National Science Foundation
(NSF), NBS, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and OEP
planned a cooperative Federal program on building practices for disaster
mitigation in 1972. With sponsorship from NSF, the NBS conducted a
workshop for experts in the building community including architects and
engineers, building code officials, standards writers, and planners, to
develop a national plan for disaster mitigation activities. The work-
shop participants synthesized current knowledge on building practices
for insuring the safety of building occupants in new and existing buildings.
They made recommendations to four audiences: 1) policy makers in Federal,
State and local governments, for guidance on disaster mitigation laws,
regulations, policies, and programs; 2) practitioners, such as architects,
engineers, and building contractors, for guidance on the best current
practices to be used in making decisions about building construction;
3) standards writers and those responsible for developing recommended
practices, such as building code officials, for guidance on the def i-
ciencies in present practices; and 4) researchers, for guidance on needs
for new knowledge.
This plan and the proposed recommendations to users in the building
community, as presented in NBS document Building Practices for Disaster
Mitigation (Building Science Series 46), provided an integrated approach
to disaster mitigation through research and the inplementation of
improved building practices.
PAGENO="0079"
75
One workshop recommendation was to update the seismic provisions of
building codes. The last major revision to these provisions occurred in
the 1950' s. Since that time, there have been significant advances in
knowledge. Based on the workshop recommendation, the National 1~ureau of
Standards, sponsored by the National Science Foundation and NBS, initi-
ated a three-year $1.3 million program to develop improved seismic
design criteria which could be used nationwide in new buildings and in
the rehabilitation of existing buildings. We have used the Applied
Technology Council of the Structural Engineers Association of California
as a principal resource.
Eighty experts from all sectors of the building community are partic-
ipating in the development and implementation of the design criteria.
In selecting these experts, NBS chose people from all areas of the
country, with strong participation by representatives from California
and other high seismic risk areas, to ensure consideration of various
localities' needs and effective implementation. Current seismic
provisions are based on California seismic conditions and building
practices. The nationwide representation in development of the new
criteria assures consideration of all types of construction and degrees
PAGENO="0080"
76
8
of seismic risk. This nationwide involvement of building regulatory
officials and designers will promote more rapid adoption in State and
local building codes.
The new seismic design criteria differ in scope from past code provisions,
since they include non-structural, as well as' structural, aspects of
the building. During earthquakes, many people are killed or seriously
injured from improper designs of such non-structural elements as bookcases,
internal partitions, and light fixtures. The inclusion of these non-
structural elements makes the proposed design criteria much more
comprehensive.
These seismic design criteria have been reviewed'by over 400 professionals,
trade associations, and regulatory officials. We plan to release the
final provisions early in 1977.
In this NBS/NSF program on seismic design criteria and in all disaster
mitigation activities, implementation is the key to success. Research
which is not used provides few benefits. Likewise, developing improved
building practices without planning their implementation serves no one.
Too often, practicing engineers are left to synthesize the research
results and develop improved building practices on their own. This gap
between research and use has long been evident to both practitioners
and researchers.
PAGENO="0081"
77
9
Using NBS research, Federal agencies have worked to close this gap.
Based on our prior work on disaster mitigation, NBS, for the Defense
Civil Preparedness Agency (DCPA), developed a procedure to evaluate the
safety of existing buildings from wind and seismic forces. This procedure
provides an ecOnOmical approach to evaluate rapidly all buildings in a
city or specific buildings such as hospitals, fire stations and other
emergency facilities. The DCPA and design professionals are using these
procedures. The General Services Administration (GSA) also is employing
NBS procedures to develop surveys for evaluating buildings in response
to Section 401 of P.L. 93-288 which requires Federal agencies to evaluate
the natural hazards to which their facilities are exposed and take
appropriate action to mitigate these hazards.
Following the San Fernando earthquake of 1971, the Veterans Administration
(VA) began a comprehensive program to identify and strengthen hazardous
hospitals in seismic zones. At their request, we developed procedures
based on our laboratory research, for measuring the strength of masonry
walls in existing buildings. These procedures are being used by the VA
in their requirenlents for earthquake resistant design of hospital
facilities.
A nunber of other NBS programs support earthquake hazard reduction.
We serve as a liaison member to the U.S. Geological Survey's Earthquake
Studies Advisory Panel which examines earthquake prediction and other
earthquake programs. We use the USGS findings on seismic risk in our
research and identify for USGS the geological research needed by the
building conununity.
76-649 0 - 76 - 6
PAGENO="0082"
78
10
We also work with a variety of national and international groups concerned
with earthquake hazards. One of the CBT staff serves as the U.S. Chairman
of the U.S. -Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects which supports cooperative
research programs and exchanges information on these two natural hazards.
Presently, I serve as the Chairman of the Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute (EERI) Committee on Research Needs. We have identif led eight
topics as candidates for high research priority which are: 1) development
of standard procedures for setting site specific design conditions,
2) development of standard procedures for the evaluation, strengthening,
and repair of existing facilities, 3). development of procedures for
definition of acceptable levels of risk for new and existing facilities,
4) development and implementation of procedures for defining, predicting,
and documenting the strong motions arising from earthquakes, 5) development
of standard procedures for interpretation of strong motion records for
design purposes, 6) defining the effects of earthquake prediction on
engineering practices, 7) development of design standards for industrial
structures, that is, facilities and equipment other than buildings, and
8) development of methods and procedures for design and regulation, and materials
for programs of professional education. These interactions assist us in
developing our own research and in providing technical support for other
Federal agencies.
Needs for Earthq~uake Hazard Reduction
The need for earthquake hazard reduction is well documented by the history
of past earthquakes and the projected effects of future earthquakes in
PAGENO="0083"
79
11
many parts of the country. Normally, we think of four ways to reduce
the potential earthquake hazard: 1) induced reduction of the earthquake
intensity, 2) evacuation of the area, 3) avoidance of the hazard by not
using the area, i.e., land use control, and 4) prevention of the damage
by improved building practices. All four of these solutions have their
limitations.
Physically reducing the potential force of the earthquake, by such
methods as pumping water into the ground, is a possible solution to
reducing damage. However, such procedures are still in the research
stage.
Evacuating threatened areas can achieve hazard reduction if predictions.
are certain and give adequate time. However, disruption of normal
activities and adverse economic consequences are still a problem.
Land use control practices can reduce hazards of faulting, unstable
earth, flooding below dams and tsunamis. For some of these earthquake
hazards, such as faulting, this approach is the most economical, but
often people are reluctant to cease building in otherwise desirable
areas even if there is high seismic risk.
Earthquake resistant building practices are the most effective approach
to minimizing earthquake damages from ground shaking which causes over
90 percent of the damages. Even if an earthquake is predicted and the
residents have evacuated the area, we still need to reduce the damage to
PAGENO="0084"
80
12
buildings and other facilities. Obviously, if there has been no advance
warning and no evacuation, the need for safe buildings is critical. For
simplicity, I will confine the following discussion to buildings but the
same concepts apply to other facilities.
To reduce the earthquake hazard, we must know how buildings are used,
what earthquake environment is likely, and how buildings perform during
an earthquake. We know from our field investigations that buildings can
be built economically to resist earthquake effects, but there is still
need to reduce the high cost of identifying and correcting hazardous
buildings and making new seismically safe construction more cost effective.
Experience shows that the greatest earthquake hazard results from unsafe
existing buildings. Buildings not constructed in accord with adequate
seismic design provisions should be evaluated to determine whether they
are unduly hazardous. Such buildings should be strengthened or replaced.
The procedure for evaluating existing buildings developed for VA and
DCPA are steps toward these goals. Improved technologies are needed
to make the hazard identification and strengthening procedures more
economical. One approach that deserves study is the removal of financial
barriers for abating hazardous buildings to speed hazard reduction.
New construction should not add to the earthquake hazard. Seismic
design criteria providing appropriate resistance should be incorporated
in building regulations and enforced. The seismic design criteria we
are developing with NSF address this need.
PAGENO="0085"
81
13
In suninary, any effective program for reducing earthquake losses must
include research on building performance and the development and
implementation of improved building practices. The nation's research
base includes characterization of earthquake hazards by USGS and the
basic research funded by NSF. The NBS is prepared to cai~ry out the
additional research to develop performance criteria and test methods
for evaluating how well buildings and their components would perform.
The integration of all this research with our continuing work with
design professionals, industry, organized labor, builders, code and
standards-writing groups, Federal agencies, and the State and local
building regulatory agencies would facilitate the development and
implementation of improved building practices.
Public policy should encouroge~the building coninunities to use effective
earthquake hazard reduction practices. Authority exists in most areas
under State or local building codes. However, up-to-date earthquake
design standards must be included in codes by the State or local governments,
designers must learn to apply these standards in design, builders must
follow approved details in construction, and regulatory authorities must
check plans and inspect construction. The model code organization of
building officials, the National Conference of States on Building Codes
and Standards, the newly-formed National Institute of Building Sciences,
and the professional societies of architects and engineers provide
appropriate mechanisms for achieving this implementation of earthquake
resistant building practices.
PAGENO="0086"
82
14
Sumnia~y
NBS and the Administration agree with the goal of earthquake hazard
reduction--saving lives and avoiding serious economic losses. Part
of this goal can be met by a vigorous implementation of improved
building practices. Seismological, engineering and social research can
be cost effective in improving the reliability and economy of these
practices. These implementation and research activities require
cooperative and well coordinated activities of Federal agencies, State
and local governments, professional groups, and the private sector.
The research and technical service capabilities of NBS have contributed
to the development and implementation of current building practices and
can aid in their improvement. We expect to continue working with
Federal building and research agencies, university researchers,
design professions, building regulatory agencies, and standards-writing
organizations in the coimion effort to achieve earthquake hazard reduction.
As Dr. Stever and others have indicated, the Federal agencies already
have sufficient legislative authority to undertake research and are
working on a program plan that can be used to make budgetary decisions.
With regard to mechanisms for coordination, I have discussed some aspects
of this coordination that now exist. Dr. Stever has mentioned that the
PAGENO="0087"
83
15
Administration is scrutinizing this subject to see if a new coordinating
body is needed and whether any additional legislative authority should
be proposed by the Administration. In this respect, NBS will be working
actively with Dr. Stever.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you, and I will endeavor
to answer any questions you may have.
PAGENO="0088"
84
INTERACIIONS WITH BUILDING COMMUNITY
1) Federal Agency Research at NI3S
Since 1901, NBS has provided a focal point for transferring building technology
and measurement systems to Federal agencies with building-related programs.
NBS also has conducted research for numerous Federal agencies . Currently,
NBS has memorandums of understanding with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Federal
Energy Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and
the National Parks Service and interagency agreements with many others. NBS
is the only Federal laboratory with a comprehensive building research program.
2) Federal and Industry Workshops and Conferences
In 1969, the Office of Management and Budget requested that NBS transfer
information on building standards, criteria, and test methods to the other
Federal agencies. In response, NBS conducts monthly and special workshops
which are attended by architects, engineers, and building experts. In
cooperation with various industries, NBS also hosts a number of other workshops
and conferences.
3) National Academy of Sciences/National Bureau of Standards Technical Evaluation
Panels -
NBS has formed technical evaluation panels for each of its major programs.
These panels review and make recommendations for existing and new technical
programs. Top technical people from each major field of technology serve
on these panels.
4) Department of Commerce's Building Technology Advisory Committee
This advisory committee advises the Department of Commerce on matters relating
to the Nation's needs in building research and technology. The committee
provides policy guidance and a forum for discussion by experts on the complex
building community and its diverse interests. Representatives from all segments
of the building community also serve on the advisory committee.
5) National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards and Model
Building Codes Groups
Due to the multiplicity of jurisdictional authorities, the States in 1967 formed
the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards to improve
intra- and inter-State compatibility among the Nation's building regulatory
jurisdictions. The Conference provides a national forum for the State and local
governments, industry, and other interested parties to discuss issues bearing
on building regulations, to identify current problems, and to use national
resources for the development of solutions. NBS provides technical assistance
and the administrative secretariat for the Conference.
At the request of the Conference, NBS performs research on building regulatory
procedures including building laboratory accreditation, uniform procedures for
building evaluation, methods for the efficient formulation and expression of
building standards and codes, and implementation aids for performance-oriented
building standards. Such functions also are provided to model code organizations
of local building officials and the newly-formed organization for building
officials of the 30 largest cities.
PAGENO="0089"
85
6) Coninittees of American National Standards Institute (ANSI), American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM), American Society for Heati~g, Refrigerating,
and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Etc.
NBS supports the national voluntary consensus standards process through more
than 200 memberships on coninittees which promulgate building standards. NBS
provides technical inputs from research to the committees and responds to the
priority needs for building standards of ANSI.
7) Postdoctoral Program and Intergovernmental Personnel Act
In cooperation with the National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences, NBS established an ongoing postdoctoral program to provide awards
to scientists for basic and applied research.
Under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (P. L. 91-648), NBS has
sponsored a number of university faculty and graduate students to do rusearch
at NBS. Some local and State government personnel also have participated in
this program.
8) Research Associate Program
Under this program, industry personnel work at NBS laboratory facilities on
joint research which is of mutual interest. This research is both long and
short range and enables NBS and industry to identify further research needs.
All research findings are available to the public.
9) Occupatidnal Safety and Health Administration @51-IA), National Institute for
Occupatfonal Safety and Health (NIOSH), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Federal Power Commission (FPC), and Justice Department
In recent years, Congress has established new Federal regulatory programs
which mandate certain building requirements. These Federal programs have
set new demands on the design, construction and operation of buildings and
have placed further responsibilities on the local building code officials.
Through liaison and research programs for these agencies, NBS provides a
technical focal point for those who must implement new Federal regulations.
10) NBS' Center for Fire Research and Center for Consumer Product Technology
These two new technical centers provide research programs on fire safety and
life safety for the consumer. Research results in these areas have strong
impact on codes and standards.
11) International Standards, United States Committee~ RILEM and Cooperative
Researcl~
With increased international business interactions and corporations, strong
participation in international standards is essential. Joint cooperative
and complementary research with other foreign government research organizations
provides more Comprehensive research, avoids duplication and permits
sharing of facilities and technical staff.
12) American Institute of Architects (AIA)-NBS Architect-in-Residence Prpgram
and Membersh~in all Professional Societies
A strong relationship is maintained with all professional groups within the
design community. The AIA/NBS architect-in-residence program places an
architect from an architectural/engineering firm for one year at NJ3S. This
program encourages NBS research with the architectural profession and informs
NBS of the research needs of this profession.
PAGENO="0090"
86
Clarification of Terminology: Codes, Standards, Guidelines and
Performance and Prescriptive Theory
Building regulatory terminology, particularly codes, standards, guidelines
and performance and prescriptive theory, is often misinterpreted since no
authoritative definitions have been developed. These terms are frequently
used in different contexts. Diverse interpretations of these terms creates
a misunderstanding of how they are ultimately used in building regulations.
The terms: code, standard, guideline, performance and prescription, as well
as other terms, are used to describe legal documents, inputs in legal
documents, and approaches (or philosophies) used in developing the inputs
for legal documents. The following outline may be useful in clarifying
the use of these terms.
I. Description of Legal Documents includes the terms:
A. Building Code
B. Federal Regulation
II. Description of documents used as inputs in legal documents:
A. Model Building Codes
B. Standards
III. Terms used to describe approaches (or philosophies):
A. Performance
B. Prescription
IV. Other Terms
A. Guidelines
B. Condition of Participation
I. Terms used to describe legal documents:
Building specifications are regulated by States or local jurisdictions to
provide for the health and safety of the community. Every designer and
builder must meet the minimum requirements contained in the State or local
government' s building code. The term building code, as used in this
discussion, pertains to the total set of legal requirements for the entire
building. Many jurisdictions do have codes which pertain to only portions
of the building, i. e., fire code. Building code requirements are legally
binding by their incorporation in city ordinances or by other legal actions.
An average building code contains approximately 450 standards, through
reference, through incorporation in the test, or through modification
and incorporation.
PAGENO="0091"
87
Although building regulation is primarily a State responsibility, Congress
can, and has in the past, establish Federal building-related regulations.
For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 establishes
Federal regulations for safety in the workplace, including certain
building regulations. The minimum legal requirements, in this case
established by the Secretary of Labor, would be Federal regulations.
These Federal regulations, like building codes, would also utilize
standards (usually the sane standards as those used in codes and serve as
legally enforceable documents which establish minimum requirements for the
buildings under their jurisdiction.) As will be discussed in subsequent
sections, either prescriptive or p~foxmance standards can be used in
writing these docthents.
II. Terms used to describe inputs in legal documents:
Building codes and Federal regulations are large documents which are
extremely technical. Usually, they are developed over a long period of time,
utilizing the work of many organizations and individuals. The work of these
organizations and individuals goes into the development of model building
codes and standards that become the basis or inputs for building codes and
F~~al regulations.
A model building code is a comprehensive document of minimum requirements
which has no legal basis. However, many jurisdictions adopt these
model building codes in entirety and thus, for their jurisdiction, make these
minimum requirements legally binding. Other jurisdictions adopt these
model building codes with minor changes based on their local needs. Some
jurisdictions, most notably the large cities, do not use these model building
codes at all. Like legally enforceable building codes, model building codes
reference approximately 450 standards. Model building codes are developed
by private organizations, such as the International Conference of Building
Officials (Uniform Building Code), Southern Building Code Congress
International (Southern Standard Building Code), and the Building Officials
and Code Administrators International (Basic Building Code).
A standard describes a technical document issued by an approved standards-
generating organization that establishes a uniform procedure, method or
convention. Virtually all standards-generating organizations are private
organizations. These organizations include the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA), American Society of Civil T3ngineers (ASCE), American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASIIvI), and others. Approval of the
standards developed by these organizations comes from the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI), also a private organization, based on the
standards adherence to published rules on standards development. Federal
agencies are rarely authorized to promulgate standards by Congress. An
exception would be NBS' authority to promulgate the standards of basic
measurement. Unlike building codes, standards are not comprehensive and
only relate to a narrow portion of the total building.
PAGENO="0092"
88
The term, standard, is not without its ambiguities. A standard can relate
to a test method, a design procedure, a building product, or some other
facet of the total building industry. Also, standards are used for
different purposes. For example, there is a need to standardize test methods
so building researchers can compare their results; t1~ere is a need to
standardize the nisnber and type of building products available so that
one part of an industry can procure these products from another; there
is a need to standardize definitions so that technical communications
will be facilitated. This discussion focuses on those standards which
are either promulgated by an approved standards-generating organization,
or are used in building regulation, either through building codes or
Federal regulations. These standards may be either prescriptive or
performance based and are developed from building research and expert
opinion.
III. Terms used to describe approaches ~r philosophies) used in developing
the inputs for legal documents:
The two terms used to describe approaches (or philosophies) in developing
the inputs for these standards and model code documents, are prescription
(or prescriptive) and performance.
Prescriptive is a term used as a prefix to standard, building codes, and
Federal regulations to describe the contents of those documents. The
prescriptive approach dictates the manufacturer's models, engineering types,
dimensions, materials or other terms which are allowable. For example, the
statement, a wall shall have six inches of type R-21 insulation is a prescrip-
tive requirement that may be contained in a prescriptive standard or in a
prescriptive building code. Generally, it is recognized that prescriptive
statements, like the illustrated one, are not adequate since (1) the user
(the building occupant and/or owner) is not particularly interested in
what type of insulation or in how much is used (i.e., the means) but rather
is interested in saving energy or money (the end objective); (2) such
statements, when adopted in legal documents, effectively prohibit the use
of alternative solutions that may be more effective but are not specifically
mentioned; and (3) such statements are not effective over large geographical
areas (i.e., Minneapolis vs. Miami).
Performance is also a term used as a prefix to standards, building codes
and Federal regulations to describe the contents of those documents. The
performance approach describes allowable end goals. A performance standard
might read: a building of a particular size and a particular use should
utilize x BTU's per year. This statement is essentially an end objective
and does not specify the means which the designer, builder or homeowner
must use to achieve the end objective.
There are degrees to which a document contains prescriptive statements or
performance statements. For example, the American Society for Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers has developed an energy
standard, ASI-IRAE Standard 90-75, which is generally considered a performance
document rather than a prescriptive document, but it is not as totally
performance-oriented as a BTLJ energy approach would be. With respect to
building codes, it also should be recognized that these codes contain
thousands of requirements; some of which are performance and some of which
are prescriptive.
PAGENO="0093"
89
IV. Other related terms:
Guidelines suggest a variety of opportunities without specifying any required
minimum level of performance. That is, guidelines provide some helpful recom-
mendations of specific (or prescriptive) solutions, but they are not legally
enforceable minimum requirements. Guidelines is not a term used to describe
a legal document (such as building codes or Federal regulations). However,
one might want guidelines to inform the building designer about which design
solution may (or may not) meet the applicable building code or Federal
regulation. Such guidelines could be developed by any individual or
organization and commercially marketed as a text book. To assist in meeting
051-IA safety requirements, private organizations have developed guidelines for
business. In this sense, guidelines are helpful suggestions on design solutions
that the author feels may meet the building code or Federal regulation. The
user of these guidelines could choose to disregard the guidelines' advice but
could not choose to disregard building codes or Federal regulations.
We could also say that the term, guidelines, is not used to describe inputs
in legal documents, as model codes and standards are used. However,
guidelines could be developed, again by any individual or organization, to
provide helpful information for any interested designer. Again, they could
be disregarded. By definition, guidelines could not be standards since
the substance is different; that is, guidelines relate to the suggestion of
building alternatives that could be deemed acceptable. If they were developed
and promulgated as a standard, they would cease being guidelines and become
standards. If adopted by a legal jurisdiction, they then would become
prescriptive building requirements.
Conditions of Participation: In some cases, when Congress authorizes
financial assistance to private individuals, organizations, corporations,
or States or local agencies, it places stipulations on receiving these
finances. Congress has required minimum conditions of participation by the
recipient. In the building area, examples of this minimum condition of
participation would include HElD's FHA Minimum Property Standards or
HEW's Hill-Burton Minimum Requirements.
PAGENO="0094"
90
STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD N. WRIGHT, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
BUILDING TECHNOLOGY, NBS, ACCOMPANIED BY SAMUEL
KRAMER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Dr. WRImT. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you
for this opportunity to testify before your committee today. It is a
pleasure for me to comment on this important legislation and to
describe the National Bureau of Standards' disaster mitigation
program.
Since you, Dr. Stever and the other witnesses have discussed the
potential impact of future earthquakes, I will not repeat that portion
of `the testimony. In view of the time available, I will highlight the
other portions of my statment. If you wonder where I am during my
discussion, I will be happy to call out the page. I will begin at the
middle of page 3.
The National Bureau of Standards' Institute for Applied Tech-
nology houses the largest and most comprehensive building research
laboratory in the United States. Its Center for Building Technology
(CBT) which has a staff of 240 and an annual budget of $12 million,
provides the focal point for the NBS disaster mitigation program.
Other NBS units also contribute to technology for reducing the earth-
quake hazard.
The Center provides technical information, measurement methods
and criteria for improving the usefulness, safety and economy of
buildings. Our research focuses on the performance concept which
leads to the development of criteria and test methods that give build-
ings designers, manu~fac'turers, and contractors maximum opportu-
nity for innovation. For example, we developed criteria for solar heat-
ing and cooling systems called for in Public Law 93-409, the Solar
Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act, which has been strongly
supported `by this committee. We are now assisting the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Energy Research
and Development Administration (ERDA) in the planning and eval-
uation of the solar demonstration. This is representative of our role
as a laboratory resource for the more than 30 Federal agencies with
building programs.
Our staff includes architects, engineers, physical scientists, psycholo-
gists, economists, and other specialists from over 30 disciplines. Our
interdisciplinary approach considers how buildings should perform to
meet building occupants' needs. To accomplish this task, we work
closely with all elements of the building community: design profes-
sions, builders, organized labor, building regulatory authorities of
State and local governments, researchers in universities, national*
standards writing bodies, building user organizations, and Federal
agencies. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to intro-
duce for the record two background papers delineating our interac-
tions with these groups of the building community and terminology
for codes and standards.
We have participated in postdisaster investigations in San Fern-
ando, Calif., in 1971; Managua, Nicaragua in 1972; Guatemala in 1976;
and recently in Italy.
We apply the knowledge gained from these investigations to develop
improved building practices. We assisted Nicaraguan authorities in
PAGENO="0095"
91
evaluating damaged buildings and in upgrading their building regu-
latory system. Following the San Fernando earthquake, our assess-
ment of earthquake damage to residences was used by field investiga-
tors of the Small Business Administration to validate Federal loans.
We also testified before the House Committee on Public Works at a
field hearing in California on February 23, 1971, and discussed the
damage to the San Fernando area. We accompanied that committee
in its own inspection of earthquake damage to help them assess the
need for disaster relief and subsequent leo~slation. The San Fernando
earthquake of 1971 showed the need for a~alanced approach to earth-
quake mitigation.
The National Science Foundation (NSF), NBS, Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HTJD), and OEP planned a
cooperative Federal program on building practices for disaster mitiga-
tion in 1972. With sponsorship from NSF and NBS, the NBS con-
ducted a workshop for experts in the building community including
architects and engineers, building code officials, standards writers,
and planners, to develop a national plan for disaster mitigation
activities.
The workshop participants synthesized current knowledge on build-
ing practices for insuring the safety of building occupants in new and
existing buildings. rrhey made recommendations to four audiences: (1)
policymakers in Federal, State and local governments, for guidance
on disaster mitigation, laws, regulations, policies, and programs; (2)
practitioners, such as architects, engineers, and building contractors,
for guidance on the best current practices to be used in making deci-
sions about building construction that have to be made every day;
(3) standards writers and those responsible for developing recom-
mended practices, such as building code officials, for guidance on
needs for new knowledge.
Exactly as recommended by Mr. Goldwater, this plan and the
proposed recommendations to users in the building community, as
presented in the NBS document, "Building Practices for Disaster
Mitigation" (Building Science Series 46), provided an integrated
approach to disaster mitigation through research and implementation
of improved building practices. One workshop recommendation was
to update the seismic design provisions of building codes. The last
major revision to these provisions occurred in the 1950's. Since that
time, there have been significant advances in knowledge. Based on the
workshop recommendation, the National Bureau of Standards spon-
sored by the National Science Foundation and NBS, initiated a 3-year
$1.3 million program to develop improved, seismic design criteria
which could be used nationwide in new buildings and in the rehabili-
tation of existing buildings. We have used the Applied Technology
Council of the Structural Engineers Association of California as a
principal resources in this program.
We are working very closely with the private sector, the trade asso-
ciations, the State and local building regulatory officials and the con-
cerned Federal agencies in the development of seismic design criteria.
In `this NBS/NSF program on seismic design criteria and in all
disaster mitigation activities, implementation is the key to success.
Research which is not used provides few benefits. Likewise, developing
improved `building practices without planning their implementation
PAGENO="0096"
92
serves no one. Too often, practicing engineers are left to synthesize
the research results and develop improved building practices on their
own. This gap between research and use has long been evident to
both practitioners and researchers.
Time does not permit me to read fully the prepared testimony
outlining our efforts to close this gap, but I have offered representative
reports on this subject to this committee.
The need for earthquake hazard reduction is well documented by
the history of past earthquakes and the projected effects of future
earthquakes in many parts of the country. Normally, we think of four
ways to reduce the potential earthquake hazard: (1) Induced reduc-
tion of the earthquake intensity, (2) evacuation of the area, (3)
avoidance of the hazard by not using the area, that is, land use control,
and (4) prevention of the damage by improved building practices.
All four of these solutions have their limitations.
Physically reducing the potential force of the earthquake, by such
methods as pumping water into the ground, is a possible solution to
reducing damage. However, such procedures are still in the research
stage.
Evacuating threatened areas can achieve hazard reduction if predic-
tions are certain and given adequate time. However, disruption of
normal activities and adverse economic consequences are still a
problem.
Land use control practices can reduce hazards of faulting, unstable
earth, flooding below dams and tsunamis. For some of these earth-
quake hazards, such as faulting, this approach is the most economical,
but often people are reluctant to cease building in otherwise desirable
areas even if there is high seismic risk.
Earthquake-resistant building practices are the most effective ap~
proach to minimizing earthquake damages from ground shaking
which causes over 90 percent of the damages. Even if an earthquake
is predicted and the residents have evacuated the area, we still need
to reduce the damage `to buildings and other facilities. Obviously, if
there has been no advance warning and no evacuation, the need for
safe buildings is critical. For simplicity, I will confine the following
discussion to buildings, but the same concepts apply to other facilities.
To reduce the earthquake hazard, we must know how buildings are
used, what earthquake environment is likely, and how buildings per-
form during an earthquake. We know from our field investigations
that buildings can be built economically to resist earthquake effects,
but `there is still need to reduce the high cost of identifying and cor-
recting hazardous existing buildings and to make new seismically
safe construction more cost effective.
Experience shows that the greatest earthquake hazard results froni
unsafe existing buildings. Buildings not constructed in accord with
adequate seismic design provisions should be evaluated to determine
whether they are unduly hazardous. Such buildings should~ be
strengthened or replaced. The procedure for evaluating existing build-
ings developed for Veterans Administration and Defense Civil
Preparedness Agency are steps toward these goals. Improved tech*
nologies are needed to make the hazard identification and strengthen*
ing procedures more economical. One approach that deserves study is
the removal of financial barriers for abating unsafe buildings to speed
hazard reduction.
PAGENO="0097"
93
New construction should not add to the earthciuake hazard. Seismic
design criteria providing appropriate resistance should be incorpo-
rated in building regulations and enforced. The seismic design criteria
we are developing with NSF address this need.
In summary, any effective program for reducing earthquake losses
must include research on building performance and the development
and implementation of improved building practices. The Nation's re-
search base includes characterization of earthquake hazards by USGS
and the basic research funded by NSF. The NBS is prepared to carry
out the additional research to develop performance criteria and test
methods for evaluating how well buildings and their components per-
form. The integration of all this research with our continuing work
with design professionals, industry, organized labor, builders, codes,
and standards-writing groups, Federal agencies, and the State and
local building re~ulatory agencies, would facilitate the development
and implementation of improved building practices.
Public policy should encourage the building communities to use
effective earthquake hazard reduction practices. Authority exists in
most areas under State or local building codes. However, up-to-date
earthquake design standards must be included in codes by the State
or local governments, designers must learn to apply these standards in
design, builders must follow approved details in construction, and
regulatory authorities roust check plans and inspect construction. The
model code organization of building officials, the National Conference
of States on Building Codes and Standards, the newly formed Na-
tional Institute of Building Sciences, and the professional societies
of architects and engineers provide appropriate mechanisms for
achieving this implementation of earthquake-resistant building prac-
tices.
As Dr. Stever and others hav~e indicated this morning, the Federal
agencies already have sufficient legislative authority to undertake re-
search and are working on a program plan that can be used to make
budgetary decisions. With regard to mechanisms for coordination, I
have discussed some aspects of this coordination that now exist. Di.
Stever has mentioned that the administration is scrutinizing this sub-
ject to see if a new coordinating body is needed and whether any ad-
ditional legislative authority should be proposed by the administra-
tion. In this respect, NBS will be working actively with Dr. Stever.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you, and I will
endeavor to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Goldwater?
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Wright, how long have you been with the
National Bureau of Standards?
Dr. WRIGHT. I have been in my present appointment for 2 years.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Previous to that?
Dr. WRIGHT. Prior to that I was with the National Bureau of
Standards for 2 additional years, in interrupted service. I have worked
in structural design for dynamic loads since 1955, in the U.S. Army
and at the University of Illinois.
Mr. GOLDWATER. During the 1971 earthquake in the San Fernando
Valley many of the freeway overpasses fell, collapsed. In fact, one fell
on a truck and I think it flattened it out to less than 2 inches. What
has changed as a result of that experience due to the National Bureau
of Standards' efforts in the design of freeway overpasses specifically?
76-649 0 - 76 - 7
PAGENO="0098"
94
Dr. WRIGHT. Due to the centers mission, we have not been active
in research on transportation structures. rflIe Federal Highway Ad-
ministration has an active research and laboratory program. However,
I am aware of their research and the work that the National Science
Foundation has sponsored at the universities. To avoid repetition of
that very unfortunate event you mentioned, they have changed the
highway design criteria to allow more space for bridge movements
during an earthquake and to improve connections to piers.
Mr. GOLDWATER. So the National Bureau of Standards is not
involved in transportation.
Dr. WRIGHT. We have not been involved in earthquake reduction
research for transportation structures or in the development of their
standards.
Mr. GOLDWATER. But you are involved with houses.
Dr. WRIGHT. Yes; we do work on housing and building structures.
Mr. GOLDWATER. As I recall, the railroads were twisted like
spaghetti.
Dr. WRIGHT. Yes.
Mr. GOLDWATER. In the area of buildings has any change really re-
sulted due to your work? Have you noticed any application of stand-
ards at which you arrived?
Dr. WRIGHT. We have niade contributions, through work for the
Departm~n't of Housing and Urban Development, in updating the
minimum property standards. These standards indeed do affect the
way buildings are constructed throughout the United States.
Mr. GOLDWATER. You were deeply involved in the San Fernando
Valley earthquake and post evaluation?
Dr. WRIGHT. Yes.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I assume you followed it up with further research
and inspection of the various buildings and structures. Were you in-
volved at all in making recommendations for upgrading of codes?
Dr. WRIGHT. Yes, we have, as I noted in my testimony, been very
active in a program for updating seismic standards.
Mr. GOLDWATER. This Building Science Series 46, Practices for Dis-
aster Mitigation, provides an integrated approach to disaster mitiga-
tion, research, and implementation of improved building practices.
That's a lot of words. What does it really mean and what is
happening?
Dr. WRIGHT. rfhat document, sir, was the result of a detailed study
of natural hazards by experts from the National Bureau of Stand-
ards and from many other institutions in the country. Following this
evaluation of the current state of practice and research knowledge, the
representatives of the workshop developed a large number of
recommendations.
Some of these recommendations have been implemented, and others
have greatly influenced the research programs at the National Bureau
of Standards and elsewhere. However, not all of the recommendations
in that document have yet been carried out.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Let me understand. In this earthquake business
we have the public Law 93-~88, the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, giv-
ing authority to the National Science Foundation and USGS to
look into earthquake prediction and warning. Were you likewise given
authority from HUD? Is that how you got your authority?
PAGENO="0099"
95
Dr. WRIGHT. While we have no specific mandate for earthquake
research activities under that legislation,,we do have broad authority
for building under the NBS Organic Act. We do work with HTJD,
the National Science Foundation and a number of other Federal a*~~en-
cies on research and technology transfer programs aimed at reducing
disaster hazards including earthquakes.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Do you belong to any interagency coordinating
committee?
Dr. WRIGHT. Yes, we are an active participant in the interagency
task force of the National Science Foundation.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Specifically concerning earthquakes?
Dr. WRIGHT. We are not working solely on earthquakes. We are
active in wind hazards, and we have done some work on flood hazards.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Do you feel there is adequate coordination for ths
whole area of earthquakes from your standpoint? Do you feel as if you
are working in a vacuum, or do you feel you are making a significant
contribution as a part of a total effort? Or do you feel we could do
maybe a little better job.
Dr. WRIGHT. There are very strong coordinating activities and we
feel that we have been an effective participant in many of them. I
have a personal feeling that the attention which has been focused on
research has been appropriate. There also is need for much stronger
attention to developing improved building practices from the research
knowledge and seeing that they are prepared in a useable form and
delivered to the users in the private sector and to State and local
governments. The NBS document recommends a number of these
activities which would lead to the development and effective imple-
nientation of improved building practices.
Mr. GOLDWATER. How much money does the National Bureau spend
in the area of earthquake research standardization?
Dr. WRIGHT. If you focus on the work we are conducting in our
own laboratories apart from the work we are doing with many par-
ticipants in the building community in developing revised seismic
design provisions NBS is currently spending approximately $300,000.
We will furnish exact figures for the record.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I assume you are going to spend $1.3 million on the
seismic criteria?
Dr. WRIGHT. About $1.3 million is being spent on the development
of seismic design criteria?
Mr. GOLDWATER. By the National Science Foundation?
Dr. WRIGHT. The National Science Foundation and the National
Bureau of Standards are supporting this program.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Are you putting up any of the money?
Dr. WRIGHT. Over 3 years, we are contributing about $300,000.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BROWN. Dr. Wright, I am interested in the amount of research
being done on structures from the standpoint of eavthquake resistance
in other agencies. For, example, I presume there is work being done
iii ERDA and the Nuclear regulatory Commission in connection with
design standards for nuclear powerplants including standards of
earthquake resistance; is that right?
Dr. WRIGHT. Yes, the work done originally by the Atomic Energy
Commission and continued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
PAGENO="0100"
96
has led in the development of improved earthquake resistant practices.
They were studying the problem well before the San Fernando earth-
quake. The technical approaches being developed for general building
use relate closely to those developed for nuclear reactors.
Of course, nuclear reactors are a special type of building so con-
siderable technical modification is required in the adaptation of these
practices to housing and office buildings.
Mr. BROWN. Can some of the design criteria, say, having to do with
the anticipated severity of the earthquake and the resultant earth
movements be transformed over to other structures after being devel-
oped by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
Dr. WRIGHT. The fundamental knowledge most definitely can be
transferred. However, the acceptable risk of failure is a function of
the consequences of failure so the acceptable risks for nuclear reactors,
of course, are much smaller than they are for conventional buildings.
There is a substantial amount of additional work to be done to develop
this technology in a usable form for adoption in conventional build-
ing practices, but the underlying scientific and technical knowledge
is being used.
Mr. BROWN. What about the work being done within the Defense
Department for the hardethng of missile sites and things of that sort?
Dr. WRIGHT. This work is also usable. The work which has been
done for the Department of Defense, some in which I participated,
has done a great deal to increase our understanding of the behavior
of structures under extreme loads.
This knowledge is being used in the improvement of our design
practices for earthquakes, winds, and other natural disasters.
Mr. BROWN. Can you give me some indication of the cost effective-
ness of earthquake designs which would be suitable to a layman?
I am thinking basically of what is the additional cost to design for
reasonable earthquake hazards and the degree to which that cost is
perhaps reflected in longer life of the building or greater safety from
other standpoints as well as the earthquake standpoint, so that I can
get a general understanding of the economics of an adequate earth-
quake safety design program.
Dr. WRTGIIT. The problem you mention is really an easier one. If
you begin with an architectural layout and structural scheme which
is conducive to good earthquake resistance. The additional cost for
achieving such resistance is relatively small, usuall~ less than 5 per-
cent of the structural cost of the building. However, making existing
buildings seismically safe is much more severe because it is harder to
change existing structures than it is to revise plans on the drawing
hoard. The cost of making existing buildings seismically safe can be
extremely high. We need more research in this area. We do not know
enough about the way some older types of buildings behave and what
types of strengthening procedures are the most effective.
Mr. BROWN. I presume a rational program would focus on establish-
ing adequate standards for new buildings and then `as a second
priority, those existing buildings which for one reason or another
would have the highest priority such as schools, hospitals and things
of that sort. Would that be the logical way to go about this program?
Dr. WRIGHT. This is certainly the procedure which has been taken
in the State of California where seismic design criteria were applied
PAGENO="0101"
97
proactively to new coflstruction and retroactively only to important
public buildings such as schools. This is certainly the cheapest way
to achieve eventual earthquake hazard reduction. However, we must
recognize that the half-life of buildings is rather long and our existing
seismically hazardous buildings will be with us for a long time unless
deliberate efforts are taken to identify those which are unduly unsafe
and to abate those hazards.
Mr. BROWN. I am interested in this half-life concept. We can assume
that the half-life of some more or less average structure is what? Forty
years?
Dr. WRIGHT. Forty or fifty years is a reasonable estimate of the aver-
age life.
Mr. BROWN. And the expected frequency of an earthquake is only
every 100 years. What are the economics of trying to retrofit existing
buildings?
Dr. WRIGHT. This is an extremely strong justification for the type
of research activity that the Geological Survey is carrying out. If
they can develop the ability to predict that a particular area will not
have an earthquake for another 50 or 100 years, then we need not
worry much about the existing buildings in that area.
However, that competence does not exist at present. In many parts
of the country, it may be a long time before that ability is with us.
Mr. BROWN. So a rational program would then look, as far as
existing buildings is concerned, not only at their earthquake resistance,
how close they come to meeting reasonable standards, but also the pos-
sibility of a serious earthquake in the area where they are located?
Dr. WRIGHT. Yes. There is the capability today of making relatively
imprecise estimates of whether there is a 1-percent chance or a one-
tenth of a percent chance that a strong earthquake will strike any
particular area, say, in the next year. Based upon this information
of the degree of risk, it is possible to derive cost effective procedures
to determine where hazardous buildings should be identified and what
level of hazard is acceptable.
Mr. BROWN. As I understand the fragmentary data that we have
on earthquake prediction, there seems `to be some indication that the
more serious an earthquake might be the longer period of time we
might anticipate seeing precursor developments in the way of tilts
or strains or bulges or whatever. Is that accepted?
Dr. WRIGHT. I am not a seismologist. While I have heard these
statements, I would like to defer the response to that question.
Mr. BROWN. We will defer it. The point I was really getting at is
if we have reason to predict a serious earthquake and we have s~y a
year or 2 years or maybe up to 5 Or 10 years indication that a serious
earthquake will occur in that particular region, would that not allow
us to focus on t~hat reason for purposes of structural modification in
order to obviate the worst effects of that?
Dr. WRIGHT. Yes, indeed. This type of predictive capability would
be extremely valuable since it would allow us to focus corrective build-
ing actions in areas where they are most needed.
Mr. BROWN. Now, Dr. Hamilton, would you care to educate me as
to whether the statement I made is roughly correct as to the leadtime
anti~ipa*tio~~~of occurrence?
PAGENO="0102"
98
Dr. HAMILTON. The answer to your question is yes, there is evidence
to indicate that the really great earthquakes have signals that may
precede the event by as much as 10 years.
Mr. BROWN. `Certainly that gives adequate planning time, if we had
the research data necessary to make those predictions. `Thank you.
I have a number of other questions I would like to ask but in view
of the time I will defer these and request that if `we provide you some
questions in writing would you be willing to cooperate?
Dr. WRIGHT. Sir, we would be very happy to answer questions in
that form.
Mr. `GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Just one observation I would like `to make. You
would think that when we spend taxpayers' money we would produce
something that would be a useful document for the layman or the
practitioner in the field who winds up having to implement policy that
Government legislators or bureaucrats have promulgated. I have been
looking over this document edited by you, "Building Science Series
46, Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation" and can you explain
to me what the purpose of this is supposed `to `be? What are you sup-
posed to get out of it and who' is supposed to read it?
Dr. WRIGHT. This was intended for a number of audiences, sir.
One important audience was the group of people at the National
Bureau of Standards and the National Science Foundation who are
concerned with planning research programs and the. implementation
of improved practices for natural disasters. If you will look at the
last pages which list the workshop participants, you will see that we
have representatives of local building regulatory authorities, local
land use planners, design engineers, representatives of trade associa-
tions such as the American Institute of Steel `Construction. There was
a diverse group of people from the building community and they were
speaking to their peers and indeed to the policymakers who control
the evolution of building practices.
Mr. BROWN. The problem prthably is that you didn't have enough
Congressmen at that point.
Mr. GOLDWATER. But they sure had the same types, a lot of intellec-
tuals. You didn't have a person there who had ever swung a hamnn~r
or who was a contractor who built `buildings. You had engineers. You
had consultants. The point is that when you read what `was written
here it doesn't make sense. I just turned to page 19 because I was
interested in building loads or something here having to do with
dampening. It seemed to me that in the San Fernando Valley that
was one of the problems, the ability of a structure to withstand-I
think you call it dampening.
Dr. WRIGHT. Dampening is the ability to absorb energy rather than
having intensity of motion build up.
Mr. GOLDWATER. That was one of the problems. One of the problems
with the buildings in the earthquake was that they found that cement
just did not give you a good dampening effect because it crumbled.
One of the things we learned is to put more steel into a buil'ding.
I turn to this page to look and learn a lot more and here is what
it tells me: "Surveys following the disaster, et cetera, et cetera, et
cetera, could have been prevented haçl proven structural details been
PAGENO="0103"
99
used in the affected buildings." Well, that is commonsense. Why did
we have to spend money just to find that out?
Dr. WRIGHT. This is one of the things which I think you are pointing
out with your own remarks and, that is, that commonsense is sometimes
an uncommon quality.
Mr. GOLDWA~rER. Only when it gets out of the hands of the prac-
titioner or the person who has to do the work.
Dr. WRIGHT. Essentially I think I am saying much the same thing
you are. One of the great problems in disaster mitigation is to have
people such as `those who are tying steel in building re-inforced con-
crete structures understand how important seemingly minor details are
in achieving safety.
One of the saddest things I have seen in my life occurred a year
after a major earthquake overseas. I inspected the site of a major hotel
in the stricken area with a group of local builders, architects and
engineers, people directly involved in the reconstruction, and I saw
improperly tied steel. The building community there had a construc-
tion manual which showed the importance of carrying the ties in con-
crete columns back into the core so that if a column starts to crack
and the shell falls off, the ties don't becom.e loose and ineffective.
If you can keep the ties anchored in the core of the column, the column,
though it cracks a bit, will hang `together and people won't get killed.
The local architects, engineers and contractors should have known this
because very simple documents had been made available to them.
One of the real problems is transferring the research knowledge to
the worker who is tying steel on the job. He must know that' if he does
not do his job right, he is risking the lives of the people. who use that
building. That is one part of the delivery problem that we all have
to work on.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes; but I don't quite understand how this is going
to bridge that gap.
Dr. WRIGHT. This document recommends ways to bridge this gap.
Mr. GOLDWATER. But you spent a lot of time and a lot o'f effort and
a lot of people were involved. `The question is: Who is going to benefit
from `this document? This was put out in 1973. Have you seen the
fruits of this?
Dr. WRIGHT. We are working very closely with the model code
groups throughout the United `States. Most of our local building offi-
cials belong to one of three professional organizations, the Southern
States Building `Code Conference in the South, `the International Con-
ference of Building Officials in the West and the Building Officials
Conference of America in the `Central and Northeastern parts of the
country. We are working very closely with these building officials,
the people who are responsi'ble for checking the plans. We work with
them on `these problems to develop practices which are suitable for
implementation and helping them translate research knowledge into
usable forms. It is throug~h them, practicing engineers and builders
organizations, such as the National Association of Home Builders,
that these practices can be carried to the people in `the field. The Na-
tional Bureau of Standards is a small organization and we are not
able to do this job alone.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I understand that, but I don't see where this is
such a great `document. I read down here and it says: "When a~-detailed
PAGENO="0104"
100
analysis is not economical. * * ~ What does that mean: "You
should eliminate potential hazardous conditions."
Well, OK, fine, but so what? Where is this going to go? Is it just
being filed someplace?
Dr. WRIGHT. It has been used as a guide for us and a large number
of other people in disaster mitigation research and implementation
programs. Again, I would say this recommendation is directed to
research organizations and building officials organizations to help them
understand what should be done actually implementing these practices
through work with professional building regulatory officials, and with
professional societies of design engineers and architects.
Mr. GOLDWATER. It sounds to me like a lot of people had a nice time
in Boulder, Cob. It would seem to me that also if we are going to put
things out like this that we should put something out of a practical
nature. I would like to see, for instance, the results of your laboratory
work leading to better buildings, the better use of material, specifical-
by, more steel.
Dr. WRIGHT. We need the right type of steel in the right place.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Right. Have you followed up in the San Fernando
Valley and looked at the structures and what have you? And what
have you learned from that? Have you taken what was learned into
the laboratory and done it again and again to make sure that our
recommendation is going to hold up, and our recommendation is that
we need more steel. We don't need a lot of fancy intellectual words here
that not too many people will understand, first of all, and second of all,
will ever read. But maybe a contractor could actually pick it up and
actually apply it to a building or an architect could apply it in the
design of a building or a bridge. That is where it seems to me that
all of this effort should lead, the actual application of what we have
learned from the disasters. There is a lot of commonsense here but it
is something that we should already know. What I think we need is
more lessons from what we have learned from disasters. I would like to
see a document if you have one that takes a look at material structures
based on your observations of the San Fernando earthquake. Do you
have something like that and recommendations back to the State as to
building codes to upgrade them? Do we have anything like that
available?
Dr. WRIGHT. I agree with you so much. I do not want to sound plati-
tudinous, but this document was a planning document, not an imple-
mentation document. We have continued in working on the develop-
ment of improved practices which includes a major program of devel-
oping seismic design provisions which are practically and nationally
applicable. We are advised in our latest publication by a group of
building code officials and consultants, people drawn `from the build-
ing regulatory agencies throughout the country and practicing design
engineers, to make sure that the seismic design provisions will be prac-
tical and useful. We work with the conferences of building officials in
advising them on their code changes and in helping them translate
the research reports into ]anguage suitable for adoption. We work
with the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Stand-
ards, representatives of the Governors of the 50 States who have the
primary responsibility for building safety regulations. We work with
them to develop knowledge in a form which is suitable for application
PAGENO="0105"
101
and practice. We can give you examples of this from the wind area,
the earthquake area, the energy conservation area, tim solar area and
many other areas of building technology.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I would hope so. I would like to see that kind of
material rather than holding something like this up as a panac~a for
all of our problems.
Dr. WRIGHT. Indeed it is not meant as a pa~acea, but as a program
plan.
Mr. BROWN. Dr. Wright, I want to thank you and Mr. Kramer for
your testimony this mornii~g. You have held up very well under the
circumstances and we appreciate your testimofly very much.
Dr. WRTGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Further questions in written form were submitted to Dr. Wright.
The questions and responses follow:]
76-649 0 - 76 - 8
PAGENO="0106"
102
1. Please submit a statement of the dollar amounts obligated by
NBS for earthquake work in fiscal years 1974, 1975, 1976, arid
1977 (planned). The statement should be broken down into maj or
categories and further into subcategories if this is infornia-
tive. In-house work should be separated from work under grants
and contracts. Please indicate whether the source of funding
is direct appropriations or other agency funding.
Information on the dollar amounts obligated by NBS for earthquake
work in fiscal years 1974, 1975, 1976, and planned for 1977 are
provided in the following Table. The expenditures are listed in
categories reflecting the thrust of each activity. An explanation
of each of these research categories is attached to the Table.
Of the total funding for FY 1974, 1975, and 1976, 45 percent was
allocated for in-house work and 55 percent of the funding was
spent for contract work. The majority of this contract work com-
plemented the NBS/NSF program for developing improved seismic
design provisions by allowing us to use many experts and building
practitioners from varied fields to support the program. The
in-house work is directed toward the development and implementa-
tion of new building technologies and measurement methods for
improved building practices. Approximately 70 percent of the NBS
total funding for earthquake related building research is funded
by other Federal agencies.
PAGENO="0107"
-2~
FUNDING FOR EARThQUAKE MITIGATION
Center for Building Technology
Institute for Applied Technology
National Bureau of Standards
FY 1975
NBS Other
Direct Agency
Funding Funding
15 ______ 6.7
47 42.2
40 432
FY 1976
~ T.Q.
FY 1977
(planned)
NBS
Direct
Funding
Other
Agency
Funding
NBS Other
Direct Agency
Funding Funding
17
-
15 -
40
42
10 96.7
88
422.3
60 60.7
FY
1974
NBS
Other
Category
Direct
Funding
Agency
Funding
Disaster
Investigations
20
3.6
Improved Dosign
Criteria for
94~
51
Masonry
Building Practices
for Disaster
30
230
Mitigation
~.
Behavior of
Concrete Meithers
-~
-
-
-
-
18
-
132
Subj ected to
Earthquakes
Seismic Perfonaance
.
Requirenents for
-
-
-
-
35
-
10
Building Service
Systems
Note - Funds are Expressed in Thousands
of Dollars
.
.
PAGENO="0108"
104
-3-
Description of Research Activities in Funding Table
Disaster Investigations:
Post earthquake investigations in San Fernando, California in 1971;
Managua, Nicaragua in 1972; Guatemala in 1976; Italy in 1976 were
conducted to evaluate building performance, to identify needed
research and to provide technical assistance on reconstruction.
Improved Design Criteria for Masonry:
Conduct laboratory tests to determine the strength of masonry
elements subjected to earthquake loads to develop procedures for
determining the strength of masonry in existing buildings and
to develop design requirements for inclusion in standards, model
codes and Federal regulations.
Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation:
Develop a national plan for disaster mitigation activities,
participate with other Federal agencies in coordinating earth-
quake research activities, develop comprehensive seismic design
provisions for use nationwide in model codes and Federal
regulations.
Behavior of Concrete Members Subjected to Earthquakes:
Laboratory tests to evaluate the performance of large-scale
concrete members.
Seismic Performance Requirements for Building Service Systems:
* Develop performance requirements for service systems including
power, water, ventilation, and others for use in designing
critical facilities, such as hospitals, which must remain
functional following an earthquake.
PAGENO="0109"
105
-4-
2. What work does NBS have under way or planned for earthquake-resistant
public facilities (roads, bridges, pipelines, dams, powerlines, etc.)?
As stated in our testimony, the National Bureau of Standards' disaster
mitigation program encompasses research on earthquake-resistant design
and implementation of improved building practices for all types of
buildings. The NBS Organic Act gives us broad authority for building
research, but our mission is not directed toward other types of struc-
tures or systems such as pipelines, dams, bridges, and roads. However,
in our capacity as a research laboratory for the Federal çovernment,
NBS does provide technical support to the Department of Transportation
(DoT), which is responsible for the safe design of all transportation
facilities, and to 30 other Federal agencies.
Although DoT does have its own research organization which examines
the effects of earthquakes on transportation structures, that agency
has applied our building research findings to similar situations for
bridges, dams, and roads. One example is the Federal Highway
Administration's proposed application of our procedures and results
from the current. development of seismic design criteria for buildings
mentioned in the testimony. A second example is the NBS/DoT coopera-
tive work on evaluating the effectiveness of various epoxy coatings
in extending the life of bridge decks.
As the chairing organization for the U.S. -Japan Panel on Wind and
Seismic Effects, NBS works with representatives from DoT and 15
other Federal agencies to support information exchange and coopera-
tive research programs on extreme winds and earthquakes between
Japan and the United States. At the recent joint meeting at NBS
in May 1976, Panel members discussed work done on earthquake-resistant
design of roads, bridges, pipelines, and dams to determine those areas
which need additional research.
3. What areas of opportunity are there for future earthquake work at NBS?
There are three important areas in which NBS can provide continued
contributions to the development and implementation of improved
building practices for reducing earthquake losses. These include:
(1) research and development of methods to predict building per-
forrnance during earthquakes as needed for design, evaluation of
hazards in existing buildings, and assessment of alternatives
PAGENO="0110"
106
-5-
for strengthening and repair; (2) technical support to Federal
agencies, State and local governments and the private sector; and
(3) technical assistance to the National Science Foundation (NSF)
and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in formulating and conducting
their research programs and translating the results to improved
building practices.
The NBS has a continuing role in the development of criteria which
describe how buildings perform and of test methods which confirm
the buildings' compliance with specified characteristics. Because
of our interdisciplinary staff, NBS is able to incorporate users'
needs in developing such performance ctiteria which provide a
maximum opportunity for building innovation. Representatives
throughout the building community have indicated the need:for NBS
to develop such performance standards. Specifically, they have
indicated the need for NBS to do research for ensuring that
building service systems, such as lighting, heating and venti-
lating, waste disposal, and water supply will remain usable
following an earthquake. The American Society of Plumbing
Engineers has emphasized the need for research which examines
the ability of plumbing systems to withstand earthquakes.
The NBS sees further need for the development of uniform evaluation
procedures for existing buildings and handbooks which explain how
the homeowner, builder, or the architect should proceed in repairing
a building following an earthquake. Although the Federal Government
has procedures for reconstruction, the homeowner is frequently unaware
of what steps he should or should not take. For example, following
the Alaskan flood in 1967, many homeowners pumped the water out of
their basements before the flood waters had sufficiently subsided.
Although common sense would tell you that you should remove the
water, doing so before the flood waters are lowered causes extreme
pressures to build up on the home' s foundation. In many cases, the
basement foundations pulled away from the houses which resulted in
costly damage to the buildings. Following this flood, NBS investi-
gators provided instruction to the public on how to dry out buildings.
Complying with our recommendations saved many homeowners from making
more costly repairs to their homes. The NBS could conduct the re-
search needed to prepare handbooks which describe in non-technical
terms what the homeowner should do. A second handbook for builders
and design professionals also could be prepared.
Through the technical support we provide other Federal agencies and
our relationship with the private sector, we have the opportunity
to synthesize research knowledge and facilitate implementation of
improved building practices to achieve earthquake hazard reduction.
The NBS has established communication with the numerous affected
sectors; that is, the building regulatory agencies, State and
local governments, the professional design community, university
PAGENO="0111"
107
-6-
researchers, and other Federal agencies. These continual inter-
actions have provided the National Bureau of Standards with the
vehicle to ensure that research results are implemented. An
example of this cooperative activity is the NBS/National Science
Foundation program on seismic design criteria. The American
National Standards Institute (ANSI), the largest standards-writing
organization in the United States, is already working t~o include
these criteria in a consensus standard.
Working through Federal agencies and organizations such as the
Conference of American Building Officials which represents the
three model codes, we can extend the work we carried out for the
DCPA mentioned in our testimony and develop uniform procedures for
determining hazards posed by existing buildings. Working through
the American National Standards Institute, we are in a position
to implement the earthquake design loads developed from USGS work.
Technical assistance to NSF and USGS provides the opportunity for
cooperative research efforts and for NBS to contribute to research
program planning activities. For example, we use the seismological
information developed by USGS to define design loadings for earth-
quake-resistant buildings. The program to develop nationally
applicable seismic design provisions, which also utilizes research
results developed by USGS, is another example of cooperative efforts.
We are currently involved in conducting a national workshop to deter-
mine research needs for earthquake resistant masonry construction.
Results from this workshop can be used by NSF for program planning
purposes. Utilizing NBS involvement with the private sector, we can
work with NSF to expedite the translation of research into practice.
4. In your statement, you mention that~ NBS works with `desi~n professionals,
industry, organized labor, builders, codes and standards -writing groups,
Federal agencies, and the State and local building regulatory agencies."
Several of these groups would appear to benefit from design requirements
that are costly. None of the groups would appear to benefit from cost-
saving design. Would you comment on those appearances and describe how
MRS ensures its recommendations are cost effective.
Although it might appear that some of these groups would benefit from
costly design requirements, this is not the case. All groups who
participate in the conimerce of building: designers, industry, labor
and builders, are keenly interested in less expensive design require-
ments to redt~ce their own costs and to increase their volume Of work.
To maintain the freedom for diversity in buildings and the livelihood
PAGENO="0112"
108
-7-
of many industries, various sectors of the building community are
dependent on economical designs which provide equal opportunity for
differing materials, design and construction methods.
Building owners and users, including Federal agencies, and State and
local governments seek less costly design requirements to reduce their
capital costs and the operating and maintenance costs for buildings
they use. Obviously, they have other pressing needs for their funds.
Due to the tight constraints on governmental budgets, this concern
for saving money is particularly true now.
Codes and standards-writing groups and building regulatory authorities
often are more concerned with safety and reducing property losses than
with initial building costs. These groups consider the cost of changing
building cede provisions and the corresponding impact on the building
industry. In many cases, revised codes and standards which reduce
hazards may be cost effective, especially when one considers the value
of a hunan life.
As indicated in our testimony, the N135 research focuses on the
performance concept which examines how buildings, components, and
systems should perform rather than what specific materials or
techniques should be used. Our performance approach is not biased
toward any particular technique, material, or company. Performance
requirements provide the maxinun opportunity for innovation and can
stimulate a competitive atmosphere which results in cost-saving
design and construction.
The NBS measures the consequences of building practices by examining
the costs of design, construction, operation, maintenance, function-
ality, and safety. These explicit measures allow public authorities
to weigh both the subjective and objective costs and benefits and
to establish cost-effective levels of performance for buildings.
PAGENO="0113"
109
Mr. BROWN. Our last witness this morning will `be Mr. Thomas
Dunne, Director of the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration,
Department of Housing and Urban Development. We owe you an
apology, Mr. Dunne, for the lateness of the hour. We hope you will
be able to reschedule your lunch that you had planned to have an hour
ago. Your full text will be inserted in the record and if you choose to
abbreviate or summarize-
STATEMENT OF THOMAS DUN1~E, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL DISASTER
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OP HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. DUNNR. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to
submit my written statement for the record and give you ~a summary.
[A brief biographical sketch of Mr. Thomas P. Duune. and the com-
plete prepared statement of Mr. Dunne are as follows:]
THOMAS P. DUNNE
Thomas P. Dunne, 39, Administrator of the Federal Disaster Assistance Ad-
ministration, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, is responsible
for supervising the relief activities of governmental and private agencies follow-
ing an emergency or major disaster declaration by the President.
Mr. Dunne was appointed to the position by the Secretary of HUD when Re-
organization Plan No. 1 renamed the disaster functions of the Office of Emer-
gency Preparedness and moved FDAA to HUB on July 1, 1973.
From March 1972 until joining HUD, Mr. Dunne had been Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Operations of the Economic Development A4ministration in the
Department of Commerce. Starting in November 1969, be held a series of in-
creasingly responsible positions in Economic Development, which included on
occasion working with disaster devastated communities.
Prior to entering public service, Mr. Dunne was Midwestern advertising repre-
sentative of Nation's Business from 1965 to 1969. He previously served as an
advertising representative with several agencies, as an insurance agent, and as an
accountant.
A native of Chicago, Mr. Dunne attended `the University of Illinois and South-
east Junior College. He is married to the former Carol Lucas of Chicago and they
have four children.
TESTIMONy OF Mn. THOMAS P. DUNNE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL DISASTER ASSIST-
ANCE ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ON
A `NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM
Mr. Chairman, I am Thomas P. Dunne, Administrator of the Federal Disaster
Assistance Administration (FDAA), Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before your Committee to
discuss the general subject of earthquakes.
My remarks will cover the activtities of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development in the areas of earthquake disaster assistance, preparedness, and
mitigation. I shall conclude with observations on the two bills before your Corn-
mittee-H.R. 137i2 and HR. 13845-and on the Senate-passed S. 1174.
I. DISASPEG ASSISTANCE
ITo provide assistance after a declaration of a major disaster is a primary
responsibility of the Department. Most of the authorities of the Disaster Relief
Act of 1974 (Pb 93-288) have been delegated to me as Administrator of the
Federal Disas'ter Assistance Administration. This Act provides assistance to
State and local governments and individuals that suffer losses as a result of
major disasters declared by the President. This includes earthquake disasters.
Providing assistance under this Act is `the primary function of FDAA. The
authroities of the Act have proved adequate to cope with the 72 major disasters
that have received a Presidential declaration since the enactment of PL 93-288.
PAGENO="0114"
110
We are supported in delivering assistance by a number of other Federal agencies
that have the authority and capability to assist us. I `believe that there is sufficient
legislative authority on the books to deal with earthquake disaster assistance.
We have established procedures and ties with other Federal agencies to imple-
ment this authority in ease of an earthquake. It is significant to note that these
ties also extend to State and local agencies responsible for disaster assistance.
We recognize that a strong earthquake striking a large metropolitan area will
create problems because of the sheer size of its impact. These problems, how-
ever, are in the areas of managing the resources. We have identified many of
these potential problems and are working with Federal agencies and with State
and local governments in idenitfying means ofclealing with them.
II. DISASTER PREPAREt~NESS
This brings me to the second topic of interest to your Committee: earthquake
disaster preparedness.
FDAA has funded studies to estimate the damage and casualties likely to
result from large earthquakes that may strike the greater San Francisco, Los
Angeles, Salt Lake City and Puget Sound Areas. The studies were conducted
by United States Geological Survey staff. Many of the consultants and experts
who assisted in `these studies were from the potentially affected areas. The studies
have been used as a basis for assisting all levels of government by identifying
potential problems.
An earthquake response plan is now being developed for the San Francisco
Bay Area. A complementary State and local plan is also being developed. These
plans identify actions to be taken by each level of government. F'DAA will co-
ordinate the Federal `effort and the California Office of Emergency Services will
perform the same function at the State level. Variations of these same earth-
quake preparedness plans are in different stages of formulation in three other
earthquake-prone locations studied-Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, and Puget
Sound.
FDAA funding of State work in earthquake preparedness is also available
under PL 93-288. Each State is allowed up to $250,000 to develop plans, programs,
and capabilities for disaster preparedness. All States (and other jurisdictions
defined as "States" in the Aet-57 in all), except the Canal Zone, are participat-
ing. The initial emphasis is being given to the development of basic State emer-
gency plans and other emergency response measures. Once this requirement is
satisfied, grant funds may be used to prepare for unique responses to specific
kinds of disasters and to address hazard mitigation problems. This would include
response to and mitigation of earthquakes. Several States have noted their in-
tention to do some earthquake response or mitigation work under these grants.
III. EARTHQUAKE MITIGATION
Preparedness plans are only one means to mitigate the earthquake hazards,
as the other Federal witnesses this morning have stated. To complete the over-
view that they have provided you, let me now turn to other IIUD activities.
Specifically, those programs aimed at more earthquake-resistant buildings.
The Department has allocated more than one and a half million dollars to
research and investigations dealing with natural disaster mitigation. Through
fiscal year 1977, HUD research studies related to earthquake mitigation alone
will have totaled about $1 million. Following is a summary of HUD funding in
the area of natural disasters.
[In thousands of dollarsj
Fiscal year-
Pre- 1974 Transition
Categories and 1974 1975 1976 1 quarter 2
1977 3
Disaster housing 298 809 360
Environmental planning and earthquake
hazard reduction 467
600
300
Estimates of earthquake losses 407
Total 874 298 809 360
*
900
1 Preliminary.
2 Estimated.
3 Of this total about $250,000 was expended for earthquake hazard reduction.
PAGENO="0115"
111
This HUT) research draws upon more basic work In this ai~ea done by other
agencies rather than duplicating it. Thus, our research dollar can be devoted
to our operationalrole.
HUD has primary legisi~ttive responsibilities for housing and community de-
veloment matters. The overall emphasis of our earthquake, mitigation research
is on design and renovation of residential structures. The results of these studies
provide a means to assist local communities in proteethig themselves against
earthquakes.
There are five studies that I believe would be of interest to this Committee.
1. Seismic design for single family dwellings
This study was initiated as a result of the rather extensive damage to single-
family residences in the San Fernando earthquake of 1971. The project will be
completed this summer. The end result will be a manual containing detailed
design and construction features that can be incorporated in a single-family
dwelling. The manual has already been presented to industry representatives
on the West Coast and has received favorable reactions.
2. Uo~t impact of seismic resistance
This effort is about to start. Properties insured by Ht~D must meet certain
Minimum Property Standards-or MPS~ For seismic design, the MPS require
conformance with standards published by the American National Standards
Institute, specifically ANSI A5&1. The nature of these requirements varies with
the degree of seismic risk in the area. They have been changed recently as a result
of the New Uniform Building Code Seismic Risk Map of the United States. The
RUT) cost-impact project is designed to provide definitive and credible data on the
added cost of designing these seismic safeguards into residential buildings in
areas in which the seismic ~equirements have been increased. It will supply
needed information to governments at all levels, to the construction industry,
and to individuals.
3. Seismic behavior and design gwidelines
This project is investigating through laboratory tests the behavior of single-
story masonry residential buildings under seismic loads expected to obtain in
Zone 2 (moderate damage) of the Seismic Risk map. The experimental results
of these tests will be translated into design and construction guidelines for the
industry. Working with HUT), the Structural Engineers Association of California
~vill prepare the manual. This is one example of the Department's cooperation
with professional groups.
4. Seismic rehabilitation of ea~isting buildings
A trend has emerged to remodel multi-story buildings. This is Primarily due
to the rising costs of new construction. Many such products are to be used for
elderly persons. Seldom do these existing buildings incorporate adequate
seismic safety features. EUD will prepare a manual setting out a syStematic
methodology, incorporating these safety features, for renovating such build-
ings. It will also include relevant cost/benefit data. Thus, management decisions
can be made on the economic feasibility of the rehabilitation effort. Incidentally,
the methodology in the manual will draw heavily on work performed by the
National Bureau of Standards. This is another indication of HUT) and other
agencies coordinating their respective efforts and drawing upon the results of
each other's work.
5. Environ~enj~ planning guidance and earthquake hazard red uetioa
This 5-year program has been conducted cooperatively by HUT), USGS and
California's Association of Øovernments. Much information dealing with soil
conditions and seismology and water control has been developed. This data is to
be made available in a form that can be Incorporated into the day-to-day decisions
of local governments. Some examples of this are: exact location of active faults
and landslide- and flood-prone areas and techniques for land-use planning and
incorporating natural hazard risk considerations applicable to other geographic
areas. A final report will provide guidance to community planners and decision-
makers on earthquake hazard reduction.
Iv. PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Now I come to the several bills on earthquake hazard reduction being con-
sidered by your Committee, specifically the Senate-passed 5. 1174, H.R. 13722 and
H.R. 13845.
PAGENO="0116"
112
The specifics in each one of these bills are different. The main purpose of all
three of them, however, is to provide a focal point for a program of earthquake
hazard reduction. The intentions of the Committee are worthwhile. In considering
the means to achieve them, however, the Department has several comments that
I would like to share with you.
Let us first examine the most significant duty of this focal point that would be
created by the bills-be it a "lead agency," a "council' and a "board," or a
"conference." That main duty would be to formulate a national program of earth-
quake hazard reduction. As the Committee has already heard, the National Science
Foundation and the United States Geological Survey are working closely together
on one aspect of the problem-identifying what further research needs to be
addressed. HUD is also participating in this formulation process by way of a
Memorandum of Understanding with NSF. An Interagency Coordinating Com-
mittee meets regularly to discuss current and future projects. This provides for
exchanging of research results, avoiding possible duplication, and exploring the
possibility of jointly funded projects.
The same comment can be made about the other earthquake-related activities--
including validation of earthquake predictions and procedures for disseminating
them to State officials; research in the earth and engineering sciences and in the
social sciences as well; seismic risk mapping; development of instrumentation; a
clearinghouse function to make available to potential users new information in
usable form; participation in exchange of data with relevant foreign countries-
to cite only the most significant topics.
HR. 13845 would also give the `National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Conference" the authority to coordinate a national program of earthquake mitiga-
tion. In our opinion, this duty is already being adequately performed through a
number of informal mechanisms. The activities of the relevant agencies are co-
ordinated through an Interagency Discussion Group on Disaster Mitigation that
meets about once a month-with NSF actiiig as an informal `host organization.
The member agencies present results of ongoing efforts; discuss objectives, scope,
and funding of projected programs; and exchange other relevant information.
Further, any number of other frequent informal exchanges of information and
views take place between affected Federal agencies. For example, USGS and
FDAA maintain close coordination on earthquake prediction matters. Only re-
cently Dr. MeKelvey, Director of the TJSGS, briefed FDAA fully on the Palmdale
uplift and on his agency's efforts to establish procedures to disseminate earthquake
predictions to State officials. Also, the Secretary of HUT) has delegated to USGS,
among others, some of the warning responsibilities contained in Section 202 of the
Disaster Relief Act of 1974.
v. CONCLUSION
In summary, Mr. Chairman, we l)elieve there are already sufficient authorities
to carry out the purposes of the hills: a research program is being formulated, a
national earthquake hazard reduction program is ongoing, and the necessary
coordination is taking place. Further, the existing authorities provide the Execu-
five Branch with flexibility to adjust to management needs that may arise as a
result of developments in this rapidly moving technology. The creation of an
additional body, like those proposed in the three bills before your Committee, does
not appear to be necessary.
However, as you have heard here this morning, there are a number of studies
and activities that are now underway to better identify the issues and the options
to be taken in this important area. I would, therefore, suggest that further action
I)y the Congress be postponed until those issues and options are l)etter defined.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now if there are any questions I will try to answer
them.
Mr. DUNNE. My statement covers three major activities of the De-
partment related to earthquakes: Disaster assistance, preparedness,
and mitigation.
Disaster assistance. The Disaster Relief Act of 1974 provides supple-
mental assistance to assist States and local governments in their respon-
sibilities of alleviating damage. loss, hardship, and suffering. This
assistance is provided when the Governor of a State requests the Presi-
dent to provide Federal relief. At the determination of the President,
lie may declare a "major disaster" or an "emergency." This act provides
assistance to individuals such as food, temporary housing, loans, and
PAGENO="0117"
113
grants. It also provides funds for the State and local governments to
assist them in the repair and reconstruction of public facilities. The
authorities of the act have been adequate to cope with 74 major disasters
declared by the President since enactment.
Disaster preparedness. The Disaster Relief A~t of 1974 authorizes
preparedness activities. Studies have been conducted for four major
metropolitan areas to estimate potential damage and casualties result-
ing from earthquakes striking these areas. These studies have served
as a basis for :joint Federal, State, and local earthquake response plans.
The act also allows for a $250,000 development grant to each State
to be used in developing its plans, programs, and capabilities. All
States are participating. Several States are using part of this grant
for earthquake response or mitigation work.
Earthquake mitigation. The Department has allocated more than
$11/2 million to research and investigation dealing with natural dis-
asters. Through fiscal year 1977, IJTJD research related to earthquake
mitigation alone will have totaled about $1 million.
The overall emphasis of the Department's earthquake mitigation
research is on design and renovation of residential structures. There
are a number of studies currently in progress. Among these are studies
dealing with (1) seismic design for single family dwellings, (2) a cost
impact study to determine the added cost of designing these seismic
safeguards into residential buildings, (3) laboratory tests on the be-
havior of single-story masonry residential buildings under seismic
loads, (4) seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, and (5) studies
identifying exact locations of active faults to be used in land-use plan-
ning. Each of these studies involves a close coordination with other
Federal agencies, the private industry, and local governments.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, these varied but closely telated activi-
ties are being. well coordinated. . There is continuous communication
among the involved agencies. As you may have ~heard here this morn-
ing, there are a number of studies and a~tivities that are now underway
to better identify the issues and options to be taken in this important
area. I would,. therefore; suggest that further action ~by the Congress
be postponed until those. issues and options are better ~1efined.
Thank you~ Mr. Chairman. Now if there are any questions I will try
to answer the~n,
Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much.
I raised a question earlier with regard to what you might cafl the
cost impact of seismic activities and I notice you have an effort in that
area Have the results of your studies reached any tentative conclusions
as to what the additional cost of meeting adequate seismic standards
would be for various types of dwellings?
Mr DUNNE Mr Chairman, that effort is just about to start and it
will be a 12 month effort So we have no reliable data to submit at this
particular time.. . .
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Goldwater, do you have any questions of these
witnesses?
Mr. GOLDWATER. Have you been with the program since 1973?
Mr. DUNNE. I took over officially July 1, 1973, when the Office of
Emergency Preparedness was abolished and the natural disaster pro-
giam was transferred to the Departmeflt of Housing and Urban
Development,
76-649--76---9
PAGENO="0118"
114
Mr. GOLDWATER. That was General Lincoln?
Mr. DUNNE. I believe he left OEP in January 1973. There was an
Acting Director of OEP in the interim before the agency was
abolished.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I think he is the one I dealt with during the San
Fernando activity. Were you in Government at that time?
Mr. DUNNE. I was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic De-
velopment Operations at the Department of Commerce for 4 years
previously.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Does your office get involved with international
relief?
Mr. DUNNE. No; we don't, but we do coordinate closely with the
people at State and AID. As a matter of fact, 2 or 3 weeks ago I took
my senior staff over to the State Department for a review of the Guate-
mala earthquake and the Italian earthquake that recently occurred.
We were exchanging information on the unique types of resources that
had to be brought to bear during those peculiar types of disasters. We
have a continuous dialog with AID.
Mr. GOLDWATER. In evaluating the damage after a natural disaster,
who do you look to for information?
Mr. DUNNE. Let me briefly take you through what occurs. Under our
procedures, the Governor describes what the damage and losses are.
In one of the uses of the preparedness grant, we are asking the States
to develop a better capability to make damage estimates.
However, we do verify the State estimates and we use a variety of
Federal agencies whose personnel have been trained in this area. We
use the Corps of Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Interior Depart-
ment's Bureau of Reclamation, as well as other Federal agencies with
disciplines in particular functional areas.
Mr. GOLDWATER. You never utilize the private sector?
Mr. DUNNE. Yes; in this respect, we do use the American Insurance
Association quite frequently. We have a standing agreement with them
which I signed about 2 years ago. They complement our efforts, so we
do get at least an idea of how much of the damage is insured.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Did you ever use their adjustors?
Mr. DUNNE. No; we have not. But the Small Business Administra-
tion, I think, going back to 1972 during Hurricane Agnes, did use
the General Adjustment Bureau. I do not know if SBA is using them
actively any more, but they are a potential resource.
Mr. GOLDWATER. In the studies that you are undertaking on the four
cities-I have not read your testimony-what are you trying to find
out there?
Mr. DUNNE. This effort was brought about because of the 1971 San
Fernando earthquake and it started in the Office of Emergency Pre-
paredness. We contracted with the U.S. Geological Survey to under-
take a vulnerability study for each area which would tell us under the
- worst possible conditions what type of damage and what level of casu-
alties are likely to occur. And this would be the basis for the joint
Federal, State, and local planning effort for responding to that
disaster.
It was not a mitigation study. It was designe~d to provide a basis for
response planning. In the San Francisco area, we hope that by the
PAGENO="0119"
115
~ndGf this calendar year alLthree levels 60
(DOLLARS / SQ. FT.)
ALL LA. SCHOOLS
(27 TOTAL)
OK 0
35
40
PAGENO="0226"
222
Wood Frame, Steel Frame, `and Concrete WalL-Figures 7c, ci, and e show
that the reinforced concrete wall, wood frame and steel frame buildings have
considerably lower average costs than for the two types above. As one might
anticipate, these types of buildings have good natural resistance to earthquakes
whi4~h codes and engineers recognize. When reinforcing is needed, the methods
are generally more economical than for masonry or concrete frame buildings.
Wood buildings require some extra bracing or a plywood shear wall; concrete
wall buildings have many elements which already qualify as shear walls; steel
frame buildings, even if not constructed as moment-resisting frames, have con-
nections which can withstand greater deformations than non-moment-resisting
concrete frames.
EJ V.A. BUILDING
15- ~ L.A. SCHOOL
~ PREVIOUS SEISMIC DESIGN
OR STRENGTHENING
10- OK NO REINFORCEMENT REQ'D.
MASONRY BEARING WALL
I ~ p
REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME
WITH MASONRY INFILL
WOOD FRAME
I, [~ I. I
OK 0 5 10 IS 20 25 30 35 40 >60
COST (DOLLARS/ SQ. FE)
FIGURE 7 EFFECT OF STRUCTURAL TYPE ON
REINFORCING COST
I I
REINFORCED CONCRETE
BEARING WALL
STEEL FRAME
I I I 1~~I I I--
PAGENO="0227"
223
Other Building Differences.-The costs of the LA school buildings are clearly
higher than the costs of VA buildings for concrete bearing wall and wood frame
types. The consistency of the two sources for masonry bearing wall buildings sug-
gests `that the difference is something other than differences in forces or stand-
ards. Physical differences between the buildings of the same type may account
for the higher cost. The wood frame buildings at VA sites are typically houses or
barracks buildings of stud wall construction. The wood LA s~hoo1s are mostly
assembly buildings which are one story structures with a single span roof. This
framed timber construction does not have as high a degree of seismic resistance
as stud wall construction.
The concrete bearing wall buildings at VA sites are often boiler plants or
shops. These one story buildings have no interior finished surfaces. and require
only roof strengthening. The LA school buildings are conventional two story
buildings often with wood floors.
Buildings Needing No Reinforc.ement.-Buildings which had been designed
to some earthquake standard or had been previously reinforced are indicated In
Figure 7. These are most of the buildings which did not need reinforcement for
the masonry bearing wall and concrete frame types. However, the concrete bear-
ing wall and wood frame types contribute many more buildings which conformed
without reinforcing work. Altogether, about one building in seven from this
VA sample needed no reinforcing work.
INFLUENCE OF DESIGN LEVEL
Since most of the data are for masonry bearing wall buildings (which have
the widest range of reinforcing cost) these buildings will be examined for the
influence of the level of seismic design on cost. As shown above, all design forces
can be converted to 1973 UBO zone levels. The masonry bearing wall buildings
are divided into three groups by design level: group a-zone 2 `to 1.5 times zone 2,
group b-zone 3 to 1.5 times zone 3 and group c-2 times zone 3. No buildings
were examined for reinforcing to zone 1 design forces. Figure 8 compares the
cost of reinforcing for these three groups.
Group c buildings are all from one site and so are not a reliable indicator.
Ignoring for the moment the very high costs in group a, a comparison of the
costs in groups a and b (Figure 8a and 8b), shows that on average buildings de-
signed to higher lateral forces cost more to reinforce. This is confirmed by the
close agreement of the LA school building co~ts, which are all zone 3, with the
majority of the rest of the zone 3 to 1.5 times zone 3 group. However, the wide
dispersion of the costs of the buildings in group a makes the average difference
of a few dollars per square foot tentative.
INFLUENCE OF BUILDING SIZE
The size of the building is an important factor in cost. The reinforcement
costs, in dollars per square foot, of `the VA buildings and the LA schools were
compared with gross floor area. Possibly due to the wide variety of buildings
and designers, the VA data was inconclusive. The LA ~choo1 data showed a
trend-smaller masonry bearing wall buildings coSt more (see Figure 9).
PAGENO="0228"
224
U)
z
0
-J
U-
0
z
c) GROUP C
2 x ZONE 3
r' ~ I I
OK 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 >60
COST (DOLLARS/ SQ. Ft)
C1 V.A. BUILDING
~ LA. SCHOOL
~ PREVIOUS SEISMIC DESIGN OR STRENGTHENING
OK NO REINFORCEMENT REQUIRED
FIGURE 8 - EFFECT OF NEW EARTHQUAKE DESIGN LEVEL ON
THE COST OF REINFORCING MASONRY BUILDINGS
Higher costs for smaller floor areas have at least three sources: 1) on larger
construction projects, overhead costs can be divided by more area; 2) if a build-
ing, is larger because it has more stories, the cost of bracing the roof can be divided
by more area; and 3) a building with a greater area on each floor has a relatively
smaller exterior wall surface. Each of these is a factor in the cost of new con-
struction, too, as identified by Steyert (1972). The last is a particularly important
source for the LA. schools since the specifications require all masonry walls to be
reinforced (see Jephcott, 1974). The smaller school buildings, besides having less
floor area relative to the length of the exterior wall, have most of their masonry
walls on the exterior.
a) GROUP A
ZONE 2 TO 1.5 x ZONE 2
b) GROUP B
ZONE 3 TO 1.5 x ZONE 3
10
5.
PAGENO="0229"
225
Figure 9 suggests that reinforcing for school buildings with floor areas less than
20,000 square feet costs significantly more. Particular VA buildings show this
trend also, as discussed below.
Figure 9 illustrates another reason why the wood school buildings cost more
per square foot than other wood buildings-the schools are very small, 3600
square feet of floor area.
HIGH COSTS AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS
The very high reinforcing costs for some of the buildings in Figure 8a are the
result of the combination of the above factors. First, eight of the twelve buildings
over $30 per square foot are from the same site and so were evaluated by the same
consultant. Second, all of the buildings at this site (including those with lower
costs) required extensive modifications due to flexible wood roofs and tall, un-
supported attic walls. The buildings which also have small floor areas (again
less than 20,000 square feet) have the costs over $30 per square foot.
9 0 MASONRY BEARING WALL
IS 0 REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME WITH
7- MASONRY INFILL
16- A REINFORCED CONCRETE BEARING WALL
15 R WOOD FRAME
~I4 a
~ 3
~t2 ~`
~II 0 0
~IO a
_J~ N
I I A
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 110
FLOOR AREA (1000 SQ. Ft)
rIGuRE 9 - EFFECT OF FLOOR AREA ON THE COST OF
REINFORCING L.A. SCHOOL BUILDINGS
Another source of high reinforcement costs are special requirements to preserve
the original appearance of a building. The average cost of $28 per square foot
at the Boise site (Chapter 2) are on the upper side of the majority of estimates
for masonry bearing wall and reinforced concrete frame. Some of the highest
projected reinforcing costs, the California State Capital and the companion uni-
versity building, are due in large part tO the requirements that the reinforcing
be done from the inside; Applying gunite from the inside is more difficult and
more of the interior finish is disrupted. The two masonry VA buildings with
costs over $60 per square foot (a library and a theater) were identified as build-
ings of "historic value." The substitution of steel bracing for the usual gunite
coating raised the costs significantly. Finally, in some situations where a new in-
terior shear wall is not allowed, a wood floor must be replaced with a concrete
floor to carry the diaphragm forces.
However, it is important to recognize that while restoration and other strict
requirements cause the highest costs, combinations of other conditions éan raise
the cost beyond normal limits. Masonry bearing wall and reinforced concrete
frame buildings are likely to cost more than the expected range if the building
is small and has some other particular difficulty with respect to seismic strength.
76-649 O-76--16
PAGENO="0230"
226
INFLUENCE OF BUILflING Awl
Acknowledging that information on the structural characteristics of a popula-
tion of buildings may be limited to the date of construction, Figure 10 presents a
scattergram of the cost of reinforcing and the date of construction of the original
building. The sample correlation coefficient (coefficient of determination about a
straight line) for all the VA and LA school buildings is 0.15. Although the scatter
is wide, the cost of reinforcing does increase steadily with age.
The underlying influence is that most of the older buildings are of masopry
construction. The average construction date of masonry bearing wall buildings is
1933. Reinforced concrete walls, and reinforced concrete frames have average
construction dates of 1940 and 1943 respectively, while steel frames averaged
1947.
Mr. WHITM4N. It is possible to take steps with existing buildings
that can considerably reduce the hazard that those buildings repre-
sent, short of making them fully compliant with modern earthquake
design requirements. I think one of the areas that is particularly
important for research testing and for cost effectiveness studies is
going to be in the taking of these intermediate measures with regard
to many of the existing buildings.
As I said at the outset, many of my remarks have to do with two
areas, one being the area of accelerated research and the other the
area of implementation and utilization.
I am convinced that the country can benefit greatly over the upcom-
ing years from an accelerated program of research in the area of
earthquake prediction and in the area of earthquake engineering.
With regard to both of these areas, there have been significant ad-
vances within the past decade which have laid the groundwork for
benefits from an increased rate of expenditure. Others, I am sure, have
and will speak more on the area of earthquake prediction. With regard
to engineering research, just let me emphasize what I see as a few of
the very important matters that can benefit from an accelerated
program.
One of these has to do with an accelerated program of installation of
instruments for measurement of ground motions from earthquakes.
Another has to do with the testing of existing buildings that are slated
for demolition in various parts of the country to learn more about their
properties. Some of this kind of work has been done. Techniques for
doing it have been developed. We should be making use of more oppor-
tunities to employ those developed techniques.
Testing in the laboratory, using large scale models which are almost
prototype structures in themselves, should also be accelerated. Facili-
ties have been developed and we should be making greater use of
them. With regard to utilization and implementation, both of what is
known today and what is to be learned in the near future, I think it is
here that there is a particular role for new legislation and for new
imaginative approaches to dealing with this problem.
Many of the topics that were discussed in the previous testimony
with Dr. White fall in this area of utilization. I think there are needs
to provide incentives to the owners of existing buildings and to utilities
with their lifeline systems to get on with the task of upgrading their
systems. There are the problems of liability to those who are making
predictions of earthquakes and to those who are going to be making
predictions of what will happen when those predicted earthquakes
occur.
PAGENO="0231"
227
Finally, then, just a few comments concerning the bills that you
have before you for consideration. I am especially pleased with Sen-
ator Cranston's bill, S. 1174, with regard to recognizing the dual needs
for research, bOth in the geological and seismological sciences for
earthquake prediction and modification and also for continued and
accelerated research relative to earthquake engineering and a clear
recognition of the major role that the National Science Foundation
has played in the leadership in research in the earthquake engineering
area.
I think some of the organizational structures that are suggested
in Mr. Mosher's bill are perhaps more appropriate for the problem of
utilization of results than they are relative to the problem of the ac-
celerated research program. I noted, for example, in the bill that was
introduced by Mr. Bell the distinction being made between organiza-
tional structures, one to encourage and oversee the research effort and
the other to encourage and oversee the utilization effortb
Clearly, there has to be a cross communication between those
two areas. But, nonetheless, I can see that the kind of organizational
structure that may be desirable for one is not the best for the other,
and there might be some disadvantages in attempting to set up one
organizational structure to cover both.
Those, Mr. Brown, are the remarks I would like to make.
Mr. BROWN. We appreciate them very much, Mr. Whitman, Your
analysis of the cost factors interests me because we have had a dis-
cussion about them with a number of the previous witnesses. I hope
you can supply some additional data. I was intrigued by the difference
in cost attributable to earthquake design that results from whether or
not the engineer "thinks earthquake" during the process of design.
Is this an example of a learning curve sort of phenomenon? As the
engineer or designer acquires familiarity with earthquake design-
I gather it is a fairly abstruse field of analysis-does this begin to
reduce the cost as a result of growing knowledge and familiarity with
the problem?
Dr. WHITMAN. This is part of it. It also results from the process that
is so often used with regard to the design of the building where the
engineer may come into design only after the general configuration of
the building has been fairly well fixed by architectural considerations.
It is essential not only that the engineer think earthquake but that the
team of architects and engineers think earthquake from early in the
project. It is also, of course, in part a matter of trading off what might
be the optimuni structural configuration to minimize the increased
cost of providing earthquake resistance as against other features which
one might wish to see in a building. Having extremely large open
spaces and spans in the lower part of a building makes it more diffi-
cult to proyide earthquake resistance, but may be very desirable and
indeed almost necessary for the intended use of the building.
Mr. BROWN. What would be the effect on that rathlr unique building
you have in Boston where the windows keep blowing out, if they we~e
to have a severe earthquake?
Dr. WHITMAN. Anything I would say along those lines would cer-
tainly be purely speculation because I have not attempted to look at
that building in detail. From what little I know about it if we had
PAGENO="0232"
228
a shaking comparable to that which downtown Los Angeles got in
1971, I think that building would come through quite well and I think
it would be less severe than the wind problem the building has been
experiencing. It is a rather unique wind problem.
Mr. BROWN. And the phenomenon with regard to the windows would
not be affected by earthquake.
Dr. WRITMAN. Within my best guess based upon a rather inade-
quate knowledge of the details of that building, I would think not.
Mr. BROWN. I was in the Los Angeles City Hall after that earth-
quake you referred to in 1971. It suffered a number of rather substantial
cracks and a number of people were frightened that it might not stand
up, but it did, of course, with no particular problem. But it did show a
considerable effect from that particular earthquake.
On page 2 of your testimony you dealt with a situation where you
might have 6 months of warning, and you made the statement that you
did not believe that evacuation was the proper and appropriate re-
sponse to such advance prediction.
I presume you are here dealing with the problem of long-term
evacuation, that is, 6 months in advance. But would you feel the same
with regard to evacuation if the prediction were brought down to a
matter of days or weeks?
Dr. WHITMAN. Mr. Brown, my answer is not really changed. The
thought, it would seem to me, of completely shutting down a major
community or city for a period of a week or 2 weeks, which is per-
haps a realistic window within which one might hope to pin down the
prediction, particularly in the first few instances in which such a pre-
diction has come into being and when credibility of that prediction
has not yet been established, does not really seem to be a very satis-
factory approach.
I think rather of a partial evacuation. I can well imagine that many
people might choose to leave of their own volition for that period of
time. There will be some who will be asked to leave the buildings they
are occupying because those buildings are particular hazards and they
might need to be relocated outside the city.
But I would think, depending now on the size of the earthquake pre-
dicted, the rational conclusion would be that most of the build-
ings in the city are safe for occupancy and that it would be possible
to carry on during this period many of the important vital functions
of the city. The leadership of the community and indeed many of the
people in the city would probably wish it that way.
I would refer you in this regard, as perhaps previous speakers have
already done, to a study by colleagues of Dr. White at the TJniver-
sity of Colorado concerning the political and economic consequences
of prediction. It was carried out by interviewing community
leaders in areas of California where this might occur in order to gain
a feel for what might happen following such a prediction. I have read
the results of that study and I find it a very credible scenario as to the
way in which it might go.
Mr. BROWN. That is a vitally important area of this whole subject
of earthquake detection and reaction. Since we have had some recent
experience with it involving the next witness, we will devote some
time to that with him.
PAGENO="0233"
229
In connection with the legislation before us, you have expressed
your views as to the desirability of legislation. From your stand-
point do you feel that the dollar amounts included in that legislation
are roughly proportional to the need? Do you have any comments
about that?
Dr. WHITMAN. Let me not comment with regard to the moneys
that are suggested in the Senate-passed bill for earthquake prediction,
because others would be much more qualified than I to comment on
those.
With regard to those in that bill for research on earthquake engineer-
ing, I think those represent numbers which can effectively be spent on
an accelerated program of research, building upon the capabilities
which exist today.
Mr. BROWN. Again, I want to tell you how much we appreciate your
testimony, Dr. Whitman. I would like to go further into it, but in the
interest of time, I will defer.
Dr. WHITMAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. BROWN. Our next witness this morning is James Whitcomb,
senior research fellow of the Seismological Laboratory at CalTech.
We are very pleased to have you with us this morning, Dr. Whit-
comb. And we look forward to your testimony.
[A brief biographical sketch of Dr. James H. Whitcomb and Dr.
Whitcomb's complete prepared statement follow:]
PAGENO="0234"
230
James H. Whitcomb
Short Biography
Born December 10, 1940 in Sterling, Colorado, Whitcomb received
his undergraduate education at Colorado School of Mines where he
obtained the degree of Geophysical Engineer (1958-1962). He
subsequently received a Master of Science degree at Oregon State
University in Geophysics and Oceanography (1962-1964). Whitcomb
then worked for two years (1964-1966) for the U. S. Geological
Survey Branch of Astrogeology in the Apollo Lunar Exploration
Program where he received an Outstanding Achievement Award for
his research in seismic body waves. He then travelled to Sweden
under the Fulbright-Hayes program to spend a year (1966-1967) of
seismological research. Whitcomb entered the graduate program at
the California Institute of Technology and obtained a Ph.D. (1973) in
Geophysics on the basis of his studies of the internal structure
of the earth and the San Fernando earthquake series. Whitcomb's
current position is Senior Research Fellow at Caltech's Seismological
Laboratory where, in addition to his research, he is consultant to
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and is in charge of Caltech's Southern
California Seismic Network.
Whitcomb's published or current research include the following
areas:
Structure of the earth's interior
Tectonics of the San Fernando earthquake
Plate tectonics
Seismicity of the western U. S.
Seismic array processing
Solid state thermodynamics
Properties of geological materials
Earthquake prediction
PAGENO="0235"
231
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A USEFUL EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION CAPABILITY
BY SCIENTIFIC, POLITICAL, AND PUBLIC ACTION
Testimony by
James H. Whitcomb, Senior Research Fellow,
Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
to
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology,
Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology,
James W. Symington, Chairman
The development of a useful earthquake prediction capability, that is,
one that significantly reduces injury to people and damage to structures,
requires the complex interaction and support of three basic fields: the
scientific, political, and public domains. Although my main experience is
in the scientific area of earthquake prediction research, I have often had
the opportunity to observe and interact with all three areas simultaneously.
A common misconception is that the science of tarthquake prediction is
advanced to the point that we can now apply our knowledge to predict earth-
quakes. In reality, however, U.S. science is just beginning the task of
development of methods for earthquake prediction after some promising
observational discoveries made mainly in extensive research programs outside
our own country. For example, a dramatic success was achieved by the Chinese
in the February 1975 Haicheng prediction. However, the prediction was based
on a hypothesis for foreshock activity that does not appear to apply to
California. We need to know why it apparently does not work here and if
some modification of the hypothesis might work instead.
In the following, I discuss what I consider to be important aspects in
the future development of scientific, political, and public efforts to
PAGENO="0236"
232
reduce the hazards of earthquakes by means of prediction. The bills under
consideration by the House of Representatives each address different parts
of the overall problem of earthquake hazard reduction. In my opinion, one
major shortcoming that they have in common is inadequate provision for
basic earthquake prediction research which best falls under the p4rview
of the National Science Foundation.
Scientific Develo~p~ent
The scientific development of an earthquake prediction method should
follow the course outlined in the table below:
Development of an Earthquake Prediction Method
Stage
`I - Formulation or Discovery of Hypothesis
I 4
Modification Basic
I Research
II - Testing of Hypothesis
III - Application of Proven Method
Stages I and II constitute the basic research needed to determine what
methods are suitable for accomplishing the desired objective, earthquake
prediction. The number of methods hypothesized to be predictors of earth-
quakes are extremely numerous. But it is significant that no single method
nor any combination of the methods have yet proven to be predictors with a
high success rate. This fact illustrates that the international scientific
PAGENO="0237"
233
community is currently working somewhere between Stages I and II and is
definitely in the basic research rather than the application stage.
It is possible to enter Stage III at an early point in the development
by accepting a lower threshold of confidence in the testing stage in order
to move to the application stage, as the Chinese have done. What this
means is more false alarms when warnings are issued to the public. A
decision to increase the probability of false alarms must weigh the risks
of special actions taken in a warning1against potential benefits to be
derived from a successful prediction. In the Chinese case, their decision
to accept a lower threshold prediction confidence appears justified because
of the high-risk nature of their housing construction. A similar decision
for the United States might not be in our best interest.
One of the basic impediments in carrying out Stage II of earthquake
prediction method developments is that only positive test results tend to
be reported to the scientific community. This is no doubt due to the high
visibility of earthquake prediction research and the undesirability of
being associated with a negative test result, that is, a "false" earthcluake
prediction. Yet if science, government, and the public are to develop the
vital statistics required for prediction aethods to be socially useful,
both positive and negative test results must be reported on a regular basis
in a source that is available to all investigators. These tests must be
made with all of the pertinent data and reasoning outlined in writing prior
to the predicted time, and must specify the ranges of magnitude, location,
and time.
The goal of full documentation of both positive and negative earthquake
prediction hypothesis tests requires that an institution be designated as
PAGENO="0238"
234
recipient, cataloguer, and disseminator of prediction tests that are
verified to be written before the earthquake. A program of this nature
would not only provide the statistical basis for evaluation of the "track
record" of prediction methods, but would give other scientists an oppor-
tunity for the timely study of an anomalous area prior to an earthquake.
The reporting institution must have the following characteristics:
1. International Scope - Earthquake prediction research is conducted
in several countries and an institute with an international precedent will
aid the gathering and free international flow of all test results.
2. Precedent in Data Gathering and Dissemination - The program should
be able to take advantage of existing institutions who have experience and
a good record of data gathering and dissemination.
3. Objectivity - The possibility of a conflict of interest in the
handling of prediction tests requires that the institution itself not be in
the business of making predictions.
One institute that satisfies these requirements is the Center for
Short-Lived Phenomena in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Center conducts a
program of data gathering and dissemination to the international scientific
community that is nearly identical to that needed for the documentation of
earthquake prediction tests. I have proposed such a program to the National
Academy of Sciences Committee on Seismology and have received their tentative
approval of the concept. The representative of the U.S. Geological Survey
to that committee, Dr. Robert Hamilton, stated that this function did not
duplicate existing or intended programs of his agency and that the U.S.
Geological Survey would participate in such a program. This program would
PAGENO="0239"
235
eventually be self-supporting and its implementation now requires the
agreement of the international seismological community to participate. My
colleagues and I are taking steps to facilitate that agreement through the
proper scientific organizations,
Geophysical data gathering is a required activity that all three stages
of earthquake prediction development have in common and therefore should be
given high priority. Most of the major discoveries in earthquake prediction
research were derived from data gathering programs, many of which were done
for purposes other than earthquake prediction. Flypotheses formulated from
these discoveries must be tested with better data that usually must be
gathered especially for that task. Application of proven prediction methods
must be done from a carefully selected suite of techniques chosen to provide
data that gives maximum efficiency and coverage of hazardous areas. Large
programs of data gathering often lead to inefficient use of data due to the
lack of an equal effort devoted to the organization, dissemination, and
analysis of data. Although some attempts are now being made to attack this
problem, more attention and support should be given to information management
and analysis in parallel with data gathering programs.
Many government agencies are now gathering data and conducting research
and development that directly or indirectly support efforts in earthquake
prediction research. The U.S. Geological Survey is prominently mentioned in
earthquake prediction legislation. Other agencies also are making significant
contributions. For example, the highly publicized "Palndale Bubble" in
California was discovered using data from a long-term surveying program of
the National Geodetic Survey of the Department of Commerce. Esoteric new
techniques from NASA's space programs are in the process of revolutionizing
PAGENO="0240"
236
the field of geodesy and are now providing previously unattainable data that
directly pertain to earthquake prediction research. The National Science
Foundation is currently supporting important earthquake prediction data
gathering and research at my own institute. Most of these efforts have
suffered acutely from a low priority of funding within their respective agencies.
Political Develqpment
The National Academy of Sciences conducted a panel study which resulted
in the report "Earthquake Prediction and Public Policy" often referred to as
the "Turner Report" . * One of the recommendations of the Turner Report is that
scientific committees be formed to evaluate earthquake predictions generated
by other scientists. These committees would then advise the responsible
government officials as to whether a warning, that is , special action to be
taken on the basis of the prediction, should be issued to the public. The
terms prediction and warning are well-defined in the Turner Report which states
that "A warning ... is a declaration that normal life routines should be revised
for a time," and that "Prediction is a statement indicating that an earthquake
of a specified magnitude will probably occur at a specified location and time,
based on scientific analysis of observed facts." In the latter, the key
concept is contained in the word "probably" which implies that some high level
of confidence or probability can be assigned to the outcome of the prediction.
I propose that a third classification be defined as a prediction hypothesis test.
*National Research Council, Panel on the Public Policy Implications of
Earthquake Prediction, Ralph H. Turner, Chairman, 1975, Earthquake Prediction
and Public Policy: National Academy of Sciences Printing and Publishing
Office, Washington, D.C., 142 pages.
PAGENO="0241"
237
This category would include tests of unproven prediction theories for which
so few documented tests have been done that no confidence or too low a
confidence can be assigned.
Following what I believe to be the proper scientific procedure for
documenting a prediction hypothesis test, I wrote a paper and submitted it
to Science, a weekly scientific journal. A summary of the paper was also
presented to the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in
Washington, D.C. the following week on April 15. As a result of the
Washington presentation, I was called on the morning of April 20 by a reporter
from the Los Angeles Times who said that a story on my paper would be in the
next day's edition. In order to ensure that all of the qualifications and
uncertainties of my investigation were available to the public, Caltech made
a press release that afternoon and was requested to hold a news conference
the following morning explaining the implications of my research.
The State of California has organized an evaluation committee called
the Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council similar to that recommended in the
Turner Report. At the request of one of the members of the Council, I allowed
copies of my paper to be distributed for their information on April 19 even
though I do not consider my paper to be a p tion. Details of the sub-
sequent events including a review of my paper by the Council on April 30 and
my recommendations for improving undesirable Counci policies are given in
the accompanying letter to Governor Brown.
Individual scientists working in the field of earthquake prediction
research are open to diverse pressures mainly because of the frightening
nature of earthquakes. On one side is the intense news coverage of prediction
research which by its very nature can lend drama and suspense to news stories
PAGENO="0242"
238
and fictional stories alike (as in the movie "Earthquake" for example). On
the other side are government officials who are uneasy and sometimes resentful
of finding themselves in a new and sensitive position of decision making due
to an emerging and, as yet, imprecise science. One of the functions of
the scientific evaluation committees is to relieve government officials of
part of this burden. An added and potentially disturbing pressure factor
is a reactionary response from special interest groups who have a financial
interest in earthquake-prone areas. For example, the simple fact that
California is an earthquake-prone region was successfully suppressed until
as late as 1933 when the damaging Long Beach earthquake finally triggered
the passage of earthquake-resistant construction laws. Along these same
lines, few know that a good proportion of the United States has a history
of damaging earthquakes including parts of the Mid-West and East Coast. As
a result of pressures due to the nature of their work, scientists may become
more and more reluctant to properly communicate their research in the
hypothesis testing of Stage II, which would definitely slow the advancement of
earthquake prediction capabilities. I believe that such an effect is visible
already and definite steps should be taken to relieve these pressures.
Perhaps the most significant influence that the political domain can
have in the development of earthquake prediction is in proper allocation of
resources to maximize the chances of success. No one can promise that an
earthquake prediction capability can be developed in five or even ten years.
Although there are many recent research results that give scientists greatly
increased confidence compared to a few years ago, success depends both on
luck and the amount of resources that are employed. We must have the area
of an impending earthquake adequately instrumented prior to the event. This
means choosing wisely where to allocate our limited resources so that we
PAGENO="0243"
239
catch the next big earthquake. The larger our resources, the better our chances.
Because earthquake prediction is still in a basic research mode, the flex-
ibility that is essential to a successful research program should be protected.
Public Development
Educational activities should be initiated to recommend the kinds of
action that individuals should take before, during, and after earthquakes.
This education should be specialized to account for different environments
in which an individual might live or work. When earthquake prediction
systems become reasonably reliable, regular status bulletins similar to
weather reports should be issued. These will accustom individuals to thinking
in terms of earthquake hazards and prepare them for a rational response if
a warning is issued. I believe that more attention should be given to a
childrens' educational program that will help to offset the effects of
unreasonable fears generated by increased discussion and sensationalization
of earthquakes in the news and the cinema. The fears are generally based
on a distortion or lack of knowledge about earthquakes.
Recent accounts of Chinese earthquake prediction research have emphasized
direct public participation in data gathering. Although much official
emphasis in China is placed on the contributions of the public to the 1975
Haicheng prediction, preliminary reports from scientific observors visiting
China indicate that the basic decisions of prediction were based on methods
that were not involved in the public program. The usefulness of public
participation in data gathering programs remains to be clarified. Involvement
of the public in programs that are intended to be a placebo are counter-
productive and may damage the credibility of earthquake programs.
PAGENO="0244"
240
Summary and Recommendations
1. The science of earthquake prediction is still in a basic research
stage. Of the numerous prediction methods proposed, none have yet been
proven to be predictors with a high success rate. Therefore, before a heavy
emphasis on application can be made, the groundwork of basic research will
have to be laid so that we can know how to predict with confidence.
2. Development of confidence in a particular prediction method or
hypothesis requires extensive testing. Proper documentation and communi-
cation of this testing in a scientific manner may suffer from the high
visibility and resultant pressures associated with earthquake prediction
research. Support should be given to the formation of institutes designed
to report prediction hypothesis tests and predictions in a timely manner.
New government advisory procedures, and perhaps legislation, will be necessary
to prevent the application of suppressive pressures on proper scientific
communication.
3. Many government agencies have unique capabilities for the gathering
and analysis of geophysically important data. The role of the Geological
Survey is well-recognized, but the work of the National Geodetic Survey,
NASA, and the National Science Foundation should be given greater emphasis,
both in legislation and within their respective agencies. Geophysical data
gathering is a required activity in all stages of an earthquake prediction
development program, and it should be given high priority.
4. Because basic research is still the most important task in the
development of an earthquake prediction capability, the role of the National
Science Foundation should be substantially expanded in earthquake prediction
research.
5. The chances of achieving an earthquake prediction capability in
PAGENO="0245"
241
the United States in a reasonable amount of time are not good at the present
level of supportS Whatever earthquake hazard reduction legislation is
passed, it should ensure that the funding level for prediction research be
increased to adequate levels.
76-649 0 - 76 - 17
PAGENO="0246"
242
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91125
June 16, 1976
Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Governor's Office
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA. 95814
Dear Governor Brown:
On Friday, April 30, 1976, your committee, the California
Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council met to consider their first
written earthquake prediction hypothesis test. The test was in the
form of a scientific paper written by me and submitted on April 8 to
Science, a weekly scientific journal. A summary of the paper was also
presented to the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in
Washington, D. C., and the following week on April 15. As a result
of the Washington presentation, I was called on the morning of April 20
by a reporter from the Los Angeles Times, George Alexander, who said
that he had heard of my paper and was going to do a story on it for the
next day's edition. In order to ensure that all of the qualifications
and uncertainties of my investigation were available to the public,
Caltech made a press release that afternoon and was requested to hold
a news conference the following morning explaining the implications of
my research. Copies of the press release and a statement made at the
news conference are enclosed as Appendices A and B, respectively.
At the request of one of the members of the Earthquake Prediction
Evaluation Council, Dr. Clarence Allen, I allowed copies of my paper
to be distributed to the Council for their information on or about
April 19. I did this because I am in total agreement with the purpose
of the Council and I think that the State of California has shown fore-
sight by recognizing at an early stage the need for such an evaluation
group. My support for this committee has certainly been evidenced by
my wholehearted cooperation both in allowing a copy of my paper to be
distributed to the committee and by agreeing to appear before it prior
to the paper's scientific review and subsequent publication. However,
after experiencing the Council's deliberations, I have strong reserva-
tions about the policies of the Council and fear that the goals of
early public awareness and evaluation of earthquake prediction research,
the very purpose of the Council, will be seriously compromised under
present procedures.
Preparation for the Council Meeting
I was never officially contacted by the Office of Emergency
PAGENO="0247"
243
Services or the Chairman of the Council either requesting me to appear
or to consult or inform me of the agenda and procedures to be followed.
Specifically, I was under the impression that the meeting would not be
open to the press and did not know that the opposite was the case until
the day before the meeting. All contacts were made informally through
my colleague Dr. Allen who happens to be a member of the coimnittee.
The exact time and place of the meeting were unknown to me until the
last day and I was even called by a member of the Council asking me
this information under the impression that I was being kept informed.
Most importantly, I requested that the Council contact the edftorial
office of Science maga2ine before the meeting to clarify certain
concerns of mine as to pre-publication discussion of my paper and the
overlap between the proceedings of the council and process of paper
review within Science. My concern centered on possible adverse effects
on the consideration of my paper by Science. No action was taken on
my request.
During the Council Meeting
From the beginning of the meeting, it was apparent that the Council,
possibly influenced by some of the more inaccurate and sensationalized
news reports, was under the impression that Caltech initiated a press
release and was predicting a major earthquake. Neither impression was
accurate. In Caltech's press release (Appendix A), it was carefully
pointed out that my paper was the test of an unproven theory and that
"the uncertainty of the magnitude, location and time preclude the test
from being~ of great use to the public." Thus, my recommendation to the
Council at the start of the meeting was that no special action should
be initiated on the basis of a test of an unproven theory. One of the
main points of my paper is that too few of these tests are being done
in writing before the predicted time, so that it is difficult to assign
a confidence to a particular prediction theory due to lack of a well-
documented "track record". In disregard of these points, the Council
proceeded to evaluate my paper as if I were applying instead of testing
a theory and insisted that I assign some confidence estimate to the
outcome of the test. This is, in my opinion, impossible at such an
early stage of earthquake prediction research.
The bulk of the meeting consisted of a public review of my paper
by the Council. The reviewers had up to two weeks to prepare their
comments. The author, myself, had approximately two hours to reply.
Because the proper reply to some of the comments required the use of a
computer, I do not consider two hours adequate. This process is in
contrast to the scientific review procedure of journals in which the
reviews are written and the author is given adequate tii~ie to make a
written reply or modify the paper accordingly; this procedure is con-
ducted through the mails and the correspondence is not published.
PAGENO="0248"
244
Long experience of the journals has shown this procedure to produce the
best scientific results, to the benefit of both science and the public.
Any attempt to short-circuit the scientific review procedure should be
well thought out in advance, but this was apparently not done for the
April 30 Council meeting.
Presence of the Press
The rationale for holding the entire meeting of the Council in
front of reporters and TV crews was to promote "public information."
In my opinion, public information suffered. Misquotes, misinterpretat-
ions and misleading headlines were common in the news stories describing
the meeting. This is not surprising as the news stories were mainly
based on reporters' interpretation of the proceedings and not on the
official news release of the Council. With the exception of a very
few good science writers in the country, the average reporter simply
does not have familarity with the terms and concepts in earth science
that those working in the field take for granted. This is true even
for scientists not involved in the earth sciences. A carefully pre-
pared written statement should be the main source of public information
resulting from the deliberations of the Council.
Many areas of the governmental process including sensitive
committee and cabinet meetings find it necessary to hold working ses-
sions that are closed to the press. Indeed, if the practice of allow-
ing the press to every committee and cabinet session were adopted in
Sacramento or Washington, the government would soon grind to a halt.
In this case also, the interests of the public are not served by the
sensationalizing of proceedings. The evaluation should be conducted
and summarized in a deliberate and scientific manner for the informat-
ion of the public and government officials.
It was my impression before and during the Council meeting that
the procedural aspects were dominated by press interests. Before
the meeting this was evidenced by the apparent last minute decision
to hold the entire proceeding before reporters and TV and radio equip-
ment; some members of the committee and other cQlleagues expressed
surprise and concern about this decision. During the meeting, the
influence of press interests was further evidenced when the Council
was trying to decide whether to allow the press to remain during the
formulation of the Council's evaluation and press release. At one
point, several members of the press were polled as to whether they
should be allowed to stay. It was no surprise when they unanimously
responded in the affirmative and a Council decision was then made
accordingly.
A press release formulated with the press in attendance is a
PAGENO="0249"
245
meaningless exercise. If a reporter or TV news editor wants a
sensational story, he simply emphasizes the most sensational or
contraversial statement made during the day and delegates the well-
reasoned news release to the bottom of the piece. This tendency of
the press was well recognized by the founders of seismology in
California in the 1920's and 1930's, Perry Byerly of the University of
California and Beno Gutenberg of Caltech's Seismological Laboratory.
Byerly and Gutenberg had an agreement never to believe news stories
that one read of the other's earthquake investigations.
One further incident involving the apparent influence of the
press occurred when the Council polled its members as to whether they
thought the probability of an earthquake happening in the test area
during the next year was higher in light of the results of my paper
(this question is one that I maintained cannot be answered at this
stage of research). Some members replied that the probability
appeared higher, some did not have an opinion, and some replied that
the probability was not changed. However, one of the members who
said that the probability had not changed asked me later, of f-
camera, if I might recommend an area where he could put special instru-
mentation in case an earthquake did occur. In my opinion, these
statements were contradictory and appeared to differ as a fUnction
of the presence or absence of the press.
Recommendations
The stated goal of the Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council is
to advise the Director of Emergency Services, who reports to the Gov-
ernor's office, on the validity of earthquake predictions, that is,_how~
likely or probable it is that the prediction will cone true. In my
opinion, the Council's effectiveness is only as good as the willingness
of scientists conducting earthquake research to submit themselves to
the Council's proceedings. Therefore, it is in the best interests of
the Council to minimize possible adverse effects on the author's work
regarding 1) unauthorized distribution of the preprints outside the
Council prior to publication of the paper, 2) evaluation of the paper
in a public trial atmoshpere, and 3) public review of the paper prior
to scientific journal review.
One of the points in my paper submitted to Science is that
mishandling and sensationalizing of prediction hypotheses tests has
suppressed their proper documentation. This documentation is essential
for communication with colleagues and for the continued development of
earthquake prediction science. Thus, careful handling of earthquake
prediction research papers both by proper Council procedures and by
proper interaction of the Council's activities with the press will aid
in the development of the science.
PAGENO="0250"
246
The following are specific recommendations for a revision of
Council procedures that I believe will alleviate some of the problems
outlined above.
1) The terms p~rediction and warning are well-defined in the
National Academy of Sciences report "Earthquake Prediction and Public
Policy" *which states that "A warnin~ ... is a declaration that normal
life routines should be revised for a time," and that "Prediction is a
statement indicating that an earthquake of a specified magnitude will
probAbly occur at a specified location and time, based on scientific
analysis of observed facts." In the latter, the key concept is con-
tained in the word "probably" which implies that some high level of
confidence or probability can be assigned to the outcome of the pred-
iction. I propose that a third classification be defined as a prediction
hypothesis test. This category would include tests of unproven predict-
ion theories for which so few documented tests have been done that no
confidence or too low a confidence can be assigned.
2) If the research is deemed to be a prediction hypothesis test,
the Council should automatically recommend that no warning should be
issued because little or no confidence can be assigned to the outcome.
The review of the paper should then be left to the scientific journals.
3) If the research is deemed to be a prediction, that is, a time,
place, magnitude, and confidence can be given to the outcome, a review
of the paper should be conducted through the mail prior to the Council
meeting. In this manner, the author(s) can be given ample tine to res-
pond to claims or calculations of the reviewers. In the Council meeting
the reviewer's written comments and the author's replies can be eval-
uated in a closed session and an evaluation and press release can be
formulated as to whether or not to recommend a warning.
4) Although the press can be a source of serious misinformation,
they provide an essential role as our main means of timely communicat-
ion with the public. Interaction with the press should be carefully
done to emphasize the consensus opinion of the Council. To this end,
the press should definitely not be present in the working session of
the Council.
*National Research Council, Panel on the Public Policy Implications
of Earthquake Prediction, Ralph H. Turner, Chairman, 1975, Earthq~ke
Prediction and Public Pol4çy: National Academy of Sciences Printing
and Publishing Office, 2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington, D. C.,
20418, 142 pages.
PAGENO="0251"
247
The problems of dealing with the developing field of earthquake
prediction in a useful manner are new and we are all in a learning
process. My hope is that these impressions and recommendations can be
used by your administration to improve the effort of scientists and
government officials to alleviate the hazards of earthquakes.
Respectfully yours,
James H. Whitcotnb
Senior Research Fellow
JHW:tr
End.
cc.
California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council
National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council Committee on
Socioeconomic Effects of Earthquake Predictions
PAGENO="0252"
248
~ ~
California Institute of TechnoIog~ Pasadena, California 91109 (213) 795-6811 ext. 2326
news bureau
For immediate release April 20
Using data from a method being developed to eventually
predict earthquakes, Dr. James Whitcomb, geophysicist at the
California Institute of Technology, today presented evidence that an
earthquake somewhere between magnitude 5.5 and 6.5 may occur within
a year with an epicenter near that of the 1971 San Fernando temblor.
Dr. Whitcomb emphasized that he is testing a still developing
scientific theory and noted that "the uncertainty of the magnitude,
location and time preclude the test from being of great. use to the
public." He reported the data at the annual meeting in Washington,
D.C. of the American Geophysical Union.
The paper he read called for the scientific testing of a theory,
named the velocity-bay method, which predicts an earthquake after
the occurrence in the earth's crust of an anomalous decrease in the
velocities of seismic waves from nearby quakes or blasting. Begin-
ning in early 1974, such a velocity reduction of the waves was
detected.
The area included in the slowdown of waves extends from Santa
Monica Bay north to the western Antelope Valley and from the town
of Fillmore easterly almost to Mt. Baldy. Although the area includes
part of the so-called "Palmdale bulge," it is not known if there
is any connection between it and the area where the velocities have
changed. The velocities of the seismic waves returned to normal
PAGENO="0253"
249
shortly after the first of the year, first in one region of the
area and then in another,
From current information," Dr. Whitcomb said, `few conclusions
can be drawn relating the Palmdale bulge, which mostly occurred 10
to 15 years ago along a 100-nile segment of the San Andreas Fault,
to the velocity anomaly I am reporting, or even to the 1971 San
Fernando earthquake whose epicenter was also with the uplift zone.
"However, all these factors certainly reemphasize the fact
that the general San Andreas Fault zone--and in fact most of
California--is tectonically active and that we should always be
prepared for a major earthquake."
"Our experience in interpreting this kind of velocity anomaly
is very limited but there have been at least six examples where
moderate earthquakes have been preceded by a similar effect," said
Dr. Don Anderson, director of Caltech's seismological laboratory.
"As Whitcomb has often pointed out, we have no information on the
false alarm rate, or how often such an anomaly occurs without
being followed by an earthquake. We are still in the learning process.
"The magnitude assignment is based on limited previous
experience. Southern californians should be reminded that the
size of the anticipated event is not unusual for the southwestern
United States and Northerh Mexico. About 90 earthquakes of magnitude
greater than magnitude 5.5 have occurred in Southern California and
northern Baja California since 1933. Twenty-mine events have
occurred having magnitudes greater than 6.0. Thus more than two
earthquakes a year, on the average, occur in Southern California
and northern Mexico that have magnitudes in the range considered."
PAGENO="0254"
250
However, Whitcomb noted in his presentation to the American
Geophysical Union that only one non-aftershock. earthquake above
magnitude 5.5 has occurred within the test area since 1932.
The next few years will be difficult ~or both earthquake
researchers and the public," said Whitcomb. "As is true of any
new research, earthquake prediction will involve several false
alarms along with successes. Until a large number of these tests
can be made so that the `track record' can be established for the
different prediction methods, it will be almost impossible for
scientists to assign a confidence to a given test. Yet, because
of the social importance of this research, the public must be kept
fully informed of our progress."
Both positive and negative test results--that is, "successful"
and `false" earthquake predictions--are needed to evaluate the
reliability of techniques and the ability to recognize anomalous
behavior, Dr. Whitcomb declared, adding that these kind of written,
before-the-fact scientific tests are necessary if science is to
develop the vital statistics required for prediction methods to be
useful. Unfortunately, he said, only the successes are published
currently so little information is available on how many failures
have occurred with predictions from the same method.
This particular quake-predicting method is concerned with the
slowdown of certain seismic waves through the ground in certain areas.
The slowing down implies a phenomenon called dilatancy in which rocks
develop microscopic cracks due to increased seismic pressure. The
waves involved are called the P waves.
According to the theory, rocks along an active fault zone
become strained as the land masses on each side of it slowly move
PAGENO="0255"
251
in opposite directions. This is occurring along California's San
Andreas Fault, the land west of it moving northwesterly in relation
to the land east of it.
P waves do not move as fast through air as through rock and
therefore slow down in rocks that have hair-line cracks in then.
Eventually these cracks may close again or fill with water. In
either case, the waves eventually resume their former velocities.
According to the velocity-bay theory, this signals the approach of
an earthquake. The longer the period of slow-down, the greater
the quake.
On the basis of this theory, Dr. Whitcomb published a similar
test for an earthquake at Yucaipa. The size of the subsequent
quake, magnitude 4, was less than the present form of the theory
predicts. Thus, it is already clear that the theory requires
modification and this will require more studies of the type reported
here.
After the initial discovery of the new velocity anomaly in late
1974, Caltech and its Jet Propulsion Laboratory began a program of
intensified monitoring of gravity, electrical resistivity, and the
distortion of the earth's crust. Other organizations such as the
National Geodetic Survey, U. S. Geological Survey, USC and the
Los Angeles county Engineers are monitoring other physical parameters
of the area.
Through a combination of different methods, scientists hope to
improve the accuracy and reliability of the three critical earthquake
parameters: magnitude, location and time.
-0-
PAGENO="0256"
252
APPENDIX B
James H. Whitcomb
April 21, 1976
In response to inquiries from the press regarding a paper that
I presented to the American Geophysical Union on Thursday of last week,
Caltech released a document to the press describing an earthquake
prediction hypothesis test.
This hypothesis is based on the seismic velocity "bay" theory
which was first developed by Russian scientists more than 10 years ago.
This theory calls for the occurrence of an earthquake after a "bay" or
decrease and subsequent imcrea~e of seismic velocity in the earth's
crust. Such a "bay" has been recorded in a study of data from Caltech's
seismic network. With this data, the velocity "bay" theory predicts a
ml
magnitude 5.5 to 6.5 earthquake within one year somewhere inside an 80 1~t/
diameter area centered approximately around the 1971 San Fernando earth-
quake epicenter.
The seismic data showing the velocity anomaly was first presented
before the scientific community over 6 months ago at the International
Union of Geodesy and Geophysics in Grenoble, France. The same data was
presented in testimony before a visiting congressional committee in
October of 1975. The abstract for last weeks AGU paper was submitted to
the state's Office of Emergency Services and has been published in a
scientific journal for two months.
It should be emphasized that this is a scientific test of an, as yet,
unproven theory. It is my position that scientists must make these tests
in writing before the yredicted time specifying the time, location, and
magnitude of the predicted event. Only by conducting a large number of
these tests can we establish the "track record" of prediction methods so
that we can evaluate their usefulness to our society.
PAGENO="0257"
U)
~D
~4 rt
C' C)
0
U)
0'
I!6°W
35°N~
iction Test
i~rea
PAGENO="0258"
254
STATEMENT OP DR. JAMES WHITCOMB, DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY
AND GEOPHYSICS, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Dr. WHITCOMB. Thank you, Mr. Brown. I appreciate your inviting
me to testify. I have a prepared statement here in which I address
questions that were given to me by the invitation from Mr. Symington
and other views which I have in regard to development of a useful
earthquake prediction capability through scientific, political and pub-
lic action.
The development of a useful earthquake prediction capability, that
is, one that significantly reduces injury to people and damage to
structures, requires the complex interaction and support of three basic
fields: the scientific, political, and public domains. Although my main
experience is in the scientific area of earthquake prediction research,
I `have often had the opportunity to observe and interact with all
three areas simultaneously.
A common misconception is that the science of earthquake predic-
tion is advanced to the point that we can now apply our knowledge
to predict earthquakes. In reality, however, U.S. science is just be-
ginning the task of development of methods for earthquake predic-
tion after some promising observational discoveries made mainly in
extensive research programs outside our own country.
For example, a dramatic success was achieved by the Chinese in the
February 1975 Haicheng prediction. However, the prediction was
based on a hypothesis for forshock activity that does not appear to
apply to California. We need to know why it apparently does not
work here and if some modification of the hypothesis might work
instead.
In the following, I discuss what I consider to be important aspects
in the future development of scientific, political and public efforts to
reduce the hazards of earthquakes by means of prediction. The bills
under consideration by the House of Representatives each address
different parts of the overall problem of earthquake hazard reduction.
In my opinion, one major shortcoming that they have in common
is inadequate provision for basic earthquake prediction research which
best falls under the purview of the National Science Foundation.
SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT
The scientific development of an earthquake prediction method
should follow the course outlined in the table below. It simply out-
lines three stages, stage one, formulation or discovery of hypothesis
and stage two, the testing of hypothesis. These two constitute the basic
research.
The third and final stage is the application of a proven method.
Stages 1 and 2 constitute the basic research needed to determine
what methods are suitable for accomplishing the desired objective,
earthquake prediction. The number of methods hypothesized to be
predictors of earthquakes are extremely numerous. But it is significant
that no single method nor any combination of the methods have yet
proven to be predictors with a high success rate. This fact illustrates
that the international scientific community is currently working some-
where between stages 1 and 2, the discovery and testing stage, and is
definitely in the basic research rather than the application stage.
PAGENO="0259"
255
It is possible to enter stage 3 at an early point in the development
by accepting a lower threshold of confidence in the testing stage
in order to move to the application stage, as the Chinese have done.
What this means is more false alarms when warnings are issued to
the public. A decision to increase the probability of false alarms must
weigh the risks of special actions taken in a warning, against po-
tential benefits to be derived from a successful prediction. In the
Chinese case, their decision to accept a lower threshold prediction
confidence appears justified because of the high-risk nature of their
housing construction. A similar decision for the United States might
not be in our best interest.
One of the basic impediments in carrying out stage 2 of earth-
quake prediction method developments in that only positive test re-
sults tend to be reported to the scientific community. This is no doubt
due to the high visibility of earthquake prediction research and the
undesirability of being associated with a negative test result, that is,
a false earthquake prediction.
Yet, if science, government, and the public are to develop the vital
statistics required for prediction methods to be socially useful, both
positive and negative test results must be reported on a regular basis
in a source that is available, to all investigators. These tests must be
made with all of the pertinent data and reasoning outlined in writing
prior to the predicted time, and must specify the ranges of magnitude,
location, and time.
Mr. BROWN. If I may interrupt, Mr. Whitcomb, I am struck by the
comparability of this situation and the economic forecasting ability.
We can get diametrically opposed economic forecasts as to what is
going to happen 6 months or 1 year from now and yet the economists
don't seem to be frightened at making these forecasts.
Dr. WrnTcoMB. This illustrates a good point I think in that both
Government officials and the public do not need to be scientists to
evaluate methods. In other words, if we lay everything out on the
table, so to speak, and do these things the way I feel they should be
done, then the Government officials and the public can evaluate meth-
ods themselves just by looking at the "track record" of various methods
just as they probably evaluate many economists on the basis of their
forecasting success ratio.
Continuing with my testimony, the goal of full documentation of
both positive and negative earthquake prediction hypothesis tests re-
quires that an institution be designated as recipient, cataloger, and dis-
seminator of prediction tests t~hat are verified to be written before the
earthquake.
A program of this nature would not only provide the statistical basis
for evaluation of the "track record" of prediction methods, but would
give other scientists an opportunity for the timely study of an anom-
alous area prior to an earthquake.
I am going to skip part of my testimony with your permission, Mr.
Brown, in that it `relates to my specific recommendations for the in-
stitution and does not require legislation and probably should relate
to international support.
Mr. BROWN. The full text will be included in the record.
Geophysical data gathering is, a required activity that all three
stages of earthquake prediction development ha~re in common and
PAGENO="0260"
256
therefore should be given high priority. Most of the major discoveries
in earthquake prediction research were derived from data-gathering
programs, many of which were done for purposes other than earth-
quake prediction. Hypothesis formulated from these discoveries must
be tested with better data that usually must be gathered especially for
that task. Application of proven prediction methods must be done from
a carefully selected suite of techniques chosen to provide data that
gives maximum efficiency and coverage of hazardous areas. Large
programs of data gathering often lead to inefficient use of data due
to the lack of an equal effort devoted to the organization, dissemina-
tion, and analysis of data. Although some attempts are now being
made to attack this problem, more attention and support should be
given to information management and analysis in parallel with data-
gathering programs.
Many Government agencies are now gathe.ring data and conducting
research and development that directly or indirectly support efforts
in earthquake prediction research. The U.S. Geological Survey is
prominently mentioned in earthquake prediction legislation. Other
agencies also are making significant contributions. For example, the
highly publicized "Palmdale Bubble" in California was discovered
using data from a long-term surveying program of the National Geo-
detic Survey of the Department of Commerce. Esoteric new techniques
from NASA's space programs are in the process of revolutionizing
the field of geodesy and are now providing previously unattainable
data that directly pertain to earthquake prediction research. The
National Science Foundation is currently supporting important earth-
quake prediction data gathering and research at my own institute.
Most of these efforts have suffered acutely from a low priority of
funding within their respective agencies.
Political development: The National Academy of Sciences con-
ducted a panel study which resulted in the report "Earthquake Pre-
diction and Public Policy" often referred to as the "Turner report."
One of the recommendations of the Turner report is that scientific
committees be formed to evaluate earthquake predictions generated
by other scientists. These committees would then advise the responsible
Government officials as to whether a warning, that is, special action
to be taken on the basis of the prediction, should be issued to the
public. The terms prediction and warning are well-defined in the
Turner report which states that "A warning * * * is a declaration
that normal life routines should be revised for a time," and that
"Prediction is a statement indicating that an earthquake of a specified
magnitude will probably occur at a specified location and time, based
on scientific analysis of observed facts." In the latter, the key concept
is contained in the word "probably" which implies that some high
level of confidence or probability can be assigned to the outcome of
the prediction. I propose that a third classification be defined as a
prediction hypothesis test. This category would include tests of un-
proven prediction theories for which so few documented tests have
been done that no confidence or too low a confidence can be assigned.
Following what I believe to be the proper scientific procedure for
documenting a prediction hypothesis test, I wrote a paper and sub-
PAGENO="0261"
257
mitted it to Science, a weekly scientific journal. A summary of the
paper was also presented to the annual meeting of the American
Geophysical Union in Washington, D.C. the following week on
April 15. As a result of the Washington presentation, I was called
on the morning of April 20 by a reporter from the Los Angeles Times
who said that a story on my paper would be in the next day's edition.
In order to insure that all of the qualifications and uncertainties of
my investigation were available to the public, Caltech made a press
release that afternoon and was requested to hold a news conference
the following morning explaining the implications of my research.
Those releases are included as appendixes.
The State of California~ has organized an evaluation committee
called the Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council similar to that
recommended in the Turner report. At the request of one of the
membcrs of the council, I allowed copies of my paper to be distributed
for their information on April 19 even though I do not consider my
paper to be a prediction. Details of the subsequent events including
a review of my paper by the council on April 30 and my recommenda-
tions for improving undesirable council policies are given in the
accompanying. letter to Governor Brown, attached to my testimony.
Individual scientists working in the field of earthquake prediction
research are open to diverse pressures mainly because of the frighten-
ing nature of earthquakes. On one side is the intense news coverage of
prediction research which by its very nature can lend drama and sus-
pense to news stories and fictional stories alike (as in the movie "Earth-
quake" for example). On the other side are Government officials who
are uneasy and sometimes resentful of finding themselves in a new and
sensitive position of decisionmaking due to an emerging and, as yet,
imprecise science. One of the functions of the scientific evaluation
committees is to relieve Government officials of part of this burden.
An added and potentially disturbing pressure factor is a reactionary
response from special interest groups who have a financial interest in
earthquake-prone areas. For example, the simple fact that California is
an earthquake-prone region was successfully suppressed until as late as
1933 when the damaging Long Beach earthquake finally triggered
the passage of earthquake-resistant construction laws. Along these
same lines, few know that a good proportion of the United States has
a history of damaging earthquakes including parts of the Midwest and
east coast. As a result of pressures due to the nature of their work.
scientists may become more and more reluctant to properly com-
municate their research in the hypothesis testing of stage II, which
would definitely slow the advancement of earthquake prediction ca-
pabilities. I believe that such an effect is visible already and definite
steps should be taken to relieve these pressures.
Perhaps the most significant influence that the political domain can
have in the development of earthquake prediction is in proper alloca-
tion of resources to maximize the chances of success. No one can promise
that an earthquake prediction capability can be developed in 5 or even
10 years. Although there are many recent research results that give
scientists greatly increased confidence compared to a few years ago,
success depends both on luck and the amount of resources that are em-
ployed. We must have the area of an impending earthquake adequately
instrumented prior to the event. This means choosing wisely where to
76-649 0 - 76 - 18
PAGENO="0262"
258
allocate our limited resources so that we catch the next big earthquake.
The larger our resources, the better our chances. Because earthquake
prediction is still in a basic research mode, the flexibility that is essen-
tial to a successful research program should be protected.
Public development: Education activities should be initiated to
recommend the kinds of action that individuals should take before,
during, and after earthquakes. This education should be specialized to
account for different environment in which an individual might live
or work. When earthquake prediction systems become reasonably relia-
ble, regular status bulletins similar to weather reports should be issued.
These will accustom individuals to thinking in terms of earthquake
hazards and prepare them for a rational response if a warning is is-
sued. I believe that more attention should be given to a children's
educational program that will help to offset the effects of unreasonable
fears generated by increased discussion and sensationalization of earth-
quakes in the news and the cinema. The fears are generally based on a
distortion or lack of knowledge about earthquakes.
Recent accounts of Chinese earthquake prediction research have
emphasized direct public participation in data gathering. Although
much official emphasis in China is placed on the contributions of the
public to the 1975 Haicheng prediction, preliminary reports from
scientific observers visiting China indicate that the basic decisions of
prediction were based on methOds that were not involved in the public
program. The usefulness of public participation in data-gathering
programs remains to be clarified. Involvement of the public in pro-
grams that are intended to be a placebo are counterproductive and may
damage the credibility of earthquake programs.
SUMMARY AND REOOMMENDATTONS
(1) The science of earthquake prediction is still in a basic research
state. Of the numerous prediction methods proposed, none have yet
been proven to be predictors with a high success rate. Therefore, be-
fore a heavy emphasis on application can be made, the groundwork
of the basic research will have to be laid so that we can know how to
predict with confidence.
(2) Development of confidence in a particular prediction method or
hypothesis requires extensive testing. Proper documentation and com-
munication of this testing in a scientific manner may suffer from the
high visibility and resultant pressures associated with earthquake
prediction research. Support should be given to the formation of in-
stitutes designed to report prediction hypothesis tests and predictions
in a timely manner. New government advisory procedures, and per-
haps legislation, will be necessary to prevent the application of sup-
pressive pressures on proper scientific communication.
(3) M~any Government agencies have unique capabilities for the
gathering and analysis of geophysically important data. The role of
the Geological Survey is well recognized, but the work of the National
Geodetic Survey, NASA, and the National Science Foundation should
be given greater emphasis, both in legislation and within their re-
spective agencies. Geophysical data gathering is a required activity in
all stages of an earthquake prediction development program, and it
should be given high priority.
PAGENO="0263"
259
(4) Because basic research is still the most important task in the
development of an earthquake prediction capability, the role of the
National Science Foundation should be substantially expanded in
earthquake prediction research.
(5) The chances of achieving an earthquake prediction capability
in the United States in a reasonable amount of time are not good at
the present level of support. Whatever earthquake hazard reduction
legislation is passed, it should insure that the funding level for predic-
tion research be increased to adequate levels.
That is the end of my written testimony.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Thank you very, very much for your testimony,
Dr. Whitcomb.
I caught the last half of your paper, I think, but I don't know
whether you addressed yourself to a question I had on my mind earlier
and that was the degree to which in your view we are learning from
foreign sources concerning techniques of earthquake prediction and
the importance you attach to that-after all, it is a worldwide problem.
Dr. WrnTC0MB. I did not address myself specifically to that question
because it was not in the invitation. However, I do have strong feelings
about that. indeed, yes, many of the major advances that have been
made have come from work done in other countries and we definitely
need to participate jointly with other governments in studying earth-
quake prediction research in the future. If we are going to make sub-
stantial and timely progress in earthquake prediction research, we
must take advantage of every major earthquake that occurs in the
future.
If we do not participate with foreign governments and a major
earthquake does not occur in California in the next 10 or 20 years, even
though we have instrumented that region, we will not know how to
predict major earthquakes. That is why I mentioned in my testimony
that our progress depends somewhat on luck too; earthquakes must
occur in a timely fashion where we are studying them.
Mr. SYMINOTON. Is it possible to compare the characteristics of
faults, let us say, which are observable worldwide and then extrapolate
from that if there are two which are quite similar in character, that if
one should break somewhere that we could put together that learning
process to see if efforts are being made to properly anitcipate the other
one.
Dr. WrnTco1~tB. That is a very important question and one which I
did briefly address in my introductory remarks .The Haicheng predic-
tion was apparently based on a principle d~ea1ing with the behavior of
foreshocks, that is, small earthquakes before the major event.
In ~e~tery case that I know of in California that principle does not
hold true. Therefore, here is one possible example where you cannot
carry technology from one part of the world to another part of the
world. This question requires more research.
Mr. SYMINGTON. We probably don't only need a `national adminis-
trative structure to deal with this but probably also an international
one.
Dr. WHITCOMB. I believe that is true and I think the first step
should be an international system of reporting hypothesis tests to both
enable scientists and others to keep a track record of methods and also
to give timely notification of anomalous areas, so that scientists who
PAGENO="0264"
260
are waiting in the wings to study an earthquake can move into the area
as soon as possible.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Thank you.
Mr. Mosher?
Mr. MOSHER. Dr. Whitcomb, I regret that I was not here to hear
your testimony, except for the final recommendations.
Your No. 5 recommendation: "The chances of achieving an earth-
quake prediction capability in the United States within a reasonable
amount of time are not good at the present level of support."
Now we have had testin~ony from most of the executive agencies
which indicates their belief that they presently have sufficient author-
ity to do what needs to be done and they don't need new legislation.
They do, I think, intimate that they would be glad to have more sup-
port in terms of money. Do you want to expand on your comment that
the probability of doing the job is not good with the present level of
support? Are you talking about more than money? Do you feel that
the Federal agencies now have sufficient authority if they only had the
money?
Dr. WHITCOMB. Well, Mr. Mosher, I probably am not qualified to
speak to the point of whether the agencies have sufficient authority.
All I look at is the end result and effectively how much support, in
terms of money and manpower, is going into the study of earthquake
prediction research. Right now I feel that that level is inadequate to
the point that we are lagging significantly compared to our colleagues
in other countries in just testing some of the findings they have made,
in other words, just following up on their discoveries.
Mr. Mosni~iu. You feel confident that the money level is not adequate
but you will not venture an opinion on whether if they had more
money the Federal agencies would be more effective and more vigorous
in doing this?
Dr. WrnTC0MB. I think if they had more money they certainly would
be more effective. And in my recommendations I do recommend that
the various agencies which are gathering data and doing research in
earthquake prediction studies be given more attention both within
their agencies and legislatively, including the National Science Foun-
dation, NASA, the National Geodetic Survey and USGS.
Mr. MOSHER. In your own experience or observation do you see any
need for a better more effective coordinating mechanism among the
various agencies? Really I am asking you to comment on the legis-
lation that I and several others have introduced.
Dr. WHITCOMB. The legislation you introduced I believe does one
important thing. It attempts to implement some of the recommenda-
tions in the Turner Report. However, the Turner Report only ad-
dresses itself to public policy socioeconomic effects and not to earth-
quake prediction research which has just come out in a report from
the National Academy.
My main interest, of course, is in earthquake prediction researcb~
Right now my impression is that there exists sufficient coordination
among Government agencies.
Mr. MOSHER. In that area of prediction?
Dr. WHITCOMB. Yes.
Mr. MOSHER. In your recommendation No. 2 where you refer to
proper documentation and communication may suffer from the high
PAGENO="0265"
261
visibility and resultant pressures associated with it-then you later re-
fer to suppressive pressures. I know that you did comment at greater
length on that as to what you mean by pressures, but do you want to
repeat or expand a little bit on the significance of those phrases, sup-
pressive pressures, and so forth?
Dr. WrnTC0MB. It mainly stems from, I think, the intense interest
and attention given by the press, the public media, to earthquake pre-
diction research. It sells newspapers and its sells commercials on TV.
Therefore, any little scrap of news is given a large play in the news-
papers and this brings pressure to bear not oniy on the scientist whose
work is discussed, and quite often inaccurately discussed, but also on
governmental figures who are asked to do something about this. And
then they in turn, because they are not scientists, turn to other scien-
tists in committees to try to evaluate what is going on. Actually, we
are in a learning mode at the present time. For example, the Califor-
nia committee had its first real prediction hypothesis test to evaluate
and I think that there are things that could be improved in that com-
mittee's procedures.
Mr. Manfred will discuss this after me, I understand.
Mr. MOSHER. 1 guess that is where the emphasis really should be
placed. You are really emphasizing that we have an awful lot to learn.
Dr. WrnTooi~n~ That is right.
Mr. MO5HER. You suggest that development of confidence in a par-
ticular prediction method or hypothesis requires extensive testing.
Support should be given to the formation of institutes. That is an
interesting word. The institutes would be designed to report predic-
tion and hypothesis tests. So you are really suggesting that we have
a lot to learn and we ought to be busy experimenting and trying to
learn here. That is a pretty difficult thin~to do, isn't it?
Dr. WHITCOMB. I think it is a very difficult thing in this field, and
I think actually the proper communication has been somewhat sup-
pressed in the past and one of my specific recommendations in terms
of an institute is in my testimony. There is an institute already exist-
ing to report other geophysical phenomena, an international reporting
institute based in Boston associated with the Smithsonian Institute.
I recommend that the international scientific community designate
that institute as the medium through which it makes its reports in a
timely manner.
Mr. BROWN. Dr. Whitcomb, I have glanced briefly at your attach-
ments, the press release and the letter to the Governor, I think these
are rather significant documents, and I want to make sure they, are
included in the record. And they will be without objection this
morning.
You had considerable publicity from this exercise in announcing
the prediction hypothesis test and you have acquired some useful in-
formation which I guess we will discuss ~urther `with Mr. Manfred
about the way in which the California earthquake prediction evalua-
tion council functions, which obviously is not without flaw. But in view
of the fact that this is its first experience, probably, we should expect
that.
I am concerned that we go through a process of analysis with regard
to the way in which this mechanism functions so that~ it can be im-
proved. I think it is a pioneering effort on the part of the State of
PAGENO="0266"
262
California and it deserves every possible chance of success. I am sure
you would concur with that.
Dr. WIIITCOMB. I do.
Mr. BROWN. As far as I can see from a cursory analysis of the way
in which you enunciated your prediction hypothesis test and handled
it, I don't see any other way in which yo.u could have done it as a
professional in this field and gotten the results which were com-
pletely satisfactory, I guess, from your standpoint.
Dr. WHITCOMB. What happened, of course, was not unexpected.
Actually that was the second test that we documented, and I was
actually surprised that the first one did not generate any more interest
than it did, pleasantly surprised, as a matter of fact.
In the second instance 1 think it should be emphasized that CalTech
did not announce this hypothesis. It was a paper presented at a scientific
meeting and approximately a week later a reporter called up and
essentially triggered the news release from CalTech.
Mr. BROWN. We in politics sometimes have those occurrences also.
Going back to your paper, you made some assertions with regard
to the Chinese with regard to their willingness to accept a lower
threshold of confidence with regard to their predictions. Do you know
whether the data is available to allow us to state what the level of
confidence might be, what the ratio of false to true prediction is or
any such relevant data on the Chinese situation?
Dr. WHITCOMB. No; there is none available that I am aware of.
I received my impressions from two representatives from the Peoples
Republic of China who visited C'alTech approximately 5 weeks ago.
One of our graduate students speaks Chinese, so my information is
third hand through an interpreter. Apparently these two scientists
were sitting in the room in which the decision was made to predict
an earthquake for Elaicheng, and therefore have a lot of knowledge
about the Chinese program. Their statement in that discussion was
that the Chinese have more false alarms than successful predictions.
No numbers were given, but I think it is clear that they are not
significantly ahead in terms of having a high success ratio.
Mr. BROWN. The numbers could be important there. Two false pre-
dictions for one good one might be worthwhile. Two hundred false
predictions for one good one might not be so good.
Mr. WHITOOMB. It is extremely important and I have no feeling for
what they really are. That number is very difficult to get. That is one
of the things I am pushing for now; we are at a stage where we have
to start documenting these things in writing so we can start compiling
the statistics.
Mr. BROWN. In discussing this matter with some earlier witnesses we
entered into a discussion of what might be the source of the Chinese
development in this area. Do you happen to know whether this is a
strictly indigenous development based upon their own serious con-
cerns which are Obvious because of their proneness to earthquakes,
or has there been a diffusion of science and technology from any of the
western countries outside of the normal processes?
I ask this question because, as you are undoubtedly aware, your
institution trained some of the eminent Chinese scientists in some of
the other fields, in the field of nuclear development, for example. And
I was just wondering if this could possibly happen in the geological
science field.
PAGENO="0267"
263
Dr. WHITCOMB. I think I would like to defer to the statements of
Dr. Press. I believe he has much more knowledge about that than I do.
Mr. BROWN. He commented on that.
Dr. WHITCOMB. I know nothing more than what he does.
Mr. BROWN. You had a gratuitous assertion at page 5 of rather
broader application than just an earthquake prediction. You said that
large programs of data gathering often lead to inefficient use of data
due to lack of an equal effort devoted to the organization, dissemina-
tion and analysis of data.
We find this is true in a multitude of areas. We do not have a good
solution for it. We have just undertaken, for Bxample, ~ome oversight
hearings in connection with the collection of data on air pollution and
its, effect on human health in which we found that the agency had col-
lected vast amounts of data over a period of years which has not yet
been analyzed.
We know of other situations in which this occurs rather frequently,
as a matter of fact. Do you feel that this is a systematic problem that
runs through most areas of science? Do you have any suggestions about
what would be an appropriate solution in general and can you help us
as Members of Congress in solving this problem?
Dr. WHITCOMB. I wouldn't presume to advise Congress in fields other
than my own, other than to perhaps say that the only way to solve it in
our opinion for our problem is to computerize the data processing.
We have been trying to do that for the last 3 or 4 years and with some
success. However, at my institute, the support is at such a low level
that we get down to the point of not being able to afford a programer
to develop the software.
I think the only way that we can possibly handle excessive data is to
have dedicated computers to gather and put the data in. a proper for-
mat so that it can be further analyzed by a computer.
Mr. BROWN. This question `of the need for a dedicated computer as
well as the deployment of sensors on a much more widespread basis
has come up earlier also. And it enters into the problem of how much
money ought to go into this area.
And I wanted to ask you to what degree do we have an adequate
system of both sensors and dedicated computers for analyzing the
sensor data within the area you are familiar with, the California area?
Dr. WHITCoME. Are you asking do we have?
Mr. BROWN.. Yes~ can you comment on that and particularly the cost
implications, If ~e do not have it, how much will it cost' us to attain
that?
Dr. WrnTC0MB. I t]~in'lf a significant factor in this particular area
is that thanks to oiir-lystern of competition in our country, the cost of
computers ancLtheir capabilities `has been improving drastically over
the years to' the point where, as opposed to everything else, compñter
costs are going down and they are getting smaller and yet more power-
ful. Therefore, the dedicated computer system that I am talking about
handling a large network of geophysical sensors, would be a small
fraction or some reasonable fraction of the total cost of both the in-
stallation and the operation of that sensor network.
So it is not `any more a major cost item.
Mr. BROWN. Can you refir~e that a little? Are we talking about several
million or less than a million?
PAGENO="0268"
264
Dr. WHITCOMB. Less than a million.
Mr. BROWN. HOW about the sensor system that we have for basic
research in California? Do you think we have deployed as many as we
need, half as many, a tenth as many?
Dr. WrnTc0MB. On the order of a tenth as many. It depends on
what types of instruments you are talking about. In terms of seis-
mometers, seismic instrumentation, we are probably more advanced in
that area with support from the U.S. Geological Survey and Cal Tech
in their combined program than any other type of instrumentation.
I think it is clear now that any earthquake prediction system must in-
corporate several or at least a few difte~ent types of measurements. If
you see something going on in your seismometer network, it should be
confirmed from another type of measurement, or perhaps several, be-
fore you are going to make a decision to issue a warning that has such
large economic and social implications. So it is the other types of in-
strumentation that I believe we need to concentrate on.
Mr. BROWN. The tilt meters and stress gages and things of that sort?
Dr. WHITCOMB. Yes. And part of the problem here-it gets back to
my point that we are still in the basic research stage-is that we don't
really know what are the best types to put out. Therefore, we have a
question do we want to saturate as large an area as we can with every
possible type of instrumentation we can or concentrate on areas where
we think there is maximum likelihood of earthquake with all of the
different types of information to do the basic research and then deter-
mine what types of data are most useful for predicting earthquakes
and then do our larger array.
That's why I think there still needs to be done a lot of basic research.
Mr. BROWN. That message is clear in your testimony and I think
we would agree with you, since that is the thrust I believe of the legis-
lation, to encourage that kind of research.
I have no further questions, Dr. Whitcomb. I appreciate your testi-
mony and the material you have provided to the committee. I assure
you it is of tremendous value to us in evaluating this legislation, and
we appreciate it very much.
Dr. WHITCOMB. I thank the committee for inviting me to testify.
Mr. BROWN. Our last witness this morning is Mr. Charles Manfred,
director of the California State Office of Emergency Services who has
had long experience in dealing with disasters of many different kinds.
[A brief biographical sketch of Mr. Charles Manf red follows:]
CHARLES MANFRED
Charles Manfred has served as Director of the California Office of Emergency
Services since April 2i, 1975, and is responsible for coordinating emergency plans
and programs for all State agencies and local governments.
Mr. Manfred served as a teacher in the Los Angeles City School system, was
very active in county affairs, and served as Director of one of the Nation's
largest Head Start programs in the Los Angeles area.
He also served as a principal associate of the Pacific Management Associates
of Los Angeles, as well as a consultant to the California State Department of
Education.
From 1961 through 1966, Mr. Manfred served as the Region I Manager of the
OES' predecessor agency, the California Disster Office. During that period, he
was responsible for coordinating disaster plans and programs in eleven Southern
California counties.
Mr. Manfred has recently been appointed to the National Science Foundation's
Advisory Group on Earthquake Prediction and Hazard Mitigation.
PAGENO="0269"
265
STATEMENT OF CHARLES MANFRED, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA
STATE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Mr. Brown and Mr. Mosher, members of the committee:
The legislation which you are considering today is of vital interest
to California, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss possible
changes in Government's response to the threat which earthquakes
pose to the lives and property of our citizens.
TJnder the Emergency Services Act of the California Government
Code, the Office of Emergency Services, which I direct, is responsible
for developing plans and programs for both war-caused emergencies
and natural disasters. Our office is part of the Governor's office and
coordinates emergency planning, training, and mutual aid response
of all State agencies and local governments.
The Emergency Services Act confers emergency powers on chief
executives of the State, including the Governor, chairmen of county
boards of supervisors, and city majOrs, in the event of a disaster
and requires them to be prepared to mitigate the effects of earth-
quakes which threaten life, property, and the resources of Cali-
fornia. We have an excellent State emergency plan, which serves
as a basis for the conduct of emergency operations by all jurisdic-
tions throughout the State, and we have recently established a Seismic
Safety Commission which has just begun to initiate programs to
reduce earthquake hazards in our State.
Damaging earthquakes have been and will continue to. be part of
California's natural environment. Our experience with earthquakes
has taught us measures can be taken to preserve life and property dur-
ing and after an earthquake, our buildings can be made earthquake
resistant, and appropriate actions by individual citizens can prevent
loss of life. Local governments which maintain realistic plans and
trained emergency staffs capable of providing the facilities, infor-
mation, and resources needed by their chief executive for the direc-
tion and control of emergency operations, can do an effective job in
the postearthquake environment, caring for distressed people and
restoring and maintaining essential services.
California State government is monitoring the' development of
earthquake forecasting techniques and preparing to modify our
emergency-preparedness efforts in the light of new scientific infor-
mation that might become available. In addition, we are cooperating
with three research projects being conducted in this area by Tini-
versity of Colorado, California Institute of Technology, and Stanford
Research Institute.
The Office of Emergency Services has established two advisory com-
mittees to deal with problems related to the development of earth-
quake prediction technolop'v. One, the California Earthquake Predic-
tion Evaluation Council (CEPEC'), is comnosed of eminent scientists
qualified to evaluate the credibility of earthquake predictions.
The other, the Advisory Panel on State Government Response to
Earthquake Prediction, is composed of members representing social,
economic, and Government disciplines qualified to make recommen-
dations on Government actions in response to earthquake prediction.
In California, we not only have the problem of what to do once
an operational earthquake prediction system is established, but we
PAGENO="0270"
266
have the more immediate problem of dealing with new information
about seismic activity in our State resulting from various studies and
research projects. For example, in April of this year, the California
Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council met twice, and con-
sidered two earthquake forecasts. The first, discussed at Stanford,
April 14, 1976, concerned the so-called "Palmdale Bulge," which had
been recently reported by scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey.
The Council determined the Survey's data were, in fact, valid. How-
ever, the Survey did not produce sufficient evidence to support its
estimate of when the predicted earthquake would occur, and issued
the following statement:
The Council has concluded that the area of concern, the so-called Palmdale
"Bulge", definitely warrants further detailed study but that there is no reason
at this time, on the basis of the data presented, to conclude whether or not
a major earthquake will occur at any specific time in the future. However,
In `our judgment, the uplift is probably a manifestation of the gradual buildup
of earthquake producing stresses, and it should serve to give us a renewed
sense of urgency in preparing for the large earthquake that some day in-
evitably will occur in this region.
On April 30, 1976, the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation
Council met at the California Institute of Technology to review a re-
search paper titled, "Earthquake Prediction: A Hypothesis Test."
Dr. James H. Whitcomb, senior research fellow at Cal-Tech's Seismo-
logical Laboratory is currently testing an earthquake prediction tech-
nique which indicates `a magnitude 5.5-6.5 earthquake within the time
period April 1976 to April 1977, in a 140 km region approximately
centered on the location of the 1971 San Fernando earthquake.
In this case, the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation
Council issued the following statement:
After study of the data, theory, and methods of analysis involved, the Council
did not conclude that the probability of an earthquake in the area in question is
significantly higher than the average for similar geologic areas of California.
Nevertheless, the `data are sufficiently suggestive of such an increased probability
as to warrant further intensive study and testing of the hypothesis presented by
Dr. Whitcomb. It remains possible that a moderate or major earthquake could
occur in the area at any time, as is true for many other similar geologic areas of
California.
We passed this information on to local governments and asked them
to:
1. Review ordinances and emergency plans to insure public `safety
responsibilities are assigned.
2. Convene emergency or disaster councils to review the status of
emergency preparedness programs.
3. Determine the readiness of agencies which have life-saving mis-
sions, such as law, fire, medical, and public works.
4. Review, update, and/or prepare instrumental material for release
by the news media to citizens.
5. Coordinate plans with officials of school districts, Red Cross, hos-
pitals, and news media.
6. Be prepared to speak directly to the people through local radio
broadcasting systems, outlining precautionary measures to be taken
before an earthquake. Also be prepared to use these systems to inform
and instruct citizens immediately after an earthquake.
7. Have each first response service prepare procedures to insure
emergency equipment will not be damaged or trapped inside its normal
storage location (fire, law, communications).
PAGENO="0271"
267
8. Identify hazardous areas and structures which may have to be
evacuated prior to or immediately after an earthquake.
9. Consider ordinances and enforcement to reduce hazardous struc-
tural features which are nonfunctional to a facility, such as parapets
or cornices.
10. Conduct training for emergency service personnel to insure a reli-
able reporting system on the nature and extent of damage in the com-
munity and to provide direction and control of life-saving operations.
11. Inventory essential resources, anticipate deficiencies, and review
procedures for requesting and implementing mutual aid.
The development of a reliable earthquake prediction system will:
1. Increase public interest in the accelerated State and local emer-
gency preparedness programs;
I think our experience with the bulge and the Whitcomb tests have
given us indication of that. Local officials are now in fact looking at
their basic legislation and reviewing their emergency preparedness
programs.
2. Focus attention on the long-term effort needed to rehabilitate or
replace unsafe buildings; and
3. Make necessary the development of an earthquake warning system
to inform and protect the public.
Existing emergency preparedness programs emphasize preemer-
gency planning, life-saving and life-sustaining operations during the
emergency period and relief and rehabilitation during the recovery
phase in the aftermath of a disaster. The new dimension which earth-
quake prediction will add to already existing emergency preparedness
programs will be a greater emphasis on disaster prevention through
taking of protective actions in the period between the issuing of a
warning and the occurrence of a predicted event. Disaster prevention
is added to disaster planning and disaster relief.
State and local governments receive support and assistance in main-
taining emergency service organizations from the Federal Govern-
ment: the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency (DCPA) provides
financial support for personnel and administrative agencies; the Fed-
eral Disaster Assistance Administration (FDAA) provides planning
grants and funds for disaster relief programs; and the Federal Pre-
paredness Agency (FPA) provides policy guidance on emergency
resource planning and industrial preparedness.
We also deal with a number of other Federal ag~ncies including
DOD, ERDA, NRC, EPA, USDA, HEW, SBA, and USGS in at-
tempting to maintain a total civil preparedness program.
It is our strong belief that (1) a single agency in the Office of the
President must be responsible for the coordination of all emergency
preparedness programs, and (2) different agencies should have statu-
tory responsibility for specific emergency programs.
We have provided information on civil preparedness programs to
the Joint Committee on Defense Production headed by Senator
Proxrnire and to the Civil Defense Panel of the Subcommittee on
Investigations of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Repre-
sentatives. We strongly support the report of the Civil Defense Panel
of the Investigations Subcommittee, and call your attention to its
recommendation number five (5):
5. Multiple Federal agencies perform emergency preparedness functions. The
shifting around of civil defense, natural disaster, and other preparedness func-
PAGENO="0272"
2Q8
tiOn~ suggests that a sounder organizational base needs to be developed. The
President should direct the Office of Management and Budget to study this
problem area and should then submit recommendations to the Congress. The
panel submits for consideration by the study group the establishment of a small
unit in the Executive Office of the President to coordinate emergency prepared-
ness (including civil defense) functions and to advise the President in the exe-
cution of these several functions, which are vested in him by law.
Californians are very conscious and concerned about earthquakes;
the damage they cause, and the cost of relief and rehabilitation pro-
grams. The February 9, 1971, San Fernando earthquake left 64 dead
hnd caused $553 million in damage. More recently, the mild August 1,
1975, Oroville earthquake-though there were no deaths-still caused
$3.5 million in damage. The destructive potential of future earthquakes
is even more staggering. For example, a great earthquake in the metro-
politan Los Angeles area would have the following results: 3,000 to
12,OQO people killed; 12,000 to 48,000 people hospitalized; 40,000
buildings would collapse or be seriously damaged; $15 to $25 billion
damage. A great earthquake in the San Francisco Bay area would
cause: 3,000 to 10,000 people killed; 12,000 to 40,000 people hospital-
ized; 20,000 buildings would collapse or be seriously damaged; $20
billion damage.
There is no doubt money will be spent on earthquakes. The question
is, how much are we willing to spend before the quake in order to
save lives and reduce destruction and the costs of restoration after the
event occurs. If money is spent in hazard reduction activities before
an earthquake, less will be spent in relief and rehabilitation activities
after an earthquake.
At the present time, the expenditure level is insufficient to provide
an adequate program of earthquake hazard reduction. The scope of
present programs is, at best, no more than a minimal program for
California. It may well be a case of too little, too late. What is needed
is a strong, well-coordinated earthquake hazard reduction program,
funded at a level sufficient to enable successful completion of its goals.
We in California are encouraged by the Federal Government's
effort to develop a reliable earthquake prediction capability. I strongly
recommend passage of S. 1174, which will further the ability of States
and their cities and counties to cope with the damaging effects of
future earthquakes.
I am prepared to answer your questions.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Thank you very much. Your state office of emer-
gency services-is its principal focus California's concern for earth-
quake management and prediction?
Mr. MANFRED. Yes; we are responsible for emergency programs.
There is another point of interest. Of course, you heard from
Mr. Steinbrugge, the Seismic Safety Commissioner.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I asked him what his funding was and I think he
said something around $100,000. What about your office?
Mr. MANFRED. Roughly a $3 million funding, $1.4 coming from the
Federal Government.
Mr. SYMINOT0N. You do get some funds from the Federal Govern-
ment?
Mr. MANFRED. Yes. There has been a controversy about it. You know
the President's budget message `made a cut in DCPA's budget. I think
the Panel on Civil Defense in the House dealt with that problem. These
PAGENO="0273"
269
funds that come from DCPA are funds from the Department of De-
fense for war emergency planning.
Over the years through a series of executive orders and admrnistra-
tive decisions these funds have been used by the States and local gov-
ernments for dual purpose emergency preparedness programs. The
language in section 710 of the authorization bill expresses the intent
of Congress that these funds continue to be used for dual purposes.
Mr. SYMINOTON. Is the Federal Government flexible in allocating
funds? Does the allocation allow the funds to be used for whatever
the local authorities feel it should be used for?
Mr. MANFRED. I am afraid we have had some problems with the ad-
ministration of those funds. Sometimes the policy guidance has been
inconsistent and contradictory and so on.
Mr. SYMINGTON. What percent of your budget is thus provided
federally?
Mr. MANFRED. Slightly less than 50 percent has been in the past.
Mr. SYMINOTON. Is that about average nationwide, State to State?
Mr. MANFRED. I would assume so, although the emergency organi-
zations in different States vary widely and there are different config-
urations. I think some communities participate in the Federal funds
available more sa than do others.
Mr. SYMINOTON. Is there an interstate coordinating committee for
research and development-is there a network of shared information
among the States in the field of earthquake information and manage-
ment, or does each State sort of go its own way?
Mr. MANFRED. Each State sort of goes its own way.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Is that inevitable?
Mr. MANFRED. Apparently there is better coordination in the sci-
entific community on the sharing of information with regard to seis-
mological studies. We do have a State emergency services director's
association and we have various interests. I want to emphasize a point
that I feel the Federal Government needs a strong coordinating voice
in the Office `of the President with regard to a whole range of emer-
gency preparedness programs.
Mr. SYMINGTON. You do not feel that the current Federal structure
for dealing with these emergencies is adequate?
Mr. MANFRED. No; I don't.
Mr. SYMINCTON. There is no single source, is there, and no focus?
Mr. MANFRED. That is true. The programs are fragmented. `We deal
with three agencies directly; DCPA, FPAA, and FPA.
Mr. SYMINOTON. You deal with each of them separately?
Mr. MANFEED. Separately. Occasionally we have scheduled meetings
and programs and so on at the State level by `all three. I don't believe I
have ever been invited by all three Federal agencies to attend one of
their meetings.
Mr. SYMINOTON. So in a way you are the coordinator.
Mr. MANFRED. We try to pull things together that come into the
State.
Mr. SYMINOTON. You would probably like the Federal Government
to arrive all at once when it comes to discussing these questions.
Mr. MANFRED. I guess I kind of represent a minority point of view.
Ojher State directors feel that these three agencies ought to be corn-
PAGENO="0274"
270
bined into one as they were in the past. I disagree. I think what you
need is a small coordinating agency within the Office of the President.
Mr. SYMINGTON. It is more difficult to suggest merging the agencies
than it is to have the agencies require a coordinating group that re~
lates to you and goes back and radiates to the several agencies the prob-
lem as defined. Otherwise there is no way for the other two agencies to
know what one has going with you unless you tell them. I think that is
a sort of barren way of doing it.
Mr. MANFRED. I would like to emphasize with regard to this legis-
lation that the USGS has the capability to develop a prediction sys-
tem to place the instruments and so on and I think the National Sci-
ence Foundation has the capability to conduct the basic research that
is needed. Some of the ideas in Mr. Mosher's legislation 1 think could
be very well incorporated in grants to the agencies with provisions for
stronger coordination. And I would like to see some planning grants
to States and communities to be used in developing the Government
response plans. I think the points Dr. Whitcomb made about our
learning by doing out in California on this issue was correct and we
are going to be perfecting our procedures and improving on them I
hope.
Mr. 5YMINGTON. Because of the high level of interest in California
you are really becoming a kind of laboratory test of how a govern-
ment addresses itself to a problem, and maybe the Federal Govern-
ment could learn from you.
Mr. Mosher?
Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Manfred, does the Corps of Engineers have any
plan or do they have the authority to regulate reservoir levels, change
the levels, require a change of level in the event of earthquake predic-
tion?
Mr. MANFRED. I believe those that they own they probably have an
established procedure for the operation of that dam. I do not know
what coordination there is between the Federal agencies on earthquake
prediction.
Mr. MOSHER. Is there Federal or State authority to direct the cool-
ing down of nuclear reactors in response to earthquake predictions?
Do you know anything about that?
Mr. MANFRED. I cannot speak for the Federal Government. Under
California law under our Emergency Services Act the Governor has
extraordinary powers once he declares an emergency to issue regula-
tions and directives all across the board.
Mr. MOSHER. Which probably would include the authorities I have
just mentioned.
Mr. MANFRED. Yes. I think we would be very careful about exer-
cising those authorities.
Mr. MOSHER. Would that authority include-I assume it would-
requesting emergency assistance from Federal and military sources?
Mr. MANFRED. That is right. By asking the President for declara-
tion as a major disaster area, yes.
Mr. MOSHER. This series of questions has been proposed by my staff
and I will ask a couple more.
Is there integration of independent communication networks, com-
mercial, military, FAA, and amateur radio? Is there an integration
of those communications networks for use in emergency in the event
of failure of any one system?
PAGENO="0275"
271
Mr. MANFRED. Within our State the integration is not complete. One
of the things we constantly work at is to improve our communications
capability. As a matter of fact, we are in the process of updating our
communications capability right now. I cannot give you a definite
answer.
Mr. MOSHER. Just a couple of questions concerning the Turner re-
port. I have to admit I have not read the Turner report, but I judge
from this suggested question-does the Turner r~ort recommend
when there is activated certain critical prediction and response pro-
grams that those should be mandatory rather than discretionary upon
the declaration of an emergency? Is that a crucial point in the Turner
report that the responses should be mandatory rather than discre-
tionary?
Mr. MANFRED. I am afraid I cannot answer that question. I don't
know.
Mr. M0sHER. What would be your own opinion?
Mr. MANFRED. The situation would be with the declaration of emer-
gency-I think this is the reason the research effort is going on at the
University of Colorado and so on-the scientists have indicated that
earthquake prediction is in the research and development stage. I
would like to say from a Government official's point of view that it is
in the research and development stages as far as we are concerned.
We are in the process of developing Government response plans.
Now whether it would be mandatory or discretionary depends upon
the situation we are confronted with. It seems to me that if we have
a valid earthquake prediction that there is a facility and the Governor
has accepted it as such and he has determined to issue a warning and he
has been presented with information which would indicat.e that a
facilities operation should be curtailed in the interest of saving lives
and public safety, then certainly it would be mandatory.
Mr. M0SHER. I am assuming that anyone having that authority,
whether he is an elected public official or appointed or something else,
that he is going to be worried about the risks, the liability, to which
he is vulnerable.
If there were a Federal law or State law which mandated him to
take action rather than leaving it discretionary, which do. you think
would be best? If it were mandatory upon him, he would have less
liability perhaps.
Mr. MANFREö. I would prefer the discretionary. In the emergency
information business it gets down to having the straight story, good
and valid information, and then .the resources to carry out any pre-
ventive or protective recovery action.
I like the idea of giving it a lot of thought ahead of time, having
some options and making some decisions as to setting some standards
in terms of preparation. But I would prefer to allow the key official
to have discretionary authority.
Mr. MOSHER. I suppose we are faced here with a question as to
which shall come first, the hen or the egg, or maybe should they come
at the same time. But what do you think? Should we be establish-
ing the infrastructure for the promulgation of earthquake predic-
tions, even though the scientific basis for prediction is still in the
develonment stage? .
Mr. MANFRED. I think it would be wise to do so. I think it should
be a balanced program. The use of new scientific information and how
PAGENO="0276"
272
you incorporate it into existing governmental programs is a difficult
one, and the longer leadtime you get on that as to thinking about
the program and coming up with some possible solutions, the better
off you are.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Mosher.
Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Manfred, we have just a couple of minutes be-
fore we have to answer that quorum call. What is the statutory basis
of those two earthquake committees you mentioned-have they been
set up as a part of your general authority?
Mr. MANFRED. Administrative authority; yes.
Mr. BROWN. You don't have an actual statute with regard to earth-
quake prediction?
Mr. MANFRED. No. There is a piece of legislation going through
the California Legislature now with regard to liability on the part of
political entities.
Mr. BROWN. Are you analyzing the response which occurred to the
recent hypothesis prediction, prediction hypothesis test, to ascertain
how that can be handled better in the future?
Mr; MANFRED. Yes; we certainly are. Torn Gay, the State geologist
who serves as chairman of that council, has written up some ideas
and our next meeting will be devoted to developing some better pro-
cedures for handling predictions. We will take Dr. Whitcomb's sug-
gestions into consideration in trying to arrive at a better procedure.
Mr. BROWN. Could you provide the committee with the results of
whatever procedures your conclusions arrive at?
Mr. MANFRED. We would be happy to do so.
Mr. BROWN. I thank you very much.
Mr. SYMINOTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Manfred.
[A further question in written form was submitted to Mr. Manfred.
The question and response follows:]
Question. Please provide the Subcommittee with a copy of the procedures for
handling predictions in the California earthquake prediction evaluation council.
(If these are not yet developed, please let us know, and send a copy when the
procedures have been agreed upon.)
Answer. You asked that I provide the Subcommittee with a copy of the
California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council's procedures for handling
earthquake predictions. Please be advised that these procedures have not yet
been developed. They are currently being formulated by the Council and, upon
approval, will be used as guidelines for responding to future earthquake predic-
tions, hypothesis tests, and similar information. When the Council has adopted
these procedures I will be pleased to make a copy of them available to you.
We will conclude these 3 days of hearings now with great thanks
to our witnesses and guests.
unless there are further comments by committee members, the
hearings are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
PAGENO="0277"
APPENDIX
FURTHER STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD
76-649 0 - 76 - 19
PAGENO="0278"
PAGENO="0279"
O.E.T.
a
CONSULTING ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
June 11, 1976
/Honorable Olin E. Teague, Chairman
Committee on Science and Technology
U. S. House of Representatives
ExeJcutzveEI)~ector Suite 2321, Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
SUBJECT; EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION AND TECHNOLOGY
Dear Congressman Teague:
The Consulting Engineers Association of California
represents more than 320 of the major design and engi-
neering firms in private practice in the State of
California.
ooo,er Our Association is vitally concerned with the entire
INST5R subject of earthquakes.
h We have been advised that the House of Representatives
Committee on Science and Technology, which you chair,
will hold hearings during the week of June 21, 1976
on the subject of Earthquake Prediction and Technology.
We strongly urge your favorable passage of 5.11711
authored by Senator Alan Cranston of California. This
bill provides for urgently needed rqsearch and also
s provides for a totally balanced program of research
: and prediction.
We also understand that your committee will be hearing
HR14892 authored by Representative Charles Mosher.
Although earthquake prediction is important,
this bill provide~ nothing for the far more important
subject of earthquake engineering research.
Your favorable consideration of our comthents is
requested.
Post President e ectf y,
E. Jtcaao5 GOING,.JR.
Ruth, Going and Curti~ Inc. ~ ee~e
Executive Director
JEB:jk
cc: Honorable Charles Mosher,
Committee on Science and ~pcbnology
Honorable James bymll)gton, Lnalrman,
Subcommittee on Science and Technology
1976 OFFICERS & DIRECTORS
(275)
PAGENO="0280"
276
THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
June 24, 1976
The Honorable James Symington, Chairman
Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology
Committee on Science and Technology
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am responding, on behalf of the American Institute of Architects, to a request
for a written statement on earthquake hazard reduction legislation currently
under consideration by your Subcommittee.
At the outset, I believe it is important to note that it is the architectural
profession which establishes a high percentage of the basic criteria -- size,
shape and form -- of individual buildings related to their seismic resistance.
It is further worth noting that it is the entire design profession -- architects,
structural engineers, and mechanical engineers -- who bear the overwhelming
responsibility for the proper design and construction of most of our buildings and
their earthquake resistance.
The American Institute of Architects and the architectural community are becoming
increasingly concerned about the risk and grave consequences of seismic
exposure. Accordingly, we have followed the activities of Congress and the
Administration in this area with great interest, and have carefully reviewed
H.R. 13722, H.R. 13845, and 5. 1174 as passedbythe Senate, and portions of
testimony related to these proposals.
It is with this background of concern and growing awareness of our responsibility
to the public that we offer our views on these bills.
H.R. 13722 appears to us to be a proposal that is severely limited in scope. It
calls for the development of information, a great deal of which is already available
and, in many cases, is common knowledge to the professionals involved in seismic
analysis and design. H.R. 13722 does not recognize the need for increased
knowledge in building design nor, more important, the need to address the
hazardous condition of existing buildings.
1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW. * WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 * (202) 785-7300
PAGENO="0281"
277
H.R. 13845 appears to be oriented solely toward recreating a program that Is
already underway, albeit In a limited fashion. This bill has included as
participants in the proposed National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Conference
every possible governmental agency that one could think of, but fails to include
those members of society most knowledgeable In the field of earthquakes
seismologists, geologists, urban planners, engineers, and architects. In short,
we must state that this bill does not address itself to the basic issue.
S. 1174, on the other hand, is a bill that recognizes the existing state of the art,
as well as those members of government and society who possess knowledge in
the area of seismic safety, and attempts to build on that knowledge. S. 1174
recognizes and addresses:
(a) the need for a reasonable balance of investigation and expenditure
between prediction of earthquakes and basic and applied research in seismic
design resistance and dissemination of this knowledge;
(b) the relationship of design requirements for resistance to earthquakes
and other natural disasters;
(c) the need for emphasizing preservation of certain critical facilities
essential during and after any natural or man-made disaster, such as hospitals,
fire stations, etc.
(d) the need to involve design professionals in the overall planning
process; and
(e) the critical time factor in funding adequate research in the whole area
of seismic exposure and the serious consequences, in terms of life safety and
property damage loss, resulting from such exposure.
We are aware of the Administration s position, as stated in their testimony before
the Senate Commerce Committee during hearings on S * 1174 and anticipate that it
will continue to state that present efforts and expenditures are more than
adequate. Our response to this is that present governmental efforts are not
adequate to address comprehensively earthquake hazard problems and that they
are fragmented and unresponsive to the needs of public safety.
In an attempt to be brief, I am enclosing a copy of the AlA testimony on S.ll74,
which we believe remains a valid statement.
PAGENO="0282"
278
In conclusion, we strongly recommend Committee approval of S. 1174. We urge
that this action be followed by swift Congressional enactment and funding of this
vital research program, thus ensuring the American public that proper attention
will be paid to the problems and potential solutions related to future, certain
exposure to major seismic action.
Sincerely,
ElmerE. Botsal, FAIA
Vice President
I
PAGENO="0283"
279
S
THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
THE EARTHQUAKE DISASTER MITIGATION ACT
A STATEMENT BY
ELMER E. BOTSAI, FAIA
VICE PRESIDENT
THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
TO
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
UNITED STATES SENATE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
February 19, 1976
173~ NEW YOaK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 (202) 785-7300
PAGENO="0284"
280
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I am Elmer E. Botsai, FAIA, Vice President
of the American Institute of Architects. I am here today on behalf of the AlA, the
national society for the architectural profession, and the Joint Commission on
Hazardous Buildings, a joint activity of the California Council/ALA and the
structural engineers of California.
As evidenced by my appearance on behalf of the ALA, I would like to state
that the architectural community is becoming -- belatedly -- increasingly
concerned with the seismic exposure risk of the public and the many ramifications
thereof. At the outset, we wish to commend the sponsors of S. 1174, the
Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Act, for their comprehensive analysis of the
earthquake hazard and their breadth and scope of interest and detail toward the
alleviation of this problem. We are particularly pleased to see the balance of
effort between the potential long-range life safety issue of prediction and the
equally important long- and short-range protection of both public and property
in basic building performance development.
In our evaluation of this bill, we have assumed that the purpose of the
legislation as specifically stated in Sections c (1) (A) concerning hazardous
buildings, and c (1) (C), dissemination of information, is incorporated in the
charges to the National Science Foundation under Section 3.
In our support of this legislation, we woulc~ like to especially reinforce
four particular components of the bill.
PAGENO="0285"
281
(1) The whole practicing design profession, and particularly the architects,
who generally establish the basic parameters of our man-built environment, are in
desperate need of the knowledge that currently exists in the cloistered halls of the
research community. As we become more and more sophisticated in our technology,
we will need faster and better methods of communication of additional new knowledge.
The architectural profession strongly recommends a greater emphasis on the
development of research in the non-structural areas. Three examples of the need for
this research are:
a) In the recent Nicaraguan earthquake, a major building remained
intact, but suffered a 70 percent loss of value through non-structural
damage.
b) In the recent Oroville, California earthquake, several fire houses
were out of operation because the overhead door tracks were not
properly anchored and the doors collapsed on top of the equipment,
thus rendering the trucks inaccessible.
c) There is strong evidence to suggest that the current test criteria
for fire safety of many building components are in conflict with the
best known practice of seismic safety, and visa versa.
(2) As the results of earthquakes around the world are examined, we are
experiencing a growing concern for our existing building stock, particularly the
unreinforced or minimally reinforced masonry construction. It is my personal
opinion that, excluding single family wood framed construct(on, approximately
50 percent of the total population in this country is living or working In seismically
PAGENO="0286"
282
hazardous buildings The real tragedy of this is that we do not know the true
magnitude of this problem. Recently, the Joint Commission conducted a survey
of every governmental body in the State of California and we are convinced by
the results that even in California the majority of public officials have no idea
of what constitutes a hazardous building let alone the magnitude of the problem
(3) There is an almost total void in the knowledge of large scale soil
problems in much of the country including such heavily populated seismic risk
areas as New Madrid, Missouri, Charleston, South Carolina and Boston,
Massachusetts How are we to adequately plan for the future under these
conditions 2
(4) Assuming that we will develop the necessary expertise to predict
earthquakes in not only the shallow western faults but also the more difficult
deep-seated eastern faults what about the economic and social consequences
of a major quake in any populated area? We are already faced with a projected
$600 to $800 billion dollar shortage of capital improvement funds in the near
future What happens to these already short funds if the majority of Los Angeles
St Louis or Boston is wiped out in 20 to 40 seconds of tremor2 Without
question it would bankrupt the cities involved and perhaps even the states
How would the quake survivors survive 2
In closing I cannot resist asking you to go beyond this bill and consider the
ramifications that our property tax base for local government financing has on the
necessary upgrading of our existing physical plant The very nature of this tax and
itsenforcement deter some of the major goals of this bill and therefore warrant your
additional evaluation
PAGENO="0287"
283
-4-
S. 1174 is an outstanding proposal that offers great potential benefits to the
public in both life safety and fiscal soundness. We therefore offer our support in
Its behalf and recommend that this Committee approve S. 1174 without delay.
Thank you.
PAGENO="0288"
284
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE MII9R~NGE~B~AS
* ~` 350 SANSOME STREET, ROOM 500
DAVID 4. LEEDS ~ SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 DONALD F.
June 9, 1976
The Honorable Olin E. Teague, Chairman
Committee on Science and Technology
U. S. House of Representatives
Suite 2321, Rayburn Building
Washington, 0. C. 20515
Reference: HEARINGS ON EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION AND TECHNOLOGY
Dear Representative Teague:
The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute is a national multidisciplinary
society of engineers, geoscientists, social scientists, practitioners,
researchers, regulators and teachers, building people and utility people,
devoted to finding better ways to protect the general public from earthquake
hazards. The Institute's objectives are the advancement of the science and
practice of earthquake engineering and the solution of national earthquake
engineering problems.
We understand that the House of Representatives Committee on Science and
Technology will be holding hearings next June 22-24, on the subject of
Earthquake Prediction and Technology. As part of those hearings, you un-
doubtedly will be considering House Resolution 4892 by Representative Charles
Mosher as well as the Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Act by Senator Cranston
and recently passed by the Senate in Senate Bill 1174.
Our Institute, and other professional societies concerned with earthquake
hazards have been concerned with the various delays in obtaining adequate
legislation to combat the earthquake problem.
It is now over twelve years since the 1964 Alaska Earthquake and five years
since the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, each of which cost several score of
lives sod hundreds of millions of dollars. The public has been demanding
more protection from the effects of earthquakes - especially since the more
recent Managua (1972), Guatemala (1976), and North Italian (1976) earthquakes.
They are clamoring for more help from us as engineers.
Our help is limited by the amount of research that can be performed with
the funds available. It is not enough to be able to predict earthquakes -
desirable though that may be. Our buildings, utilities, bridges, etc., cannot
be moved. They must stay and stand up to the earthquake.
It is important that any legislation that is passed consider all of the topics
that tend to reduce the hazard. Such research as will increase safety and
reduce hazard will cost money. But with an adequate diversified program it
is inevitable that we will be able to control the impact of an earthquake and
reduce the losses. It is a very real prospect that with adequate engineering
research, we can provide more safety with less cost. In many cases we may be
PAGENO="0289"
285
making investments in present construction that are too expensive. When we
do not have all the necessary data for design, engineers tend to be more con-
servative. Adequate research now could help reduce the construction costs
now being forced upon us because seismologists, geologists and engineers do not
have enough information to provide earthquake resistance economically.
The earthquake hazard is a very real concern, not only to those on the West Coast,
but also to those who live in other parts of the Country. The State of Massachusetts
has recently enacted a State Building Code that requires earthquake resistant con-
struction. This action is a result of the concern over the probable recurrence
of the Boston earthquake of 1755. The Charleston, South Carolina earthquake of
1886 in which 100 persons were reported killed, and the knowledge that a similar
event will occur at some unknown time in the future, has concerned the building
design professions and others in South Carolina. Similarly those concerned with
construction in the areas around New Madrid, Missouri are reviewing the effects
of the great 1811-1812 earthquakes. Truly the earthquake hazard is a threat to
a major part of our country.
Since the Alaska earthquake of 1964, there has been increasing concern about this
hazard that has resulted in a moderate increase in earthquake engineering research
and a greatly increased level of instrumentation. However, if funds are now
reduced and important research programs eleminated before they can be translated
into practical forms that the building industry can use, much of the anticipated
benefits will be lost and a large portion of the previous investments in research
will have been useless. Earthquake research is now in a critical period. If
the present impetus is lost, many of our important projects will have to start
over in the future. We will have lost the opportunities to learn from earthquakes
that may occur in the near future as we have missed many opportunities to learn
from past earthquakes.
In the conduct of the forthcoming hearings, we ask that you consider the necessity
of an overall balanced program that attacks the problems through several approaches.
Senate Bill 1174, the Earthquake Hazard Mitigation Act, does have this broad approach.
Unfortunately, HR 4892 as proposed by Representative Mosher has too narrow a thrust
and will not aid us tn reducing cost, or learning to live with earthquakes.
We would appreciate your cooperation on this matter.
Very ruly yours,
,~1
a ry 3.) etikolb ~J
Presider~ Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute
HJD/dh
cc: Representative Charles Mosber
Representative James Symington
Seáator Alan Cranston
PAGENO="0290"
286
STATEMENT OF
AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
SUBMITTED TO THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CONCERNING
H. R. 13845, EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION
PAGENO="0291"
287
The American Insurance Association is an organization of 138
insurance companies writing all forms of property and casualty insurance
throughout the United States. We are pleased to have this opportunity to
address the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology, on H.R. 13845,
a bill to establish a national program of earthquake hazards reduction.
Specifically, we wish to present our Association's views on: 1) the
availability of earthquake insurance; 2) efforts undertaken to promote
the sale of earthquake coverage; and 3) earthquake loss prevention and
hazards reduction.
The insurance industry has provided and continues to provide a market
for earthquake insurance at affordable rates. Many insurers currently
write earthquake insurance policies for both commercial and dwelling
risks in areas of high seismicity. Following the 1970 San Fernando,
California, earthquake, hearings held by the United States Senate Committee
on Public Works included testimony by the Federal Insurance Administration
that the insurance industry was providing the required capacity to meet
the market demand for earthquake coverage, and that individuals and
corporations seeking the coverage had not experienced any difficulty in
obtaining policies tailored to their needs.
The 1970 San Fernando earthquake encouraged a number of insurers
to take special efforts to increase the sale of earthquake insurance in
California through extensive promotional activities, but the public --
especially the homeowner -- continued to show its historical reluctance
to purchase earthquake coverage.
In 1972 the insurance industry, thro~gh the National Committee on
Property Insurance (NCPI), and in cooperation with the National Association
PAGENO="0292"
288
of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) formed the NAIC-NCPI California Earth-
quake Study Subcommittee. This subcommittee focused on two areas: First,
developing a system of recording or quantifying earthquake liability by
geographical area and second, undertaking remedial measures to assure that
needed earthquake protection was more widely purchased in highly seismic
areas.
Part of this effort involved the formation of the NAIC-NCPI Earth-
quake Technical Subcommittee which has conducted exthnsive studies as to
the means of identifying geographical areas with special seismic hazard
and the amount of earthquake coverage in such areas.
Recommendations for establishing earthquake zones in California and
other seismic areas and developing statistical data needed to determine
the earthquake exposure in California have been made, largely through the
able assistance of Mr. Karl V. Steinbrugge, Technical Consultant. The
California Commissioner of Insurance, Wesley J. Kinder, has recently
advised that he is most interested in the data recording system and intends
to give careful study to the recommendation in the near future.
Finally, it is considered most vital to the insurance industry's con-
tinued ability to provide earthquake coverage that improved building codes
and stringent land use requirements be adopted and enforced. Earthquake
engineering has made significant advances in its ability to reduce the
damage ratio in both structural and nonstructural elements of building con-
struction. Building codes must be revised and updated in many areas of the
country to keep pace with engineering advances so that maximum safeguards
are assured for the protection of life and property.
In this regard, we strongly favor the establishment of a program
PAGENO="0293"
289
of earthquake hazards reduction so that the private insurance mechanism
can continue to adequately meet the earthquake insurance needs of our
society. To this end we offer our encouragement and assistance.
Respe fully submitted,
Robert W. Dressel
Chairman, Property Insurance Committee,
American Insurance Association and
Vice President, The Hartford Insurance Group
June 22, 1976
76-649 0 - 76 - 20
PAGENO="0294"
290
%%A~41I1'~OT)~~ OIl~'lC}~
AMERICAN MUTUAL INSURANCE ALLIANCE
1776 F Street, N. W. / Washington, D.C. 20006 * Phone 202 / 331-0313
July 12, 1976
Honorable James Symington
Chairman, Subcommittee on Science,
Research and Technology
Committee on Science arid Technology
2321 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The American Mutual Insurance Alliance is a voluntary trade association
of over 100 mutual property and casualty insurance companies. Our
member companies write insurance in all fifty states and the District
of Columbia. Member companies of the Alliance write a substantial
volume of property insurance throughout the country.
The Alliance as well as other members of the industry have been
studying the earthquake insurance situation for a number of years.
Today, earthquake insurance is available at affordable rates. The
industry has made a genuine effort to promote earthquake insurance
and make it available at affordable rates to the public. In spite of
the attempts on the part of industry to promote the sale of earthquake
coverage, relatively few property owners have taken out such policies...
The general public is not stimulated to purchase insurance when they
do not perceive an immediate need. The industry takes the position
that the protection should be offered on a per peril basis rather
than providing earthquake coverage in an all-risk insurance policy.
The following represents the established Alliance policy regarding
earthquake insurance:
1. Alliance opposes the mandation of earthquake insurance.
76-649 555
I I~ lrt&'f~. Of !((`. 2(1 North \V~ok'r 1)0 \(` (`0 iCltg(. Ill nor s 60606
PAGENO="0295"
291
2. Should the purchase of earthquake insurance be made
mandatory or compulsory for owners of one to four
family residential properties, some form of
governmental financial assistance would be necessary.
The Alliance has appointed a subcommittee to continue
its efforts to develop or refine an earthquake
insurance capacity proposal.
Several different alternatives are under consideration. Both the
National Earthquake Insurance Corporation, fashioned after the
National Flood Insurers Association, the National Flood Insurance
Program and the Federal Earthquake Catastrophe Reinsurance Program
are being analysed as prototypes of possible approaches. Basic
to any such program, however, there should be a very tight land
use planning and extensive building code provisions.
In summary, presently earthquake insurance is available at affordable
rates, but if earthquake insurance should be mandated on one to four
family dwellings, there would be insufficient capacity in the
primary insurance market as well as the reinsurance market to absorb
the vast increase in coverage. If nandation should occur, broad
availability of earthquake coverage would necessitate some form of
governmental assistance and the adoption of adequate land use controls.
We appreciate the opportunity to present our views and stand ready
to provide any further assistance that the subcommittee may require.
Representative
JEJ~aer
PAGENO="0296"
292
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION
OF SAN DIEGO
4452 GLACIER AVENUE
SAN PIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120
(714) 283-9737
O.ET. June 15, 1976
The Honorable Olin E. Teague, Chairman
RAYM ONDOFLORES Committee on Science and Technology
U. S. House of Representatives
R. LEE8I000RS,JR, Suite 2321, Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Reference: HearingB on Earthquake prediction
and Technology
THOMASL. COOK Dear Representative Teague:
The Structural Engineers Association of San Diego is one
of four Associations in California whose membership consists
of practicing engineers in the building design field. A
principal purpose of the Associations ~5 to author earthquake
resistant design provisions for use in various building codes.
This is done on a volunteer basis.
It has been brought to my attention that the Committee on
Science and Technology will soon hold hearings on Earthquake
Prediction and Technology. We understand that it is likely
you will consider Senate Bill 1174 by Senator Cranston as
well as House Resolution 4892 by Representative Charles Mosher.
It is my intent to urge your favorable finding with regard to
Senate Bill 1174. This bill provides for both further studies
in earthquake prediction and much needed research in earthquake
resistant design.
Yours ry truly,
Richard L. Miller
President, SEAOSD
cc: Representative Bob Wilson
Representative Clair Burgener
Representative Lionel Van Deerlin
Senator Alan Cranston
Representative Charles Mosher
Representative James Symington
PAGENO="0297"
293
WRITTEN REMARKS FOR CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-ROUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CONCERNING THE "EARTHQUAKE DISASTER MITIGATION ACT" - HR 4892
by
Carl I,. Monismith
Chairman, Department of Civil Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
The purpose of these remarks is to strongly support the House of
Representatives Bill 4892 and urge its passage. Specifically, my comments
are directed to support of the engineering research and education aspects
of the bill.
Urgent need for recognition and reduction of earthquake hazards to
t~be works of man has been graphically demonstrated by the continuing
sequence of earthquake-produced lisasters in many parts of the world.
The recent tragic event in Guatemala is only the latest in the current
sequence which includes Haicheng, China in 1974, Managua, Nicaragua in
1972 and San Fernando, California in 1971.
Research has now advanced sufficiently far to demonstrate clearly
that earthquake hazards can be reduced in the United States. The
possibility that earthquake prediction can lead to significant reductions
in loss of life was demonstrated by the Chinese with the 1974 Haicheng
earthquake, and there is no doubt that intensive efforts should be made
in this country to develop prediction capabilities. However, even if and
when such techniques are perfected, the need for Improved earthquake
engineering practices will remain. Prediction capabilities cannot alter
the fact that earthquakes will occur in our populated regions; the
destruction or severe damage to dams, power plants, hospitals, office and
PAGENO="0298"
294
apartment buildings, transport systems etc, could deal a severe blow to
our economy even if it were possible to minimize loss of life by
evacuating people in advance of the earthquake. Thus these remarks are
intended to complement those already presented by emphasizing the importance
of achieving a significant mitigation of the earthquake hazard by means
of earthquake engineering research.
Improved understanding of the behavior of structures during earth-
quakes which has resulted from engineering research in recent years has
led to significant advances in design of earthquake resistant structures.
Each recent earthquake, including the Guatemala disaster, has provided
numerous examples of the generally superior performance of structures
designed with the aid of recently-developed knowledge. Failures have been
observed, however, in new structures designed by current code procedures,
such as the Olive View Hospital in San Fernando and the Four Seasons
Apartment Building in Anchorage, Alaska; these clearly demonstrate that
additional research must be accomplished before reliable as well as
economical solutions to the seismic hazard problem can be achieved.
Although many government agencies participate in earthquake engineer-
ing research, and although many professional engineers are concerned with
the need for improved design procedures, a significant part of the
research effort must be accomplished by academic institutions. Meaning-
ful contributions from these institutions have been and will continue to
be associatèi with two areas, namely:
(1) developing better understanding of earthquake ground motions which
are the essential source of the problem;
PAGENO="0299"
295
(2) developing improved understanding o~ the behavior of structures
of all types which are subjected to the earthquake motions.
The first need in the study of earthquake ground motions is an
expanded network of strong motion seismograph stations which will
provide data on the nature of the earthquake input in a variety of soil and
geologic conditions. Installation and maintenance of this network should
be the responsibility of ,a government agency. However, it is important
to emphasize that the acquisition of these records alone does not provide
the solution tc the problem of designing structures providing an adequate
degree of seismic safety. The records must be analyzed, the factors
influencing the characteristics of the ground motions must be determined,
amd finally methods must be developed for utilizing the characteristics
of past records to predict the nature of ground motions from earthquakes
which may occur in the future, in different tectonic regions, for
different source mechanisms, with different magnitudes, for different
site conditions, and at different distances from the source of the earth-
quake. In addition, relationships must be developed between the probability
of damage to various kinds of structures and the intensity of ground shak-
ing. This involves detailed damage surveys, studies of the observed
performance of structures of all kinds (buildings, earth dams, port facilities,
etc.) in relation to the intensity of shaking to which they were subjected,
the development of the analytical procedures required to anticipate the
stresses and deformations likely to be produced in these structures by
various types of earthquake motions, and thus the ultimate development
of a reliable capability to predict potential damage patterns in advance
PAGENO="0300"
296
of any anticipated earthquake occurrence. By this means critical
structures can be designed to remain functional, hazardous structures can
be recognized and appropriate precautions taken for the safety of their
occupants, and all structures can be checked to ensure an adequate level
of seismic safety.
Attention must also be given to damages resulting from ground failure
and settlement, sometimes leading to serious settling and tilting of
buildings and land areas, inundation of low-lying areas, to the loss of
support for othervise well-designed structures leading to failure or
collapse, or the complete covering of developed areas with landslide
debris--all phenomena observed in earthquakes during the past 12 years.
Understanding the behavior of structures when subjected to any
specified earthquake motions is an essential step in the design of safe
and economical structures for seismic regions. Significant advances
in the mathematical procedures for calculating the response of structures
to earthquake motions have been made during the past 20 years, since it
became possible to use digital computers in the analysis. The application
of these mathematical procedures is necessarily seriously limited, however,
unless they are supplemented by extensive experimental studies which
determine the behavior of typical structural materials and structural
systems when subjected to severe dynamic loads. Such experimental data is
an essential part of the information which must be provided to the computers
in order that the refined methods of analysis may be applied.
A large program of experimental research directed toward study of
the behavior of structures subjected to severe earthquakes has been funded
PAGENO="0301"
297
by the National Science Foundation at the Earthquake Engineering Research
Center of the University of California during the past 10 years, and this
work has contributed significantly to current earthquake resistant
structural design capabilities. The 20 ft square earthquake simulator
funded by NSF and operated by the EERC is the world's most advanced
facility for study of the earthquake behavior of structures. However,
the relatively small size of this facility limits the types of tests that
can be made, and the time required to conduct such tests makes it impossible
to study the full range of structural systems which must be considered
within a reasonable number of years. Thus it is imperative that additional
research facilities including larger earthquake simulators be provided
to maintain an adequate rate of progress toward the ultimate objective.
While we tend to think primarily of building damage during earthquakes
it is Imperative that research also be directed to problems associated with
"life line" systems, i.e., transportation and water and energy transmission
systems. Seismic effects on and seismic design of structures such as
highways and railway bridges, port and harbor facilities, airport control
towers, dams, electricity transmission systems, buried and above-ground
pipelines for the transmission of petroleum and natural gas, and fuel
storage facilities must be considered. It is not difficult to imagine
the disastrous consequences of disruption of services brought about by a
destructive earthquake. For example, in the San Fernando earthquake of
1971 a number of major bridge structures were completely destroyed.
Similarly in a study of 120 bridges after the Anchorage earthquake, 30
structures (25 percent) either collapsed or were determined to be
PAGENO="0302"
298
unserviceable Such disruption could preclude the transmission of needed
emergency supplies the prevention of fire fighting equipment from access
to fires etc In the Niigata earthquake of 1964 complete destruction of
a refinery by fire resulted because of failure of bridges on the roadway
system leading to the refinery
It should be emphasized that the, earthquake engineering side of
earthquake disaster mitigation is not limited to the development of
improved procedures for the design of new structures By far the greater
hazard is represented by the vast number of older structures e g
buildings which were designed according to less restrictive codes or
to no code at all Intensive research efforts will be required to develop
techniques for assessing the adequacy of existing construction and to
provide economical systems for strengthening structures which are not up
to standard
The conduct of fundamental research studies to provide a deeper
understanding of all these phenomena would be a major contributing factor
to the development of engineering design procedures for evaluating
the safety of existing structures and designing new structures to safely
withstand the effects of earthquakes with a reasonable balance between
safety and economy Academic institutions play a strong role in the
development of such studies Translation of the results of this research
into engineering design practice is a critical part of this effort With-
out this the most sophisticated studies are of little social or public
value and potentially invaluable results lie dormant and unused To insure
this research implementation well-trained practitioners are required here
also academic institutions have an important role
PAGENO="0303"
299
In general, to achieve the desired objectives of mitigating the
destructive effects of earthquakes, an adequate supply of highly trained
design engineers and researchers must be forthcoming on a continuing basis
since requirements for solutions are extensive. Universities play a sig-
nificant role in these educational and research efforts. Reference has
already been made to the Earthquake Research Center at The University of
California. Faculty and student research in this ce~iter has contributed
to the knowledge required to improve our design capabilities while the edu-
cational activities of the Department of Civil Engineering coupled with the
research program of the Center have provided some of the required engineers
and researchers. Similarly, universities such as the California Institute
of Technology, Stanford University, The University of Illinois, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and others have also been developing needed research
and the necessary people to work in the field. These efforts have received
substantial support from the National Science Foundation. Passage of this
Bill will assure continued support of these engineering programs through
NSF which will in turn continue to provide needed basic engineering research
and trained design and research engineers.
In conclusion, it should be noted that many guidelines for needed
research already exist such as those defined in "Earthquake Engineering
Research" published in 1969 by The National Academics of Science and Engi-
neering. Moreover, The National Science Foundation (e.g. through its RANN
program), has the experience in administration of research support in this
area. Accordingly, I urge that this Bill be expeditiously passed by the
Congress.
PAGENO="0304"
300
ASSOCIAT1O~ OF P1tOFESSIO~AL GEOLOGWAL SC1E~TISTS
formerly
A~IERICA~ INSTITUTE OF PItOFESS1O~tL GEOLO6ISTS
GENERAL HEADQUARTERS
Mailing address: Office location:
P. 0. Box 957 622 Gardenia Court
Golden, CO 80401 Telephone: (303) 279-0026 Golden, CO 80401
STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR JAMES W. SKEHAN S.J.
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGICAL SCIENTISTS
H.R. 13722
Members of the Committee, I am Professor James W. Skehan S.J.,
Professor, Department of Geology and Geophysics, Boston College, and
Director of Boston Colleges Weston Observatory, Weston, Massachusett3.
My appearance is on behalf of the Association of Professional GeologiLal
Scientists, a chartered organization of 3,000 professional geological
scientists, headquartered in Golden, Colorado. It is the policy of the
Association to express its views and draw from its expertise to aid the
pifolic in nctters that face our nation, and involve geology. I an a member
of the Association, and enclose my professional biography as part of this
statement.
I should like to address myself to three points regarding the
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Act. Any legislation on. this matter should
contain three points in order to provide necessary protection against the
effects of earthquakes for the citizens of America.
1. There is a need for a dense network of seismic stations
in the Eastern United States, as well as the more obvious
* need in the Western United States. An examination of
proposed nuclear power plant sites would show that there is
PAGENO="0305"
301
a high density of these plants in the Eastern United States.
It is important for the safety and well being of the population
in these areas to have the best understai~ding possible of the
seismic risk factors. Except for several isolated major earth-
quakes, the Eastern United States area is characterized by earth-
quakes of smaller magnitude than the Western United States.
The record of earthquakes in China over a long time span indicates that
the more important, as well as less important earthquakes occur repetitively.
This is probably ture to a greater or lesser extent for all other parts of
the world, including North America. Because the length of the record of
observation is far more restricted in North America, we should have a far
greater number of stations as part of a regional network joined in a coor-
dinated effort in order to monitor the pattern of distrIbution and magnitude
of earthquakes in the eastern states.
2. A greater density of stations is necessary in order to monitor
the nation effectively, and this is particularly true in the
Eastern United States for reasons mentioned above. With the
present wide spacing of seismic stations, it is not yet poosible
to assign earthquakes to specific faults or other geological
structures with any degree of certainty, except in certain isolated
instances. Thus, more stations are required. Additionally, it
is highly desirable for funds to be allocated for b~apid mobiliza-
tion of teams to study aftershocks after shocks of local earth-
quakes occur. There is portable seismic equipment available;
however, for the most part, there are no funds for this particular,
PAGENO="0306"
302
critical activity.
3. Funds should be allocated for geological mapping of geological
structures, and especially for seismic-tectonic analysis for
the purpose of correlating seismic activity with the spec~fic
structural features.
This would be most important for areas that are planned for
nuclear power plants.
Thank you for the opportunity that you have given the Association of
Professional Geological Scientists to present their views.
Submitted to The Subcommittee on Science Research and Technology.
Professor James W. Skehan S.J.
July 14, 1976
PAGENO="0307"
303
SUMMARY BIOGRAPHICAL RESUME
OF
REVEREND PROFESSOR JAMES W.' SKEHAN, S * J.
James W. Skehan, S.J. was born in Houlton, Maine the
eldest son of James W., formerly of Fitchburg, Mass, and
Mary Effie Coffey-Skehan, formerly of North Richmona, New
Brunswick, Canada. He received his pre-college education
in St. Mary's School from the Sisters of Mercy and in the
public Houlton High School. He received his Bachelor's
Degree from Boston College majoring in Philosophy, two in
Theology and two in Geology, his highest being a Doctorate
from Harvard University in 1953. He was ordained a priest
of the Jesuit Order in 1954.
Professor Skehan has authored and edited many scienti-
fic papers and books especially those concerned with the
geology of New England or younger volcanic areas such as
Iceland and the Pacific Northwest States. He is an active
member of several learned and professional organizations in
this country and abroad and is an officer in several of them.
He is especially active in the Geological Society of America
(GSA), the National Association of Geology Teachers (NAGT),
in the American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG)
and in the Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG).
Father Skeha~'s professional and personal accomplishments
have been recognized by having been included in a number of
books of biography such as American Men of Science, Marquis'
Who's Who in America, Dictio~!~ of International Bippfl,~,
Outstandipg Educators of America, Men of Achievement, American
Biographical Institute (Bicentennial), National Register of
Prominent Americans and Notables as well as in the World Who's
Who in Science.
Father Skehan founded the Department of Geology at Boston
College and served as its first Chairman. In 1968, he served
as the first Chairman of the newly combined Department of
Geology and Geophysics. In 1970, he was active in the founding
of the Boston College Environmental Center (BCEC) and served
as its first Director; he became Acting Dean of the College
of Arts and Sciences, 1972-73; Acting Director and Director
of Weston Observatory in 1973-74 and 1974- respectively.
0
May 1975
PAGENO="0308"